Talk

Advanced search

'Kids don't spread it'

(89 Posts)
WindFlower92 Thu 21-May-20 12:15:56

Keep seeing this as a justification for schools opening. Anyone know if 14/15 year olds count as 'kids' in this context?

And is there any actual hard evidence for this statement anyway?

OP’s posts: |
QueenofmyPrinces Thu 21-May-20 12:27:09

If kids can’t spread it then we’d have no need to social distance them in the classrooms, we wouldn’t need smaller class sizes and we wouldn’t need to phase in their returns.

If children were no risk to each other and no risk to the teachers then why are all these measures in place?

The Government can’t have it both ways...

DivGirl Thu 21-May-20 12:29:30

If kids didn't spread it neither would inanimate objects so we wouldn't need to wash our hands after coming inside.

B1rdbra1n Thu 21-May-20 12:34:29

This needs a clarification, does this mean that a 7-year old can't spread it but a 14-year old can?
if so why, what is it about children that makes them more or less likely to spread it?

DBML Thu 21-May-20 12:43:17

Of course children can spread the virus if they have it. It’s ridiculous to think that somehow, they can’t.

www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/what-roles-do-children-play-in-spreading-covid-19

Cornettoninja Thu 21-May-20 12:45:11

@b1rdbra1n I am repeating an unproven, untested theory here but the idea is this virus relies on ACE2 receptors to replicate and children naturally have fewer. A lot of people are musing that viral load makes a key difference to how ill people become and how much they can shed.

B1rdbra1n Thu 21-May-20 12:51:34

Cornetto thank you for explaining the mechanism 😊
(and my apologies I should have looked myself rather than being lazy)
That sounds plausible and I feel as if the viral load aspect is generally accepted (?)
in addition to viral load I wonder if being exposed to a viral load from multiple different hosts makes a difference, or am I splitting hairs too much here 🤔

Cornettoninja Thu 21-May-20 12:59:05

I think that sounds plausible too, but I’m mostly regurgitating what cleverer people have said wink

I was wondering if one of the factors impacting differences in numbers across the world was population densities. So if you have an outbreak in a densely populated area where people are in close contact a lot (shared apartment buildings, reliance on public transport, lots of public venues) people are getting higher viral loads but if people are more spaced out they’re getting smaller viral loads and not getting as sick.

QueenofmyPrinces Thu 21-May-20 13:01:44

Of course children can spread the virus if they have it. It’s ridiculous to think that somehow, they can’t.

But isn’t this the argument the Government used as to why it’s safe to open the schools?

Bol87 Thu 21-May-20 13:03:38

I’ve wondered & this is purely just me musing but is there a range of factors at play - one, a chance kids shed less of the virus naturally for whatever reason, maybe the one above? Then two, when they do cough or sneeze, they are physically much smaller & with a smaller lung capacity? so will not expel the virus as far as an adult?! Nor expel as much due to their small-ness?

I certainly think they can spread it but potentially less than an adult might?

Bol87 Thu 21-May-20 13:05:23

@QueenofmyPrinces - the scientists at the press conferences have mentioned several times it’s something the whole science world is looking into as there is some evidence to suggest it’s true. I’m pretty sure the government haven’t directly said this is a reason they are opening the schools but I’ll stand corrected!

PuppyPuppy Thu 21-May-20 13:05:56

I’ve yet to see clear evidence that children can’t spread it.

There’s a theory floating around at the moment that there are a few superspreaders who are responsible for 80% of infections, and people who aren’t superspreaders don’t spread it much at all.

As time goes on more will be learned about it all. At the moment we’re still working with best guesses.

stardance Thu 21-May-20 13:06:14

They do spread it. I believe the thinking is that generally they get a mild case, or are asymptomatic (which of course causes problems in itself.)

greathat Thu 21-May-20 13:07:23

I was told by a union rep that the only data they've got that says this is for 13 and under.

greathat Thu 21-May-20 13:09:09

Most of the stories you read go back to one kid who was exposed to lots of people and no one caught it. If someone told me something based on one data set was statistically significant I'd tell them it was bollocks

lockedown Thu 21-May-20 13:13:28

I don't understand it. If it's believed now that kids don't spread it, then why would there be any talks about social distancing of children in schools? Why would there be guidelines to remove all play dough, sand etc in schools? Why are the playgrounds locked?
If the government truly believed it. They would be just working on staggered pickups and drop offs and everything in school would remain the same - except the staff maintaing social distance from each other which is easy to do.

HoppingPavlova Thu 21-May-20 13:19:18

They are not great catchers or spreaders. Yes, they can catch it, but in the main unless other significant risk factors are present, it’s not an issue. Similarly, while they can spread it, it’s pretty minimal. This is why they don’t have a great need to social distance from each other or adults.

Yes, 14/15yo count as kids in this situation. Really, so do 18/19/20 year olds etc. In these situations, there’s not time to create peer reviewed papers etc so it’s really working off common sense of the demographics re testing/hospitalisations/outcomes.

MissMatchedClaws Thu 21-May-20 13:20:09

Is there something to do with asymptomatic infection not being highly contagious? We know that children tend to be asymptomatic and if that is associated with the virus being lower load or simply not coughed out (because if you're asymptomatic you're not coughing) then naturally they won't spread it around.
Need a kid-specific R0 value.

QueenofmyPrinces Thu 21-May-20 13:20:51

I don't understand it. If it's believed now that kids don't spread it, then why would there be any talks about social distancing of children in schools? Why would there be guidelines to remove all play dough, sand etc in schools? Why are the playgrounds locked? If the government truly believed it. They would be just working on staggered pickups and drop offs and everything in school would remain the same - except the staff maintaing social distance from each other which is easy to do

My point exactly.
Completely agree.

Government know children can pass the virus on otherwise they wouldn’t be putting all these measures in place to keep the children away from each other.

QueenofmyPrinces Thu 21-May-20 13:24:02

This is why they don’t have a great need to social distance from each other or adults.

So why can’t they see adults in their families? Why can’t the Government say they can they see their grandparents for example?

A lot of parents rely on grandparents for childcare so if children don’t need to socially isolate from adults then surely allowing grandparents/other family members to take that role back on would help so many worried people out there return to work?

Adirondack Thu 21-May-20 13:24:36

Hopping pavlova, where is your source for this statement please?

*They are not great catchers or spreaders. Yes, they can catch it, but in the main unless other significant risk factors are present, it’s not an issue. Similarly, while they can spread it, it’s pretty minimal. This is why they don’t have a great need to social distance from each other or adults.
*

countrylanes Thu 21-May-20 13:25:16

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000j949

They talk about this on More and Less - the stastics programme.

It seems to me a lot of the decisions (and views of the general public) are political ones. People have a level of fear far in excess of the actual risk to to healthy younger people (adults and children), but policies are reacting to fears.

countrylanes Thu 21-May-20 13:29:59

Hopping pavlova, where is your source for this statement please?

@Adirondack - you could listen to the More or Less programme. It's the first article.

BeltaneBride Thu 21-May-20 13:33:07

Good post -I was just about to add the More or Less link. As just listened to it. I think it should be compulsory for every one to listen to it -clear and sane.
Also the Coffee Shots Daily podcast.

Weedsnseeds1 Thu 21-May-20 13:33:52

Viral load is not the amount of virus you are exposed to, its the amount in your system.
When a person is exposed to a virus (any virus), provided they have been exposed to an infective dose,the virus starts to replicate within the hosts cells, at some point their immune system kicks in and starts to launch a counter attack.
Typically the immune response is much faster in younger people, so they have a low viral load and are less likely to be ill, or less lightly to die if they are ill.
Older people end up with higher viral loads as their immune system is more sluggish.
Hence they are more likely, on average, to become seriously ill or die.

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 »