6 ms·

Another explanation, if I am sick, I will get tested first before making my kid go through that. If I test positive, only then will I test my child. If I test n

Another explanation, if I am sick, I will get tested first before making my kid go through that. If I test positive, only then will I test my child. If I test negative and we are both sick, I will presume we caught something else.

saint_abroad 6y ago
> I will get tested first before making my kid go through that. If I test positive, only then will I test my child. If I test negative and we are both sick, I will presume we caught something else. If you test positive, why make your kid go through that? If you test positive and you are both sick, you can presume you've caught the same thing.
- wtvanhest 6y ago
  I haven't been there, (maybe someone who has can comment?), but I would expect you need the positive diagnosis for evaluating COVID19 treatment options for your kid. Or, at the minimum, I would expect the DR. to push you to have them tested. In any case, I would expect kids to be tested after adults in most cases during the shelter in place
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > I would expect you need the positive diagnosis for evaluating COVID19 treatment options for your kid. From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of kids with covid do not require any treatment whatsoever, with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms. Just don't let junior visit grandma.
    - barkingcat 6y ago
      are you really willing to let your kid not receive treatment on a "anecdotal" evidence? if the kid turns out to be that small percentage that do need intensive care - you would be kicking yourself. kids have died from covid complications, they are not immune.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        If the kid has symptoms, which is very unlikely, that's when you'd seek treatment. But if the kid has no symptoms, which is far more likely, what would there be to treat?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        barkingcat 6y ago
        if the kid has no symptoms, and tests positive, it is a case to self isolate (the kid as well as the whole family) - so they don't transmit it to other kids and teachers who might be vulnerable. And in this case, it might very well be fatal to the teachers who are in close contact with the kid. Why is this so hard to grasp? Being a disease carrier is a problem even if the kid doesn't show symptoms, especially it's been established that covid is transmissible with no symptoms.
        catalogia 6y ago
        As I said, "Just don't let junior visit grandma."
      - andi999 6y ago
        As far as I understand there is only symptomatic treatment. (apart from remdesivir, but not sure if I would give it a child before it really needs it (worried about sideeffects?))
        engineer_22 6y ago
        My understanding is remdesivir is difficult to produce. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention but I wonder about the supply chain for some of these hard-to-manufacture drugs.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms. Most kids have no symptoms. If a kid has symptoms, they have a risk of them progressing, and COVID symptoms tend to progress fairly suddenly (or, at least, fairly silently, if you aren't continuously tracking O2 says, which results in a sudden-seeming transition from “mild symptoms”, or even no noticeable symptoms, to catastrophic symptoms.) While kids are far more likely to be completely asymptomatic, testing if they are exposed to determine need for monitoring, especially if they are already noticeably ill (and, thus, if you presumed they are infected, equally ought to be presumed to have missed the high probability in their age group of getting by completely asymptomatic.)
    - slowrabbit 6y ago
      Right, but if you read the article, they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources. They are going to suffer long term consequences from Florida's general ignorance. There is no treatment yet, but if your child isn't infected and you have the means, then you should leave Florida and go to a state where they are smarter about social distancing and safety.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        > they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources. Some of this research is rather worrisome. But it's important to not overstate what it says: we find evidence of lung damage in imagery of a small proportion of asymptomatic adults. (I'm not aware of any imaging study of asymptomatic children). How significant these imagery findings are, what proportion is from COVID-19 (because if you image a bunch of people without COVID-19 you're going to find some weird things in imagery, too), and what proportion of adults infected would have this are unknown (even the asymptomatic adults who manage to get a positive test result and enroll in an imaging study are not typical). Let alone knowing how common this would be in children.
      - engineer_22 6y ago
        Considering the novel coronavirus somehow jumped over the Pacific Ocean, I reckon modern man's unprecedented mobility might be part of the problem. In light of that, panic flight might not be policy we should embrace. But then again, I hear Wyoming is great this time of year.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Do you have citations for those studies?
  - mlyle 6y ago
    It's worth noting that most kids don't have symptoms, and it's considered less worthwhile to test kids. So I'd assume the cohort of kids who are tested for COVID-19 are a heck of a lot more symptomatic than the child population at large (and that this is more exaggerated than the selection bias for adults who want a test).
    - wtvanhest 6y ago
      I don’t think there is any evidence of that.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        There tots is. :P e.g. Serosurveys of kids show significantly lower positivity rates than adults (fewer kids have had it); PCR testing of kids shows higher positivity rates than adults (a greater proportion of kids tested have it); other studies show seroconversion rates of kids are nearly as high as adults after infection. The only way to get this outcome is if negative kids are less likely to be PCR tested than negative adults, or if positive kids are more likely to be PCR tested than positive adults, or both.
- barkingcat 6y ago
  if you want treatment from a disease that could lead to death, you need to have a diagnosis to access drugs and treatment .... if you know you are sick with covid, would you let your kid potentially die from the disease as well?
- coding123 6y ago
  well, even so, at population scale, you're going to find people. Even if you're right that MOST people aren't going to test their kid...
- toast0 6y ago
  > If you test positive, why make your kid go through that? If you test positive and you are both sick, you can presume you've caught the same thing. Most likely, you'd only get the kid(s) tested in that case if you were seeking medical care because it was pretty bad, or the tests were encouraged by a contact tracing regime. The first part would lead towards higher positivity results, and the second towards lower. With no details on who go tests / what their motive for testing was, we just don't know.
  - saint_abroad 6y ago
    > tested in that case if you were seeking medical care because it was pretty bad, or the tests were encouraged by a contact tracing regime. The first part would lead towards higher positivity results, and the second towards lower. That, in a nutshell, is the reason positivity rate matters. If a positivity rate is too high, that may indicate that the state is only testing the sickest patients who seek medical attention, and is not casting a wide enough net to know how much of the virus is spreading within its communities. A low rate of positivity in testing data can be seen as a sign that a state has sufficient testing capacity for the size of their outbreak and is testing enough of its population to make informed decisions about reopening. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity
- newacct583 6y ago
  You test the kid so that you can then warn all the kid's contacts! The ONLY reason we test is to control community spread. Covid doesn't really have any specific treatments, it gets managed the same way you manage a flu patient. There's near zero value in the individual information about an infection. In an idea situation (i.e. where the pandemic hasn't outstripped test bandwidth, which is true now in almost all of asia, most of europe, and some areas of the US like NYC) you test everyone who gets sick with covid-like symptoms, and for every positive you then go and test everyone who had meaningful contact with them. You absolutely don't skip tests because you can reasonably assume a positive. That's missing the point entirely.
  - graeme 6y ago
    > There's near zero value in the individual information about an infection. At present. There are lots of reports about lingering effects. And large portions of asymptomatics studied have penumonia. You don’t feel tis pneumonia as a symptoms, and if covid damages vascular or brain tissue, you won’t feel that directly either. But it could well be an issue down the road, and knowing if you or your kid had coronavirus could help future treatments.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    Exactly. This is why there's a goal for percentage of positive tests. We want to see a high proportion of negatives, because that means the virus is rarer but more likely to be caught in that population.
swsieber 6y ago
That's a great point! Interestingly enough, my daughter got sick and we thought it was strep. She ended up getting tested for strep and covid in one day.

saint_abroad 6y ago

> I will get tested first before making my kid go through that. If I test positive, only then will I test my child. If I test negative and we are both sick, I will presume we caught something else. If you test positive, why make your kid go through that? If you test positive and you are both sick, you can presume you've caught the same thing.

wtvanhest 6y ago
I haven't been there, (maybe someone who has can comment?), but I would expect you need the positive diagnosis for evaluating COVID19 treatment options for your kid. Or, at the minimum, I would expect the DR. to push you to have them tested. In any case, I would expect kids to be tested after adults in most cases during the shelter in place
- catalogia 6y ago
  > I would expect you need the positive diagnosis for evaluating COVID19 treatment options for your kid. From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of kids with covid do not require any treatment whatsoever, with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms. Just don't let junior visit grandma.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    are you really willing to let your kid not receive treatment on a "anecdotal" evidence? if the kid turns out to be that small percentage that do need intensive care - you would be kicking yourself. kids have died from covid complications, they are not immune.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      If the kid has symptoms, which is very unlikely, that's when you'd seek treatment. But if the kid has no symptoms, which is far more likely, what would there be to treat?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - barkingcat 6y ago
        if the kid has no symptoms, and tests positive, it is a case to self isolate (the kid as well as the whole family) - so they don't transmit it to other kids and teachers who might be vulnerable. And in this case, it might very well be fatal to the teachers who are in close contact with the kid. Why is this so hard to grasp? Being a disease carrier is a problem even if the kid doesn't show symptoms, especially it's been established that covid is transmissible with no symptoms.
        catalogia 6y ago
        As I said, "Just don't let junior visit grandma."
    - andi999 6y ago
      As far as I understand there is only symptomatic treatment. (apart from remdesivir, but not sure if I would give it a child before it really needs it (worried about sideeffects?))
      - engineer_22 6y ago
        My understanding is remdesivir is difficult to produce. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention but I wonder about the supply chain for some of these hard-to-manufacture drugs.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms. Most kids have no symptoms. If a kid has symptoms, they have a risk of them progressing, and COVID symptoms tend to progress fairly suddenly (or, at least, fairly silently, if you aren't continuously tracking O2 says, which results in a sudden-seeming transition from “mild symptoms”, or even no noticeable symptoms, to catastrophic symptoms.) While kids are far more likely to be completely asymptomatic, testing if they are exposed to determine need for monitoring, especially if they are already noticeably ill (and, thus, if you presumed they are infected, equally ought to be presumed to have missed the high probability in their age group of getting by completely asymptomatic.)
  - slowrabbit 6y ago
    Right, but if you read the article, they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources. They are going to suffer long term consequences from Florida's general ignorance. There is no treatment yet, but if your child isn't infected and you have the means, then you should leave Florida and go to a state where they are smarter about social distancing and safety.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources. Some of this research is rather worrisome. But it's important to not overstate what it says: we find evidence of lung damage in imagery of a small proportion of asymptomatic adults. (I'm not aware of any imaging study of asymptomatic children). How significant these imagery findings are, what proportion is from COVID-19 (because if you image a bunch of people without COVID-19 you're going to find some weird things in imagery, too), and what proportion of adults infected would have this are unknown (even the asymptomatic adults who manage to get a positive test result and enroll in an imaging study are not typical). Let alone knowing how common this would be in children.
    - engineer_22 6y ago
      Considering the novel coronavirus somehow jumped over the Pacific Ocean, I reckon modern man's unprecedented mobility might be part of the problem. In light of that, panic flight might not be policy we should embrace. But then again, I hear Wyoming is great this time of year.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Do you have citations for those studies?
- mlyle 6y ago
  It's worth noting that most kids don't have symptoms, and it's considered less worthwhile to test kids. So I'd assume the cohort of kids who are tested for COVID-19 are a heck of a lot more symptomatic than the child population at large (and that this is more exaggerated than the selection bias for adults who want a test).
  - wtvanhest 6y ago
    I don’t think there is any evidence of that.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      There tots is. :P e.g. Serosurveys of kids show significantly lower positivity rates than adults (fewer kids have had it); PCR testing of kids shows higher positivity rates than adults (a greater proportion of kids tested have it); other studies show seroconversion rates of kids are nearly as high as adults after infection. The only way to get this outcome is if negative kids are less likely to be PCR tested than negative adults, or if positive kids are more likely to be PCR tested than positive adults, or both.
barkingcat 6y ago
if you want treatment from a disease that could lead to death, you need to have a diagnosis to access drugs and treatment .... if you know you are sick with covid, would you let your kid potentially die from the disease as well?
coding123 6y ago
well, even so, at population scale, you're going to find people. Even if you're right that MOST people aren't going to test their kid...
toast0 6y ago
> If you test positive, why make your kid go through that? If you test positive and you are both sick, you can presume you've caught the same thing. Most likely, you'd only get the kid(s) tested in that case if you were seeking medical care because it was pretty bad, or the tests were encouraged by a contact tracing regime. The first part would lead towards higher positivity results, and the second towards lower. With no details on who go tests / what their motive for testing was, we just don't know.
- saint_abroad 6y ago
  > tested in that case if you were seeking medical care because it was pretty bad, or the tests were encouraged by a contact tracing regime. The first part would lead towards higher positivity results, and the second towards lower. That, in a nutshell, is the reason positivity rate matters. If a positivity rate is too high, that may indicate that the state is only testing the sickest patients who seek medical attention, and is not casting a wide enough net to know how much of the virus is spreading within its communities. A low rate of positivity in testing data can be seen as a sign that a state has sufficient testing capacity for the size of their outbreak and is testing enough of its population to make informed decisions about reopening. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity
newacct583 6y ago
You test the kid so that you can then warn all the kid's contacts! The ONLY reason we test is to control community spread. Covid doesn't really have any specific treatments, it gets managed the same way you manage a flu patient. There's near zero value in the individual information about an infection. In an idea situation (i.e. where the pandemic hasn't outstripped test bandwidth, which is true now in almost all of asia, most of europe, and some areas of the US like NYC) you test everyone who gets sick with covid-like symptoms, and for every positive you then go and test everyone who had meaningful contact with them. You absolutely don't skip tests because you can reasonably assume a positive. That's missing the point entirely.
- graeme 6y ago
  > There's near zero value in the individual information about an infection. At present. There are lots of reports about lingering effects. And large portions of asymptomatics studied have penumonia. You don’t feel tis pneumonia as a symptoms, and if covid damages vascular or brain tissue, you won’t feel that directly either. But it could well be an issue down the road, and knowing if you or your kid had coronavirus could help future treatments.
- vharuck 6y ago
  Exactly. This is why there's a goal for percentage of positive tests. We want to see a high proportion of negatives, because that means the virus is rarer but more likely to be caught in that population.

swsieber 6y ago

That's a great point! Interestingly enough, my daughter got sick and we thought it was strep. She ended up getting tested for strep and covid in one day.