3 ms·

This stuff has been studied over and over and over, and the conclusion is that children spread less than adults. See 'Top 10 Epidemiological Papers on Transmiss

• dhimes 6y ago
  At this point, a study which concludes the opposite has to bring the proverbial extraordinary evidence. We aren't even close to that point. There's a heckuva lot that we still don't know about this virus. That paper was update, what, 30 June? They even admitted that they were using their earlier conclusions to create filters for the new literature they were reviewing- in effect building their own echo chamber. As long a the study is competently run and has reasoned conclusions it should be considered.
• teekert 6y ago
  It does not say that it is the opposite, see other remarks. It does say that children play a role. In my country it is claimed they don't and they have a lot of freedoms. Even though they are probably less "good" at spreading they have a lot more occasions to do so. At least here in the Netherlands.
• gallamine 6y ago
  Just a note to say that "extraordinary evidence" doesn't exist. It's just evidence. It's a circular notion, since if such a thing as "extraordinary evidence" were to exist, then proving it existed would require itself.
  • DharmaPolice 6y ago
    I think it's usually shorthand for "extraordinary amounts of evidence" or an extraordinary standard of proof to put another way.