'Just In Time For School, 2 New Studies Conclude Small Kids Carry & Transmit COVID-19 Just Fine'

[appalachiablue]

- Just in time for school, 2 new studies conclude small kids carry & transmit COVID-19 just fine.- Daily Kos, 8/1/20.
-Edited:

Donald Trump and his billionaire heiress and non-educator Education Secretary Betsy DeVos continue their relentless push for school reopenings, even threatening to cut off federal funds to those schools that hesitate to throw open their doors, exposing millions of public school children, parents and teachers to the potentially lethal effects of COVID-19. One of their loudest talking points has been the supposedly low rate of transmission of the virus by children.

*New research indicates that, although they don’t suffer the same degree of ill effects as adults, children aged 5-17 are actually bastions of COVID-19 contagion to other children, as well as adults such as parents, grandparents, and teachers. More on that in a moment.. The real danger is that statements like DeVos’ are regurgitated over and over by unqualified bloviators in right-wing media, until they worm their way into school board meetings across the country, ultimately influencing the decisions that determine the fate of the nation’s schoolchildren.
* Which brings us back to that research that contradicts both DeVos and Trump. Two separate new studies examining the transmission of COVID-19 by younger children now strongly indicate those statements are categorically false. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case: Small children spread the COVID-19 virus quite efficiently, even moreso than adults.

* William A. Haseltine, a healthcare contributor for Forbes, reports: Two new studies, though from different parts of the world, have arrived at the same conclusion: that young children not only transmit SARS-CoV-2 efficiently, but may be major drivers of the pandemic as well. The first study, published in JAMA, is peer-reviewed. As Haseltine notes, researchers examined findings from a pediatric hospital in Chicago, the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital. The Chicago study examines the concentration of the SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx, or the upper region of the throat that connects to the nasal passages, of children and adults. According to the results, children 5 years and younger who develop mild to moderate Covid-19 symptoms have 10 to 100 times as much SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx as older children and adults.

Whenever these young children cough, sneeze, or shout, they expel virus-laden droplets from the nasopharynx into the air. If they have as much as one hundred times the amount of virus in their throat and nasal passages as adults, it only makes sense that they would spread the virus more efficiently. The study also shows that children from the ages of 5 to 17, also with mild to moderate Covid-19 symptoms, have the same amount of virus in the nasopharynx as adults age 18 and above. - The Chicago study did not specifically examine the rate of transmission by small children, but rather its efficiency. The fact that a child has 100 times as much of the virus in nasal swab samples strongly points to a very efficient rate of transmission, just like any other cold or virus a child catches and spreads in school or day care. As reported in The New York Times this week, the lead author of the study was quite clear on this.

“It definitely shows that kids do have levels of virus similar to and maybe even higher than adults,” Dr. Heald-Sargent said. “It wouldn’t be surprising if they were able to shed” the virus and spread it to others...

Read More,
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/1/1965794/-Just-in-time-for-school-two-new-studies-conclude-small-kids-carry-and-transmit-COVID-19-just-fine

[Wednesdays]

1. Bah. To a MAGAT, "peer-reviewed" means only this:

[Igel]

3. For some, only what agrees matters.

It gets tiresome always trying to think critically past biases. Haven't done it much on this topic recently. Time consuming, that game.

Other studies have been also been peer reviewed and didn't look at the concentration of the virus in the tykes' nasopharyngeal cavity but at the actual transmission. Note that the Chicago study in the OP actually bears the caveat that it did *not* examine transmission. The other study in the OP probably should, unless buried in the verbiage is the actual claim that they did measure transmission.

In other words, instead of checking the preconditions for the effect and then predicting based on viral concentration, some studies actually look the actual spread--in families, schools, or in other settings. In other words, they've checked the predictions these make. (That's the problem with peer review. A spread of studies hits the pipeline, and they get spit out not always in the expected order.)

That examination can be at a low level--actual contact tracing and correlation with the timing of onset of symptoms--or it can be at a high level, looking at how things like school closures actually seem to affect the transmission rate in general. One's got a lot of individual data points that build up to form the picture; the other approaches it from analyzing variances and engaging in pattern-seeking.

The (peer reviewed) transmission studies are mixed. Most go with an actual low transmission rate, whether building data point by point or digging into higher-level datasets. But not all. That's a bit of a self-contained mystery. I haven't checked back for the last month or so on these. Perhaps that mystery's been resolved.

The other thing that's needed is to try to reconcile the prior studies that actually examined transmission rates with the presence of the virus in the kids at the concentrations noted. If the "self-contained mystery's" resolved to higher concentration, then these studies fit nicely. If not, there's still a reconciling that's needed.

[ResistantAmerican17]

2. And........ scarf lady says ???????

I think those obituaries that blame drumph are going to get to blame some other murderers in this
maladministration

[Hortensis]

4. Mine brought everything home from school to me. nt