Advanced search

It's increasingly looking like kids spread the virus less than adults (not more!9

(16 Posts)
Kokeshi123 Sun 26-Apr-20 02:10:11

Twitter thread with general discussion (by a pediatric registrar and clinical research fellow)

Looks like it's not so much a case of kids being Typhoid Marys ("They don't show symptoms much but spread this thing like crazy") so much as, they don't seem to be getting the thing all that much in the first place. Weird, weird virus. But the evidence looks quite compelling.

FWIW, I still think the schools closing for a spell is a good idea, but this is encouraging as we all try to work out how to reopen schools at some point later this year.

Research-y links here:

OP’s posts: |
MrsTerryPratchett Sun 26-Apr-20 02:17:24

I've told DD this and she's happy about it.

The issue with schools is parents, teachers, staff. I can see a drop off schedule at the gates and parents not allowed in, staff on each entrance kind of set-up.

We're both working here (DH from home, me still at work) and home-schooling is tough. And the children who are suffering abuse and neglect with no break, I'd like to get them back quickly.

effingterrified Sun 26-Apr-20 02:34:08

Interestingly cherry-picked links, OP (one of which doesn't work).

Contrary to your suggestions here, the jury is still out on children's role in getting and spreading the disease. The fact that fewer children are symptomatic or get the disease severely, which is generally agreed, does not mean that they can't effectively spread it to others.

I certainly know of high levels of spreading via children just at my dc's school. And the sample group I know of personally is larger than the tiny Netherlands study you quote!

echt Sun 26-Apr-20 04:10:28

Are any of these studies peer-reviewed?

Kokeshi123 Sun 26-Apr-20 04:18:12

Better link to the Twitter discussion.

I don't think anyone is claiming that kids can't spread the disease---only that they are less likely to.

OP’s posts: |
DBML Sun 26-Apr-20 04:23:51

The only thing that makes me cautious about this study is that children have been pretty much at home. I’ve seen adults out and about. Adults are still going to work and adults generally are the nurses and doctors. You don’t see a lot of kids doing that...

So where did the study into children being spreaders actually take place? When did it take place? Is this data reliable considering children haven’t been in school to spread the virus?

Keepdistance Sun 26-Apr-20 09:12:30

Still 1k cases in kids though UK.
And they only test hospitalised people

chillichoclove Sun 26-Apr-20 09:20:04

Most children who are positive with covid in hospital have another condition or are mildly affected. Thankfully.
There are only a handful who are very unwell. Far fewer than we normally see with other conditions such as chicken pox. Children are tested pre op for trauma surgery (trampoline and bike injuries for example) which affects numbers.

WhyNotMe40 Sun 26-Apr-20 09:44:06

Let's say kids catch it less and spread it less.
Given that, with the lack of social distancing kids do anyway, plus the very cramped conditions in classrooms and corridors where children are for hours at a time, even that small amount of spreading could be disastrous to both their peers and the adults in school.
And that is only up to Yr5. Above that they seem to catch and spread it more than adult, but are just less affected. So yr6 and secondary schools are out.

Keepdistance Sun 26-Apr-20 09:49:45

The schools were only open the 4w though.
How many CP over the uk in hospital over just 4w though?

Letseatgrandma Sun 26-Apr-20 09:52:35

fewer children are symptomatic or get the disease severely, which is generally agreed, does not mean that they can't effectively spread it to others


Dyrne Sun 26-Apr-20 09:53:57

That’s always been known though - the government were very clear when they announced the school closure that it wouldn’t have a massive additional affect on slowing spread, and was just a little extra to help flatten the curve.

effingterrified Sun 26-Apr-20 11:28:57

I don't think that was clear at all, Dyrne.

Other countries that closed schools earlier have had much lower mortality rates.

I don't see any evidence that children can't contribute to spreading the disease as much as adults.

Kokeshi123 Wed 29-Apr-20 01:08:14

An overview of the study of COVID19 that has been taking place in Iceland.

Some of the finding re children under 10.

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.

However, children over 10 seem to present a similar picture to young adults.

OP’s posts: |
Floatyboat Wed 29-Apr-20 07:56:19

Yes all the evidence points one way on this. I think it's good because it reduces the need of having to social distance children and they can get schools back close to normal quite quickly.

Kokeshi123 Thu 30-Apr-20 03:10:58

Netherlands. Children play only a "small role" in spreading CV19.

Switzerland has loosened restrictions on kids based on evidence that they do not spread the virus much.

The evidence all seems to be pointing one way. Under 10s a lot less infectious (not zero risk of passing on infection though)

OP’s posts: |

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »