6 ms·

The second bullet point of the conclusion states... | Children are not a major risk group of the covid-19 disease and seem to play a less important role from t

The second bullet point of the conclusion states... | Children are not a major risk group of the covid-19 disease and seem to play a less important role from the transmission point of view, although more active surveillance and special studies such as school and household transmission studies are warranted. I feel like that is probably the next most important question to answer.

vvanders 6y ago
Or we could take a look at Israel where they opened up schools and saw a significant spike[1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/03/868507524/israel-orders-schools-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
- GhostVII 6y ago
  They opened up schools, as well as pretty much everything else. So it is not really clear whether the schools were the biggest contributor to the spread.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't see why it's an "or". If data from Finland and Sweden suggests school has no impact, and data from Israel suggests it could, that's all the more reason transmission studies are needed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- BadCookie 6y ago
  Or South Africa where they tried to open up schools for only two grades (7th and 12th). "Since the first phase of the schools reopening last month, 968 schools have had to close due to outbreaks and 2,400 teachers and 1,260 learners have tested positive for COVID-19." Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-south-africa-phase-reopening-schools.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-south-africa-phase-re... Or the Georgia summer camp that had an outbreak involving 85 campers and staff: https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/85-campers-staff-test-positive-covid-19-ymca-summer-camp/OPSPVDSXRFCLZOD7SEMLCYN2OA/ https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/85-campers-staff-test-pos... Or the Missouri summer camp that had an outbreak involving 82 kids and staff: https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-summer-camp-closes-after-82-kids-staffers-infected-with-coronavirus-reports https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-summer-camp-closes-after... A lot of this is anecdotal, sure, but I find it hard to believe that kids don't spread the virus if we're seeing large outbreaks like these already.
  - creato 6y ago
    > 2,400 teachers and 1,260 learners have tested positive for COVID-19. It's pretty interesting that almost twice as many teachers as students tested positive. Presumably there are ~20x more students than teachers? It may very well be the case that children are far less likely to either catch or spread the virus, but far less likely is not the same as not spreading it at all.
  - BadCookie 6y ago
    If you want an example involving younger kids, there was recently an outbreak involving 12 staff and 8 kids at an Oregon daycare that serves kids ages 6 and under [1]. It might be impossible to know whether the adults infected the kids or vice versa (or both), but Coronavirus cases are growing fastest among kids younger than 10 in Oregon right now [2], so ... to me, it makes sense to assume that kids can spread it until it's proven otherwise. Lastly, for those who don't know, the CDC internally lists reopening schools as the "highest risk" for Coronavirus spread. [3] [1] https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/06/30/oregon-child-care-facility-reports-covid-19-outbreak-among-first-in-nation/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/06/30/oregon-child-car... [2] https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/07/coronavirus-infections-rising-fastest-among-kids-younger-than-10-dimming-prospects-for-oregons-school-reopening-plans.html https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/07/coronavirus-i... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/11/politics/cdc-documents-warn-high-risk-schools-reopening/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/11/politics/cdc-documents-warn-h...
ajphdiv 6y ago
Assuming children do not spread covid-19 as much as adults, it would be fair to say they still do spread at some degree. Therefore, the question is what is the risk tolerance that is acceptable to society? Are we as a society willing to accept that some adults will be infected and/or die as a result of children going to school? What's the acceptable risk tolerance for teachers? If there is an assumption that some teachers will die, how many is too many?
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children. What is that level? Doubt anyone wants to specify an exact number because then they will be forever tarred with that number of deaths. One thing is very obvious about this pandemic: the degree to which it has been politicized has made it impossible to respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk.
  - harikb 6y ago
    > respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk Is there another example in the U.S where U.S citizens reacted reasonably and averted disaster?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The polio waves in the 40s and 50s I'd argue were handled pretty optimally. Public accommodations were (for over a decade!) shut down when needed to control the epidemic in their area, and the government pushed hard to fund vaccine development. But as far as I've read, there were no significant voices arguing either "polio is just a bad flu" or "we'd better shut down schools until the vaccine is ready".
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      It could be argued that the response to the Spanish Flu, Polio, HK Flu, H1N1, Zika, Swine etc. It appears by most measures this is an order of magnitude less lethal than Spanish Flu. THIS one, however, is political.
neilwilson 6y ago
The main question is susceptibility. The projection for models have been wrong. Out by orders of magnitudes on deaths. According to them Sweden should have 10 times the deaths they have. The most obvious answer is that quite a lot of the population are already not susceptible to this virus for whatever reason. And we also know that the excess death rate on the under 40s is negligible - which is the majority of the population. The median age of deaths is over 80 in Europe. Since it affects the older population more than the younger, you want to catch it as early as possible. Catching it next year is more likely to kill you than catching it this year. There is no longer any justification for holding back the majority of the population when we can just retire the old and ask them to keep out of the way until the virus fully burns out.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  This is bad advice. We have no idea if it can be caught twice. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-co...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    We know that some process has caused deaths to drop to near-zero in the places that were disaster zones at the beginning of April, even though they're no longer shut down and haven't entirely eliminated the virus. It's hard to imagine what that process could be if not immunity. (Of course, since I'm sure I'll be called on this, the fact that herd immunity is possible does not by itself prove it's a wise course of action.)
    - nkurz 6y ago
      > It's hard to imagine what that process could be if not immunity. The first paragraph of the article amiga_500 linked says: "People who have recovered from Covid-19 may lose their immunity to the disease within months, according to research suggesting the virus could reinfect people year after year, like common colds." I don't think there is significant doubt that immunity exists; the question is how long it remains in effect. The drop in deaths that you mention would be compatible with a several month long effective immunity period, but a herd immunity approach would probably not work well if reinfection is possible every year.

vvanders 6y ago

Or we could take a look at Israel where they opened up schools and saw a significant spike[1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/03/868507524/israel-orders-schools-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

GhostVII 6y ago
They opened up schools, as well as pretty much everything else. So it is not really clear whether the schools were the biggest contributor to the spread.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't see why it's an "or". If data from Finland and Sweden suggests school has no impact, and data from Israel suggests it could, that's all the more reason transmission studies are needed.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BadCookie 6y ago
Or South Africa where they tried to open up schools for only two grades (7th and 12th). "Since the first phase of the schools reopening last month, 968 schools have had to close due to outbreaks and 2,400 teachers and 1,260 learners have tested positive for COVID-19." Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-south-africa-phase-reopening-schools.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-south-africa-phase-re... Or the Georgia summer camp that had an outbreak involving 85 campers and staff: https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/85-campers-staff-test-positive-covid-19-ymca-summer-camp/OPSPVDSXRFCLZOD7SEMLCYN2OA/ https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/85-campers-staff-test-pos... Or the Missouri summer camp that had an outbreak involving 82 kids and staff: https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-summer-camp-closes-after-82-kids-staffers-infected-with-coronavirus-reports https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-summer-camp-closes-after... A lot of this is anecdotal, sure, but I find it hard to believe that kids don't spread the virus if we're seeing large outbreaks like these already.
- creato 6y ago
  > 2,400 teachers and 1,260 learners have tested positive for COVID-19. It's pretty interesting that almost twice as many teachers as students tested positive. Presumably there are ~20x more students than teachers? It may very well be the case that children are far less likely to either catch or spread the virus, but far less likely is not the same as not spreading it at all.
- BadCookie 6y ago
  If you want an example involving younger kids, there was recently an outbreak involving 12 staff and 8 kids at an Oregon daycare that serves kids ages 6 and under [1]. It might be impossible to know whether the adults infected the kids or vice versa (or both), but Coronavirus cases are growing fastest among kids younger than 10 in Oregon right now [2], so ... to me, it makes sense to assume that kids can spread it until it's proven otherwise. Lastly, for those who don't know, the CDC internally lists reopening schools as the "highest risk" for Coronavirus spread. [3] [1] https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/06/30/oregon-child-care-facility-reports-covid-19-outbreak-among-first-in-nation/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/06/30/oregon-child-car... [2] https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/07/coronavirus-infections-rising-fastest-among-kids-younger-than-10-dimming-prospects-for-oregons-school-reopening-plans.html https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/07/coronavirus-i... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/11/politics/cdc-documents-warn-high-risk-schools-reopening/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/11/politics/cdc-documents-warn-h...

ajphdiv 6y ago

Assuming children do not spread covid-19 as much as adults, it would be fair to say they still do spread at some degree. Therefore, the question is what is the risk tolerance that is acceptable to society? Are we as a society willing to accept that some adults will be infected and/or die as a result of children going to school? What's the acceptable risk tolerance for teachers? If there is an assumption that some teachers will die, how many is too many?

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children. What is that level? Doubt anyone wants to specify an exact number because then they will be forever tarred with that number of deaths. One thing is very obvious about this pandemic: the degree to which it has been politicized has made it impossible to respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk.
- harikb 6y ago
  > respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk Is there another example in the U.S where U.S citizens reacted reasonably and averted disaster?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The polio waves in the 40s and 50s I'd argue were handled pretty optimally. Public accommodations were (for over a decade!) shut down when needed to control the epidemic in their area, and the government pushed hard to fund vaccine development. But as far as I've read, there were no significant voices arguing either "polio is just a bad flu" or "we'd better shut down schools until the vaccine is ready".
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    It could be argued that the response to the Spanish Flu, Polio, HK Flu, H1N1, Zika, Swine etc. It appears by most measures this is an order of magnitude less lethal than Spanish Flu. THIS one, however, is political.

neilwilson 6y ago

The main question is susceptibility. The projection for models have been wrong. Out by orders of magnitudes on deaths. According to them Sweden should have 10 times the deaths they have. The most obvious answer is that quite a lot of the population are already not susceptible to this virus for whatever reason. And we also know that the excess death rate on the under 40s is negligible - which is the majority of the population. The median age of deaths is over 80 in Europe. Since it affects the older population more than the younger, you want to catch it as early as possible. Catching it next year is more likely to kill you than catching it this year. There is no longer any justification for holding back the majority of the population when we can just retire the old and ask them to keep out of the way until the virus fully burns out.

amiga_500 6y ago
This is bad advice. We have no idea if it can be caught twice. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-co...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We know that some process has caused deaths to drop to near-zero in the places that were disaster zones at the beginning of April, even though they're no longer shut down and haven't entirely eliminated the virus. It's hard to imagine what that process could be if not immunity. (Of course, since I'm sure I'll be called on this, the fact that herd immunity is possible does not by itself prove it's a wise course of action.)
  - nkurz 6y ago
    > It's hard to imagine what that process could be if not immunity. The first paragraph of the article amiga_500 linked says: "People who have recovered from Covid-19 may lose their immunity to the disease within months, according to research suggesting the virus could reinfect people year after year, like common colds." I don't think there is significant doubt that immunity exists; the question is how long it remains in effect. The drop in deaths that you mention would be compatible with a several month long effective immunity period, but a herd immunity approach would probably not work well if reinfection is possible every year.