No and no. 1) Epidemiological papers usually estimate the true number of cases, based on an estimate of the percentage of cases getting tested. The definitely

No and no. 1) Epidemiological papers usually estimate the true number of cases, based on an estimate of the percentage of cases getting tested. The definitely include this in their outlook, and have correctly predicted the outcome of the epidemic in China. Saying "nobody" is doing that is totally incorrect. There's literally people's jobs who it is to model epidemics, who have PhDs and devoted their entire careers to it. The amount of ignorance about the quantity and quality of scientific research out there just floors me. 2) We do know now that kids are just as susceptible to be infected as adults [1]. We don't know exactly what their role in transmission is, but you could conservatively assume that they probably spread it just as much as everyone else (speculation). Some clinical characterization of cases in children are available in refs [2] and [3] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423v... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0817-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0817-4 [3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2003717 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2003717