4 ms·
This study does not prove that children are more infectious. The paper only tested for viral RNA, not for infectious virus. Given that some people are clinical
by lbeltrame 6y ago
This study does not prove that children are more infectious.
The paper only tested for viral RNA, not for infectious virus. Given that some people are clinically recovered but still have RNA in the throat, and that presence of viral RNA may not equate with live virus (see a Nature paper from two months ago), this is a rather severe limitation.
Note that they may as well be: but you can't infer this from these results.
- glormph 6y agoExactly. The paper itself concludes somewhat softer that "children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms" The patient group consisted of "children ... presenting to urgent care clinics or being hospitalized for confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children", so they are pre-selected , making the role of the full amount of children in the population in spreading harder to know. As you note, that doesnt rule it out either.
- lbeltrame 6y agoI still feel a little sour about this result: mainly because it's "easier" to find data on adult patients, but children data are far harder to get. So I feel this is a wasted opportunity.