OT: New Covid-19 study: Children between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the coronavirus just as much as adults.
New study out of South Korea that tested almost 65,000 people of all age groups (before children went back to school). Study results -> Children between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the coronavirus just as much as adults.
"The researchers traced the contacts only of children who felt ill, so it’s still unclear how efficiently asymptomatic children spread the virus", said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"I think it was always going to be the case that symptomatic children are infectious,” she said. “The questions about the role of children are more around whether children who don’t have symptoms are infectious."
Pretty sure we will find out soon enough that asymptomatic children are the same super spreaders that asymptomatic young adults are.
Study: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article
Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html
This would seem to be a “water is wet” situation. Of course kids can spread the virus.
You’d be surprised how many people have touted a narrative that kids are not major propagators of illness. Like, this virus, somehow is magically different than every other respiratory virus known to mankind and spares children in their mutant caterpillar form until they turn 21
It's not so much magic as there have been several studies showing that young kids don't get it as often and don't spread it as effectively. The data regarding kids and transmission is actually pretty muddled, but there's no doubt they can get it. It's not remotely surprising that older kids, who are basically adults physically, spread it like adults do.
There have also been clusters of outbreaks between 50-100 kids at summer camps, and an article today with 82 infants having it in one Texas county.
who cares if they don’t spread it as frequently? They have steady started outbreaks, so schools reopening Should naturally be expected to cause outbreaks. Full stop.
No disagreement here. I was merely responding to the notion that people holding out hope that it doesn't spread well with kids aren't a bunch of loons touting magic. The science is currently messy and it isn't comprehensive.
People believed that because schools were closed and kids were quarantined.
Just wait. Florida will be incapacitated by Labor Day.
People who think kids don't spread disease don't have children. They are literally always sticky.
I never got sick before we had kids. Now even with the damn flu shot I spend half of every winter hacking up a lung.
I don't think there is a single person on earth who thinks kids "don't spread disease." Hell, I was a teacher for five years, so I know all about that. Personally, I've been a believer for a while that schools will lead to an explosion of cases even if kids are less likely to get it and spread it. People are referring to this specific disease and some studies (from Germany, Sweden/Finland, etc.) showing that young kids may not spread this specific disease very well. It sounds like other recent research and cases contradict the findings of those studies.
Kids are also getting sick and dying without any preexisting conditions. Not at the same rate as an 80 year old but then some 80 year olds are surviving without any symptoms (Jack Nicklaus).
And now there is also data that shows long term lung and other damage to kids that have asymptotic or minor symptoms.
So the issue is not just that kids can be spreaders. It’s a medical issue for everyone, because the disease does not discriminate based on age or pre-existing condition.
The issue in this case is that - in contrast to influenza - relatively few kids are struck down by COVID. This virus is very unusual in that regard. It's therefore worth investigating whether they spread the virus at the same rate as adults.
Kids get it wherever adult spreaders are located. Several meta-studies have demonstrated that children are rarely the source of a tracked flare-up of COVID. Let's focus on the twenty something super-spreaders, who like Typhoid Mary have their finger-prints all over the current flare-ups.
Several parents I know that have tested positive would disagree with you.
“Who cares if they don’t spread it as frequently” does seem to be a pretty key point.
As we try to figure out whether or not to open up schools and colleges it seems like there are at least two key points:
1. Are kids and college students likely to suffer serious health consequences. There seems to be pretty overwhelming evidence that younger folks are less likely to get very serious symptoms (and even less for elementary aged than college.). Some on this thread have raised concerns about longer term health issues in asymptomatic patients and about a second wave. There are certainly unknowns there and those are risks individual parents will have to weigh.
2. Is opening up schools likely to exacerbate community spread. (Not is it likely to cause any community spread because if that is your criteria, none of us are ever getting out of our houses until there is some kind of herd immunity). If we want to start to open up our communities, we have to accept that ding so will increase cases (and unfortunately deaths). To me, the key question is, can we keep that spread at a manageable level such that hospitals don’t get overwhelmed, we don’t burn out our medical professionals and we don’t run out of health supplies (like PPE). In order to be most successful at that, we should be considering activities that are most beneficial to society as a whole, which activities are most likely to result in large transmissions and what can we do to minimize transmission in those activities.
With regards to education it seems hard to deny that it has significant benefits both to individuals and society as a whole. With regard to transmission, particularly at younger ages, it does seem like there is a fair amount of evidence that there is less transmission from younger children. In addition to the report cited in the OP, here is another paper:
”On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared. This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV-2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.11,12Although 2 reports are far from definitive, the researchers provide early reassurance that school-based transmission could be a manageable problem, and school closures may not have to be a foregone conclusion, particularly for elementary school–aged children who appear to be at the lowest risk of infection. Additional support comes from mathematical models, which find that school closures alone may be insufficient to halt epidemic spread13 and have modest overall impacts compared with broader, community-wide physical distancing measures.14”
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879
With regards to the anecdotes you cite, if you start looking into the actual cases, most of them seem to have about a two to one ratio between adults (or older teens in the case of camp counselors) and children who are testing positive. This seems pretty consistent with the idea that older people are more likely giving it to younger (which is what most other studies have shown).
Agree. Just like they thought that being asymptomatic meant that you couldn't spread it. Kids spread influenza and other illnesses so why would they be any different than other older teens and young adults in regards to Covid-19? They aren't.
Including some doctor friends of mine.
We are then the only country in the western world smart enough to close our schools. Think again, open them up.
I mean this exact study finds the lowest rate among children age 0 to 9, so maybe that's the main takeaway here? And it's not just a little lower.
Also,this new coronavirus would be similar to - not "magically different" from - many other respiratory viruses if kids were not the typical vectors. One reason for this could be the immature ACE receptors in kids' lungs. Who knows, but again, this would make the new virus similar to, not different from, other viruses.
The younger you are the more likely you are to be asymptomatic to the disease - which basically means that younger people's immune system does not recognize this disease as a threat because they haven't faced it before. Just like in 1918 - younger people were "miraculously" spared from symptoms the first wave only to be the main age group for deaths six months later. That initial "miracle" was young people being asymptomatic to a new virus - Dr Fauci has also talked about this recently.
anyone’s kids go back to daycare? I’m paying daycare but getting a babysitter. It’s expensive
Yes, since late May. She's a lot happier now than when she was stuck at home without being able to interact with her little friends. We feel comfortable with the decision.
Seconded.
I have a really social kid 5 year old who did literally every extra curricular that was offered. To the extent possible, I tried to fill the void in March, April, May. Fishing, endless walks, climbing dunes, frisbee, math, lawn work, tools, darts, chores. Like, I went after it. By late May, he had still fallen into a 5 year old version of depression. He wasn’t engaging. He just needed kids. A light went back on the minute he went back to a structured learning environment with other kids.
Yep. My kids are 4, 2, and 6 months and we had a nanny for 2 months and it just wasn’t working. We sent them back June 1 and for the older 2 there was an instant attitude improvement. Daycare is running at about 30 percent capacity and doing all they can to keep everyone safe so we are comfortable with it as of now.
Definitely wise to make sure the daycare is limiting interaction among adults on their premises (including among employees).
Otherwise, no child younger than 10 should even be a subject of discussion on COVID. Unless you previously pulled your child from daycare every winter because the flu kills children in large numbers (nearly 200 in 2020), why would you pull them from daycare when COVID has far less impact for kids younger than 10 (see July 10 CDC report on first 65,000 deaths in the US).????
Texas never closed their day care centers. I have a grand-nephew in Houston doing just fine.
Interestingly the study actually suggests both conclusions. Younger children don’t spread covid much, older children do.
‘Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.”
“Children under 10 were roughly half as likely as adults to spread the virus to others, consistent with other studies. That may be because children generally exhale less air — and therefore less virus-laden air — or because they exhale that air closer to the ground, making it less likely that adults would breathe it in.“
The Germans beg to disagree
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/schools-coronavirus-infection-rate-low-german-study-finds.html
and another story on schools and viruses https://www.wired.com/story/its-ridiculous-to-treat-schools-like-covid-hot-zones/
The Israelis beg to agree
Germany avoiding an outbreak is as likely to be a stroke of good luck in a country that has a very low incidence of active infections as it is to represent evidence of safety
I love how people now compare a scientific study (ie. the world's only study of what happens when you reopen schools and study the differing impact on the infection rate) and a hysterical media report from Israel.
In Israel, at a time when the state opened bars, restaurants and even saunas.....if the public heard of one positive test result in a child or a teacher in a school they forced the school to close and quarantine hundreds of associated kids, teachers and families. Meanwhile, they rarely closed bars or sought to quarantine those out that night with the person who turned out to be a super-spreader (all the identified of whom across the globe have been adults...though half younger than 40).
Bottom line, the fact that some 45% of those quarantined in Israel were kids...proves absolutely nothing over how well children serve as conduits of the illness. It just demonstrates that there is a highly motivated audience for any articles that seems to support how they feel (fear).
And what exactly does the German study of a low antibody prevalence in children matter when the baseline German population has a low antibody prevalence?
did Germany open schools at the peak of their outbreak? Or did they get it to near eradication levels and THEN open schools?
how anyone thinks the German study is remotely relevant to the US is beyond me
SugarShane, it is quite simple. The Germany study (Saxony where 100% returned to school) is the ONLY study where they were comparing those in schools with those outside school. The location is factored in by comparing apples to apples. Moreover, Saxony made this decisions at a point that is inline with Michigan's current low rate of COVID (at least from the perspective of where I am siting in South Florida).
In Saxony, those spending all day in school were far less likely to get the virus versus those (IN SAXONY again) who were working at pharmacies or meat packing plants. Schools are one of the safer locations we can return to in the COVID era.
Yes, I understand that it is hard to replace fear with empirical evidence. But almost all of you will eventually agree that kids need to go to school in he decade of COVID....even if you down vote this post today. You have spent the last century sending your young kids to school every day even though dense school conditions presented very high risks for the flu virus (deadly for kids but largely harmless for healthy adults of working age). Sure vaccines, just like for the flu, will come and go....but our kids will go to school just as they do in Europe with COVID low (but not going away).
Do you know what apples to apples means?
less than 1% of those kids had ANTIBODIES to Covid. It is theoretically possible that there were 0 children in the study group of 2000 that had an active Covid Infection. If there were active infections, we know it was less than 1% of the study
The state of Michigan has a 7 day new case average of 683 right now, trending up.
the COUNTRY of germany is averaging 390
So no, they are not comparable populations
As a research scientist, I definitely know what apple to apple means in a research context. It means the control (in this case those working in places besides schools) share a lot in common with the experimental group (in this case teachers returning to work at schools).
This study started back in April when Germany had more COVID cases but the statistical point of interest is comparing the rate of infection for those working at a school rather than another occupation. This is where schools (full of kids as Saxony returned everyone not just some kids like the rest of Germany) and still the virus was lower than other workplaces.
thank you for your erudite and nuanced comments in this thread. it is very helpful to assist in understanding the risks.
From the article: "Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute."
Also recent new cases show this spread is already happening in the United States before school has opened:
Arizona: 11% of total cases in those younger than 20.
California: 8.4% in those younger than 18.
Mississippi: 9.4% in those under 18.
Washington state: 11% in those 20 and younger.
Tennessee: 4.5% of cases involving those 10 and under, and 11% for those 11 through 20.
Texas - Harris County 11.4% under 20 and Children 9 and younger 4.1%.
I live in South Florida (the epicenter of the world's largest recorded cluster of positive COVID cases). My university's medical school Dean just told us yesterday that they now believe 1 in 10 in Miami-Dade are now infected. Our hospitals are reporting that 1 out of 3 children being tested are positive. But before you twitter out this stat or start screaming fire in the theater, keep in mind that 1 in 3 children testing positive demonstrates nothing on the topic at hand.
What do you think happens when the parent(s) in a family get a positive COVID test. They immediately drag their children in for testing and...guess what....just like in the Korea study above.....we can readily predict that a home with sick parents will lead to children having dead virus in their system for up to month that leads to a positive test. The South Korea study just supports the case I made above.....children in COVID case homes will readily pick up the virus.
My boss and her husband (who remains in the ICU) recently tested positive and their two pre-teens got tested. Yes they were positive but they didn't have even a sniffle. Her doctor says he has yet to have a child under 14 who tested positive that had more than a sniffle and he is treating a ward full of COVID patients.
The fact is that COVID is entirely different from any respiratory disease known to humankind. In the past they were always child killers and killers of the elderly. There is no debate.... this is not a child killer. CDC's July 10 thorough scrub of the first 65,000 that died from COVID in this country could only find 16 cases of a child under 18 dying and they had underlying conditions.
If you don't believe me. Please listen to MSNBC's interview with 5 pediatricians that surprised the journalist in arguing that COVID is primarily an adult-to-adult transmitted virus and children going to school is unlikely to impact the infectious rate (as now clearly demonstrated in the German scientific study using a control sample to compare with those spending their days in schools.
I think just about everyone agrees that kids are not likely to get very sick from covid. The question is are they likely to exacerbate community spread.
Sorry for any confusion, but that is exactly the point of my post and the previous German study cited .....children in school are not likely to exacerbate the spread.
I am sitting in the world's largest cluster of COVID.....and guess what....COVID has skyrocketed with every kid at home. Nobody is at school, 1 out of 3 children are catching it...why, because adults are the only demonstrated super-spreaders and most live in close contact with adult parents.
Denmark and Germany have seen nothing but the declining spread of COVID since they reopened schools. And enough with....how can we compare to places with few cases.. We need to start emulating them and a key element in the strategy is to take advantage of the kryptonite for COVID (kids under 14) and open schools in phases. Like Denmark, I favor starting with those most hurt by the online learning (elementary school kids). I have friends who teach in inter-city Miami and they say many of their kids, once it went online, simply stopped learning. We are going to pay a high price in this country if those who only find stable educational environments in schools....are shut out for long. They will never catch up with their peers fortunate to live in homes where motivated and economically privileged parent(s) can homeschool or pay for an alternative.
I guess you didn’t read he study cit in the OP. Under 10, not likely to spread. Over 10, likely to spread. Saying kids weren’t spreaders in Florida tells us nothing about whether or not they would exacerbate it if they were in school. The South Korean study suggests for kids over 10 it would.
I read the study based on its citation in the NYtimes. And as I posted in another comment, it provides little support for such speculation.
Yes back in February and March Korean officials trying to quarantine the virus traced, to the degree possible, individuals and households with the virus and tested everyone in a household. But it is impossible to know who was the first to bring a virus in to a household. If the kid (and their symptoms were almost all mild) showed symptoms sooner what does that tell you about a virus that can take 2 - 14 days for symptoms in people?!?! The parent that gets sick a week later could very well have introduced the disease especially since schools were closed and kids were largely kept home over the period of the study. If 10 year olds were more likely to be home with the parents over the shutdown period, this could explain the fewer contact traces.
in any case, this old Korean study has been dredged up and published now in the US by those trying to counter the actual studies that compared the impact on spreading based on opening school or not opening the school.
By the way, Korea has continued to keep their hybrid (partial in-class schooling) even as the virus continues to come and go there. Like Isreal they only close schools in panics after the virus shows up in large numbers at a factory or other adult dense location leads to local panic.
There are multiple studies that show that younger children are not large transmitters of covid (e.g.under 10). I’m not sure because you seem to strongly want to argue with me about something, but I think we actually agree in that point? At some age that seems to change. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence, that in their 20s, young people can spread covid quite rapidly. That seems to argue for thinking about elementary school and college differently (at least in understanding likelihood of increasing community transmission).
The key question to me seems to be where does junior high and high school fit on that spectrum. This study seems to suggest more like college than elementary school, however it is only one study.
Finally, I really don’t think the german study is anywhere near as strong as you seem to think it is. It is the number of different studies that have come to similar conclusions that seems compelling, not so much the strength of any one particular study. If the only information we had was the german study, I’d be very skeptical of drawing conclusions since it is based on data from an area with very little community spread.
Ahh it was only a matter of time before “the studies were flawed” reports to come out.
Sure, they probably were in some ways, but it seems like there are different standards for which studies get accepted more easily into the narrative than others.
You do realize that the “flawed studies” and the study cited here came to the same conclusion. Younger children are not likely to be a big cause of spread. The dr being quoted is merely saying that we now have a larger study that is well done that supports the same conclusion.
Israelis agree, Germans disagree.... meantime, the Swiss remain neutral. Just proves the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Nailed it ATC. My stance is open, but curious to know how we can start living with it. It would be great to hear some ideas.
The Germans need to solve their Forest Rambo problem before they deal with their Corona Rambo problem.
One of the major faults of this study is that it was done in an area of Germany that had a pretty low rate of infection to begin with.
With how it relates to US schools reopening, it was also done in an area with stringent social distancing rules among others that frankly US schools will find hard to implement, because their parents are brainwashed FOX watching morons.
Wow! Viruses can transfer from human to human who would thunkkk
I received an email from our union rep. A nearby district in Michigan already approved a plan to be back five days a week and we are expected to receive similar confirmation from our board.
Looking forward to taking life back, one battle at a time.
I live in such a district and was privy to a little bit of insight into the decision. It sounds like a primary driving factor was the idea that once you close a school district, or modify it to the extent that it is unrecognizable (hybrid two days on two days off), what would have to arise in order to switch back from that? And with antibodies proving to be short-lived, a vaccine is becoming completely speculative at best. So, in essence, a decision to go all virtual would not really have an expected end date, at least not anytime remotely soon.