Coronavirus (playgrounds, careers, fruit)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Before March? The virus didn't run amok in this state before March. In mid-March, we had 335 confirmed cases of coronavirus, and 6 deaths in California. We now have 334,920 confirmed cases and 7,099 deaths.

The virus was here prior to the shutdown. Patient zero in California is February (?) and wasn't there a couple who went to China in December who came down with it but recovered? Also, there wasn't aggressive testing at the end of winter. We still don't really know if more people had it, survived without incident and moved on never knowing that it happened. And since the available data suggests children mostly don't exhibit extreme symptoms, isn't it possible a lot of them fall into that category? Too many unknowns still. That was my point.


This is what CDC said about school closures at the time of the shut down:


"Available modeling data indicate that early, short to medium closures do not impact the epi curve of COVID-19 or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts(e.g., hand washing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore)."

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

This thread is now infested with anti-science. Children can't transmit a virus?

Nobody said that.

Provide real evidence or shut up. I see actual research on the subject and it does not say that.

At the time, CDC was saying closing schools (that's where kids congregate, right?) had no meaningful effect.

Plus, most classrooms were shut before the virus became prevalent in many areas.

That doesn't mean they weren't carriers. We don't know because we weren't testing them. The virus was here for enough time prior to the shut down to expose a lot of people. If you believe the science, you believe that it's ultra-contagious and just a handful of carriers can infect a lot of people. We had months worth of virus activity here and during that entire time, schools (which we agree are miniaturized petri dishes) were operating without any measures in place like social distancing, etc.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by joosoon

The virus was here prior to the shutdown. Patient zero in California is February (?) and wasn't there a couple who went to China in December who came down with it but recovered? Also, there wasn't aggressive testing at the end of winter. We still don't really know if more people had it, survived without incident and moved on never knowing that it happened. And since the available data suggests children mostly don't exhibit extreme symptoms, isn't it possible a lot of them fall into that category? Too many unknowns still. That was my point.

My original point was in response to the idea that we didn't see an explosion of cases in children prior to the shutdown.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

My original point was in response to the idea that we didn't see an explosion of cases in children prior to the shutdown.

Right, but wouldn't you expect it to happen given the nature of an institutional setting like schools? Cases in children didn't explode just after the shutdown either (or so we think). It's likely that during all the time the virus was here, some were infected yet we never saw an uptick specifically in students or teachers/school staff --the ones more likely to have been exposed to children carriers *and* exhibit symptoms.


I'm saying it's a lot to explain away given the odds of exposure.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Did you read the study?

The publications cites studies from Switzerland, China, Australia and France. Some of them from January and February, and one involving a very small sample size, and they state:

"...a major question remains unanswered: to what extent are children responsible for SARS-CoV-2 transmission? Resolving this issue is central to making informed public health decisions, ranging from how to safely re-open schools, child care facilities, and summer camps down to the precautions needed to obtain a throat culture in an uncooperative child. To date, few published data are available to help guide these decisions."

Yes, my point was that due to the studies the evidence to date indicates a minimal issue with spread by children, especially the very young. I would like to see a study of teenagers VS those younger.


Can they transmit it to others, yes, but nothing like adults. Still to keep them safe opening schools will be an issue.


Right now I see no solution to the problem in any Country, even those that seem to be doing well. For the US it will get worse.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Nobody said that.

"If that's not a clear case that kids can't transmit the virus--even among themselves--I don't know what is."

Denounce falsehoods when you see them.

That doesn't mean they weren't carriers. We don't know because we weren't testing them. The virus was here for enough time prior to the shut down to expose a lot of people. If you believe the science, you believe that it's ultra-contagious and just a handful of carriers can infect a lot of people. We had months worth of virus activity here and during that entire time, schools (which we agree are miniaturized petri dishes) were operating without any measures in place like social distancing, etc.

They might be the least contagious of the age groups. That doesn't mean the USA can afford any more spread.

[evening sun]

Originally Posted by looker009

I would have put on my mask and gotten past him and took it off. Is he going to run after me all over the store?

that is something I would expect a bratty two year old to do, it certainly is not adult behavior.

[CA4Now]

“My simulation shows that yes, if you reopen the schools, you’ll see a big increase in the reproduction number, which is exactly what you don’t want,” said Marco Ajelli, a mathematical epidemiologist who did the work while at the Bruno Kessler Foundation in Trento, Italy.

The second study, by a group of German researchers, was more straightforward. The team tested children and adults and found that children who test positive harbor just as much virus as adults do — sometimes more — and so, presumably, are just as infectious.

“Are any of these studies definitive? The answer is ‘No, of course not,’” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who was not involved in either study. But, he said, “to open schools because of some uninvestigated notion that children aren’t really involved in this, that would be a very foolish thing.”

New Studies Add to Evidence that Children May Transmit the Coronavirus:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/h...on-school.html

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

“My simulation shows that yes, if you reopen the schools, you’ll see a big increase in the reproduction number, which is exactly what you don’t want,” said Marco Ajelli, a mathematical epidemiologist who did the work while at the Bruno Kessler Foundation in Trento, Italy.

The second study, by a group of German researchers, was more straightforward. The team tested children and adults and found that children who test positive harbor just as much virus as adults do — sometimes more — and so, presumably, are just as infectious.

“Are any of these studies definitive? The answer is ‘No, of course not,’” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who was not involved in either study. But, he said, “to open schools because of some uninvestigated notion that children aren’t really involved in this, that would be a very foolish thing.”

New Studies Add to Evidence that Children May Transmit the Coronavirus:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/h...on-school.html

You need to look at the dates of the articles you're citing. I've been hearing those exact two lines repeated since early spring. That NYT article is over 2 months old. The "new" studies it cites and the interviews are even older. Back then, Europe hadn't even opened their schools and the USA was just contemplating trying to reopen schools prior to the end of the spring semester.

Data collected since then shows that opening schools in areas where the virus was still active did not lead to the expected increase in cases. Multiple case studies showed that infected school-aged children with hundreds of close contacts failed to transmit the virus.

"to open schools because of some uninvestigated notion that children aren’t really involved in this, that would be a very foolish thing.”

This was true in May, when the notion had not yet been investigated. Now it has been partially investigated. Careful not to become a science denier. Keep your mind open.

[tikkasf]

This article is only 3 days old. I offer a couple of quotes from the article......since the article in whole may not visable unless you have a subscription (I have one)


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/11/h...ls-reopen.html


" No nation has tried to send children back to school with the virus raging at levels like America’s, and the scientific research about transmission in classrooms is limited."


"Data from around the world clearly shows that children are far less likely to become seriously ill from the coronavirus than adults. But there are big unanswered questions, including how often children become infected and what role they play in transmitting the virus. Some research suggests younger children are less likely to infect other people than teenagers are, which would make opening elementary schools less risky than high schools, but the evidence is not conclusive."