5 ms·

They don't need to get seriously ill from it - they'll contract it and then carry it home to their caregivers. Schools can be considered continuous super-sprea

They don't need to get seriously ill from it - they'll contract it and then carry it home to their caregivers. Schools can be considered continuous super-spreader events.

praveenperera 5y ago
The care givers who are vaccinated by now? Kids weren’t even shown to be to be too infectious. No vaccine is 100% safe, it’s very possible the risks of vaccinating kids outweighs the rewards.
- cma 5y ago
  >No vaccine is 100% safe Is the virus 100% safe? Weigh them against each other and account for who the kids could spread it to, how much vaccine uptake there is, immune compromised they could spread it to who can't be protected well from the vaccine, etc.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    If the risk of harm to kids from the virus is say 1%, and 0.1% for the vaccine, then it would still be better to go unvaccinated since the risk of catching the virus is most likely less than 10% once adults are vaccinated.
brigandish 5y ago
> Schools can be considered continuous super-spreader events. Where is the data to support this? Duke University released a peer reviewed study[1] in January that showed the opposite (when schools take appropriate measures). > Duke and UNC researchers evaluated the secondary transmission of COVID-19 in 11 North Carolina school districts that held in-person instruction in the first nine weeks of the 2020-2021 school year and identified minimal COVID-19 transmission in the schools -- much lower than the rate of community spread. The CDC have also published this[2] helpful overview about the susceptibility of children to the virus/disease (low) and the risk of transmission (also low). I'd also urge you (or anyone) to read this very helpful article in the BMJ[3] about the risks of covid-19, but for those worried about their children it may help alleviate some concerns: > The second row of table 2 shows that three deaths from covid-19 have been recorded among over 7 million schoolchildren aged 5 to 14 (around 1 in 2.4 million), an extremely low risk that represents only 2% of the average normal risk faced by this group. This amounts to around two days’ extra risk of dying during the 112 days of the epidemic. In the same period this age group experienced 138 deaths from other causes. The CDC report gives a clue as to where the focus should be: > Underlying medical conditions are also more commonly reported among children who are hospitalized or admitted to an ICU In short, schools aren't providing super-spreader events. [1] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-covid-safety-measures-viral-transmissions-person-schooling-are https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... [3] https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

They don't need to get seriously ill from it - they'll contract it and then carry it home to their caregivers. Schools can be considered continuous super-spreader events.

praveenperera 5y ago

The care givers who are vaccinated by now? Kids weren’t even shown to be to be too infectious. No vaccine is 100% safe, it’s very possible the risks of vaccinating kids outweighs the rewards.

cma 5y ago
>No vaccine is 100% safe Is the virus 100% safe? Weigh them against each other and account for who the kids could spread it to, how much vaccine uptake there is, immune compromised they could spread it to who can't be protected well from the vaccine, etc.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  If the risk of harm to kids from the virus is say 1%, and 0.1% for the vaccine, then it would still be better to go unvaccinated since the risk of catching the virus is most likely less than 10% once adults are vaccinated.

brigandish 5y ago

> Schools can be considered continuous super-spreader events. Where is the data to support this? Duke University released a peer reviewed study[1] in January that showed the opposite (when schools take appropriate measures). > Duke and UNC researchers evaluated the secondary transmission of COVID-19 in 11 North Carolina school districts that held in-person instruction in the first nine weeks of the 2020-2021 school year and identified minimal COVID-19 transmission in the schools -- much lower than the rate of community spread. The CDC have also published this[2] helpful overview about the susceptibility of children to the virus/disease (low) and the risk of transmission (also low). I'd also urge you (or anyone) to read this very helpful article in the BMJ[3] about the risks of covid-19, but for those worried about their children it may help alleviate some concerns: > The second row of table 2 shows that three deaths from covid-19 have been recorded among over 7 million schoolchildren aged 5 to 14 (around 1 in 2.4 million), an extremely low risk that represents only 2% of the average normal risk faced by this group. This amounts to around two days’ extra risk of dying during the 112 days of the epidemic. In the same period this age group experienced 138 deaths from other causes. The CDC report gives a clue as to where the focus should be: > Underlying medical conditions are also more commonly reported among children who are hospitalized or admitted to an ICU In short, schools aren't providing super-spreader events. [1] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-covid-safety-measures-viral-transmissions-person-schooling-are https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... [3] https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259