Children don't spread COVID as much as adults? Really?

[bool1tholz]

https://sanjosespotlight.com/will-santa-clara-county-schools-reopen-in-the-fall-the-answer-is-unclear-but-county-issues-guidance/

Picture of Dr Sara Cody licking her finger after warning people to not touch their faces at a coronavirus news conference:
$371,000/year in salary and benefits? Maybe defund this large compensation and redirect half of it to the homeless industrial complex to get homeless permanent housing for health reasons.

[balgor]

It's hard to tell, schools have been closed and the only place children have a large number of social contacts is at school. The countries that have reopened schools haven't seen any spikes, but they greatly lowered their viral prevalence before opening schools. I'm sure somewhere (looking at you FL) will open their schools without community spread being under control and we'll get to see what happens.

[as_rocketman]

There is some evidence that child-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is significantly less than between adults, but it is surely not zero.

There are competing factors at work here. Best guess is that children have inherently more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 that reduces their viral load and thus viral shedding, and some evidence suggests that they are particularly efficient in fighting the virus in the pharyngonasal pathway compared to adults. I've also seen it speculated (in papers, but unproven) that they tend to have more exposure to other coronaviruses due to their behavior, and thus have more cross-immunity. On the other hand, trying to get especially young children to observe hygiene and not literally climb all over each other is somewhat futile. Hard to say where the balance of factors will land.

Schools are going to reopen with some protective measures. At my schools we are going to two shifts, each shift two days a week, one solid session only followed by grab-and-go lunch, with the rest distance learning. We are offering 100% distance learning for families who are at risk or otherwise concerned. I intend to participate in at-school instruction, but it is a risk, and one that different individuals have to manage according to their own needs.

[SW1917]

There is some evidence that child-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is significantly less than between adults, but it is surely not zero.

There are competing factors at work here. Best guess is that children have inherently more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 that reduces their viral load and thus viral shedding, and some evidence suggests that they are particularly efficient in fighting the virus in the pharyngonasal pathway compared to adults. I've also seen it speculated (in papers, but unproven) that they tend to have more exposure to other coronaviruses due to their behavior, and thus have more cross-immunity. On the other hand, trying to get especially young children to observe hygiene and not literally climb all over each other is somewhat futile. Hard to say where the balance of factors will land.

Schools are going to reopen with some protective measures. At my schools we are going to two shifts, each shift two days a week, one solid session only followed by grab-and-go lunch, with the rest distance learning. We are offering 100% distance learning for families who are at risk or otherwise concerned. I intend to participate in at-school instruction, but it is a risk, and one that different individuals have to manage according to their own needs.

People tend to forget that the teachers are still vunerable

[balgor]

People tend to forget that the teachers are still vunerable

That's the concern with reopening schools, secondary spread. Children have a very low incidence of illness from Covid. I actually strongly favor reopening K-12 (at least K-9) schools, if you look at any kind of research on child development any delays in education are massively costly. I favor opening schools before pretty much anything else, since the costs of keeping them closed are so high and the benefits are uncertain at best.

[71MUSTY]

Government and YMCA childcare centers stayed open this whole time serving Government Workers and First responders. The rate of infection was very low in the day care centers supporting the above reports.

[as_rocketman]

People tend to forget that the teachers are still vunerable

I've made that point myself repeatedly in threads here.

Part of our hybrid model allows for teachers who don't want to participate in on-site learning, whether at risk or just concerned, to stay on and support the distance learning component. So far they're all in and eager to get back to work. (This is an advantage of not having to deal with the teacher's union! We can actually talk to our teachers and get their opinions.) However, at the district schools it's going to be interesting.

At our schools, one of the thorniest problems is teachers who have their own school-age children. We've got a work-around for that one, but in general this adds yet another dimension of possible infection for teachers, and that increases the odds of having to temporarily shut down a classroom. We're mitigating this by planning to rotate teachers through different groups on a timescale consistent with the disease incubation period -- this way, if a teacher gets exposed and has to be relegated to on-line (or actually gets ill) we have a backup already arranged, and provided it's a false alarm and no symptoms develop, we put that teacher back into the rotation on schedule.

This is all doable but it gets technical. We also now have to react to brand new guidance under SB 98 that just dropped this morning.

I fear for schools that aren't taking this seriously and planning now.

[as_rocketman]

Government and YMCA childcare centers stayed open this whole time serving Government Workers and First responders. The rate of infection was very low in the day care centers supporting the above reports.

This is true. Keep in mind, however, the measures taken at those day care centers were nothing like day care used to be. Typically maximum cohort size was 10, all masked, no sharing of materials, all assigned to a single supervising adult.

I believe this too supports the idea of low transmission from child to child, but you have to deconvolve the behavioral differences, so it's not clear cut.

[Scota4570]

I did a long post on this the other day with several links. That thread was deleted because of others with bad manners. The short answer is that there are no confirmed and documented cases of children transmitting covid to adults. It is theoretical at best. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...idence-review/

Please Google for yourself, there are lots of hits on the subject.

Also, Covid does not make children ill. It is only serious for infirm elderly and compromised younger people. IF you are under about 65 and in good health it is not going to kill you.

IF a parent is concerned then they should keep their child out of school. IF a teacher is concerned then they can refuse to teach at school. That is freedom and it is good. A retirement age teacher with ill health might consider retiring. Shutting down schools is causing serious harm to children. Many kids can not function in an at home in an isolated environment. 18 hours of daily screen time is a very bad thing for children. It is also are serious problem for working families who can not afford day care or stay home from work.

If a household has elderly or infirm individuals those people need to consider sheltering by themselves. This is an issue too. Many elderly are now bored to death and are stepping out and taking their chances. Staying home and not interacting or exercising has serious health risks too.

The surge in cases is an artifact of the recent change in what is a "case". IN short, everyone who is positive on any test, shows symptoms but has not positive test, or has had contact with such an individual is now considered positive. So we now have about a 15X exaggeration of confirmed cases to reported cases. I sure wish we were allowed to access accurate information on this. The number of reported cases is now meaningless.

Per the CDC, the deaths for the week continues to go down. The whole country is now listed as having "minimal activity".

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

So, in conclusion, the kids need to be back in school this fall.

[balgor]

I did a long post on this the other day with several links. That thread was deleted because of others with bad manners. The short answer is that there are no confirmed and documented cases of children transmitting covid to adults. It is theoretical at best. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...idence-review/

Please Google for yourself, there are lots of hits on the subject.

Also, Covid does not make children ill. It is only serious for infirm elderly and compromised younger people. IF you are under about 65 and in good health it is not going to kill you.

IF a parent is concerned then they should keep their child out of school. IF a teacher is concerned then they can refuse to teach at school. That is freedom and it is good. A retirement age teacher with ill health might consider retiring. Shutting down schools is causing serious harm to children. Many kids can not function in an at home in an isolated environment. 18 hours of daily screen time is a very bad thing for children. It is also are serious problem for working families who can not afford day care or stay home from work.

If a household has elderly or infirm individuals those people need to consider sheltering by themselves. This is an issue too. Many elderly are now bored to death and are stepping out and taking their chances. Staying home and not interacting or exercising has serious health risks too.

The surge in cases is an artifact of the recent change in what is a "case". IN short, everyone who is positive on any test, shows symptoms but has not positive test, or has had contact with such an individual is now considered positive. So we now have about a 15X exaggeration of confirmed cases to reported cases. I sure wish we were allowed to access accurate information on this. The number of reported cases is now meaningless.

Per the CDC, the deaths for the week continues to go down. The whole country is now listed as having "minimal activity".

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

So, in conclusion, the kids need to be back in school this fall.

15X exaggeration of confirmed cases to reported cases. Show me actual data supporting this claim. Prima facie it sounds as nutty as the 5g lady.

[duenor]

There is some evidence that child-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is significantly less than between adults, but it is surely not zero.

There are competing factors at work here. Best guess is that children have inherently more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 that reduces their viral load and thus viral shedding, and some evidence suggests that they are particularly efficient in fighting the virus in the pharyngonasal pathway compared to adults. I've also seen it speculated (in papers, but unproven) that they tend to have more exposure to other coronaviruses due to their behavior, and thus have more cross-immunity. On the other hand, trying to get especially young children to observe hygiene and not literally climb all over each other is somewhat futile. Hard to say where the balance of factors will land.

Schools are going to reopen with some protective measures. At my schools we are going to two shifts, each shift two days a week, one solid session only followed by grab-and-go lunch, with the rest distance learning. We are offering 100% distance learning for families who are at risk or otherwise concerned. I intend to participate in at-school instruction, but it is a risk, and one that different individuals have to manage according to their own needs.

A number of districts are doing that - 2 days a week, 3 days distance. I"m not sure if it is a good idea. I believe that spreads school resources far too thin. districts are loathe to go full distance again because it went badly in semester 2. well of course it did. they went from 0 to 100, and families were worried about a lot more than whether junior would pass algebra.

my own .02 - I think we should double down on distance and do it properly. we've already paid the transformation cost in great part. now shore it up and do it right.

like you, I am helping with this as well. my personal belief is that this hybrid model will have just as much risk with very little to gain over the DLF only model. the state has got to keep the ultimate goal in mind - shoving back the virus to the point where we can resume modified, safe-ish operations.

[duenor]

Also, Covid does not make children ill. It is only serious for infirm elderly and compromised younger people. IF you are under about 65 and in good health it is not going to kill you.

This is a sweeping generalization with the voice of certainty, from a time when we know very little about this enemy.

The data (and we can look at other countries' data if US is suspect - I disagree but we can fortunately look elsewhere) does not paint a picture where people under age 65 have little to fear.

[as_rocketman]

A number of districts are doing that - 2 days a week, 3 days distance. I"m not sure if it is a good idea. I believe that spreads school resources far too thin. districts are loathe to go full distance again because it went badly in semester 2. well of course it did. they went from 0 to 100, and families were worried about a lot more than whether junior would pass algebra.

We went to this model specifically with teacher input. For the last two months of school we were at 100% distance, and it went pretty well, but a large majority of teachers and parents wanted some face-to-face interaction, and more direct feedback on student work. This is basically what we're planning to do with our in-school sessions. The other motivation was to address the social-emotional learning component, and it also is a good match to the on-site instruction we HAD to do for SPED.

my own .02 - I think we should double down on distance and do it properly. we've already paid the transformation cost in great part. now shore it up and do it right.

We anticipate 20% of our families will opt for full distance learning. Being a paranoiac engineer with a hobby in strategic planning, I expect the actual number to fluctuate wildly with ongoing news and events... but we will have that in place. It works pretty well for some students, but there are a few that just don't learn from a screen. We had about 1.5% of students for whom absolutely nothing worked remotely.

like you, I am helping with this as well. my personal belief is that this hybrid model will have just as much risk with very little to gain over the DLF only model. the state has got to keep the ultimate goal in mind - shoving back the virus to the point where we can resume modified, safe-ish operations.

Disagree there. The sims I've run show only a slight increase in actual exposure above background. Mind you, one size does not fit all -- some families hardly believe the pandemic is real and have mitigated almost nothing, while others are in full lockdown mode -- but for those who share your concern, we're offering the full at-home option, no questions asked.

I was frankly surprised that so many of our teachers supported in-class learning, but they are. Since they're at greatest risk, I'm not inclined to push them off that idea. However, we are also putting in quite a few firebreaks, so when the inevitable exposure does occur it's not likely to spread to the entire teaching corps, and we can then evaluate if this approach is working or not. It may fail spectacularly and we may be back 100% online in a month or so, but we won't expose the whole school learning that lesson, should it occur.

[Scota4570]

15X exaggeration of confirmed cases to reported cases. Show me actual data supporting this claim. Prima facie it sounds as nutty as the 5g lady.

Please consult the CDC:

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/case-definition/2020/

The short answer is that if you test+, have suggestive symptoms, OR CONTACT TRACE TO ANYONE WHO DOES, you are counted as a case. A normal person would think that "case" means a person who actually had covid. It does not. It now encompasses a much larger group of people that either don't have it, might have it, or once saw someone who did or might have it.

https://collincountytx.new.swagit.com/videos/62477 For me the sound does not work on this link, below is another link. Please watch the video and disregard who is hosting it. Both links are to a Texas government proceeding on how they count cases now. It explains why they have a spike in cases.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5efab695672706002f367a0a

From the CDC link above:

Clinical Criteria
At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR

At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing

OR

Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:

Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, OR
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
AND

No alternative more likely diagnosis

Laboratory Criteria
Laboratory evidence using a method approved or authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or designated authority:

Confirmatory laboratory evidence:
Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ribonucleic acid (SARS-CoV-2 RNA) in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test
Presumptive laboratory evidence:
Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection*
*Serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined.

Epidemiologic Linkage
One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; OR
Close contact** with a person with:
clinically compatible illness AND
linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.
**Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.

Criteria to Distinguish a New Case from an Existing Case
Not applicable (N/A) until more virologic data are available.

Case Classification
Probable
Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Confirmed
Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence.
Other Criteria
Vital Records Criteria
A death certificate that lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.

[balgor]

Please consult the CDC:

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/case-definition/2020/

The short answer is that if you test+, have suggestive symptoms, OR CONTACT TRACE TO ANYONE WHO DOES, you are counted as a case. A normal person would think that "case" means a person who actually had covid. It does not. It now encompasses a much larger group of people that either don't have it, might have it, or once saw someone who did or might have it.

https://collincountytx.new.swagit.com/videos/62477 For me the sound does not work on this link, below is another link. Please watch the video and disregard who is hosting it. Both links are to a Texas government proceeding on how they count cases now. It explains why they have a spike in cases.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5efab695672706002f367a0a

From the CDC link above:

Clinical Criteria
At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR

At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing

OR

Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:

Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, OR
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
AND

No alternative more likely diagnosis

Laboratory Criteria
Laboratory evidence using a method approved or authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or designated authority:

Confirmatory laboratory evidence:
Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ribonucleic acid (SARS-CoV-2 RNA) in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test
Presumptive laboratory evidence:
Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection*
*Serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined.

Epidemiologic Linkage
One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; OR
Close contact** with a person with:
clinically compatible illness AND
linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.
**Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.

Criteria to Distinguish a New Case from an Existing Case
Not applicable (N/A) until more virologic data are available.

Case Classification
Probable
Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Confirmed
Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence.
Other Criteria
Vital Records Criteria
A death certificate that lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.

Not data. You're using a very specific number 15X, show me where probable cases are 15X greater than laboratory confirmed cases?

For example here's MN:

https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html

Data is for cases that were tested and returned positive.