4 ms·

> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Low risk of death, yes. But still a substantial risk of long lasting severe effects: https://assets.publis

> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Low risk of death, yes. But still a substantial risk of long lasting severe effects: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962830/s1079-ons-update-on-long-covid-prevalence-estimate.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... A complete loss of sense of taste, or chronic fatigue are both entirely possible outcomes with children, and at this time, it's not clear at all how long these effects last. Conversely, the effects of myocarditis, while unpleasant, are fairly well understood (and at least one physician I've spoken to was of the opinion that the vaccine related risk was overstated, as the base rate in that age group was bound to be higher than reported, due to the mild nature of most cases, so some of the elevated rates appear to be due to closer post-vaccination scrutiny).

saddlerustle 5y ago
The highest quality study on this to date [1] found no difference in the prevalence of long term symptoms between kids that had covid and kids that didn't. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v...
- smileypete 5y ago
  See how this guy misrepresents the study on TWiV episode 783. https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 He states that '4% seropositive having symptoms after 12 weeks', but omits to mention that 2% of seronegative have symptoms after 12 weeks too... Also he doesn't mention the 9%/10% rate split at 4 weeks, or the symptoms: Tiredness, Headache, Congested or runny nose, Stomachach, Sleep disturbances, Cough So he's making the case for child vaccination on the basis of 2 extra seropositive children having one or more of the above symptoms. And, BTW, the study authors themselves note the limitations as follows: 'Limitations include the relatively small number of seropositive children, possible misclassification of some false seropositive children, potential recall bias, parental report of child’s symptoms, and lack of information on symptom severity.' The study authors concluded that: 'Seropositive children, all with a history of pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, did not report long COVID more frequently than seronegative children. This study suggests a very low prevalence of long COVID in a randomly selected population-based cohort of children followed over 6 months after serological testing.'

saddlerustle 5y ago

The highest quality study on this to date [1] found no difference in the prevalence of long term symptoms between kids that had covid and kids that didn't. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v...

smileypete 5y ago
See how this guy misrepresents the study on TWiV episode 783. https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 https://youtu.be/73KWHPsw-ag?t=525 He states that '4% seropositive having symptoms after 12 weeks', but omits to mention that 2% of seronegative have symptoms after 12 weeks too... Also he doesn't mention the 9%/10% rate split at 4 weeks, or the symptoms: Tiredness, Headache, Congested or runny nose, Stomachach, Sleep disturbances, Cough So he's making the case for child vaccination on the basis of 2 extra seropositive children having one or more of the above symptoms. And, BTW, the study authors themselves note the limitations as follows: 'Limitations include the relatively small number of seropositive children, possible misclassification of some false seropositive children, potential recall bias, parental report of child’s symptoms, and lack of information on symptom severity.' The study authors concluded that: 'Seropositive children, all with a history of pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, did not report long COVID more frequently than seronegative children. This study suggests a very low prevalence of long COVID in a randomly selected population-based cohort of children followed over 6 months after serological testing.'