Children do infect adults

[cantory]

In a paper, published in the British journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases, the researchers said: 'Notably, the rate of infection in children younger than 10 years (7.4 per cent) was similar to the population average (6.6 per cent).
There was no significant association between the probability of infection and age of the index case.'

This meant that children were as likely as adults to both catch the virus and to spread it.

The researchers added: 'Analyses of how cases are detected, and use of data on individuals exposed but not infected, indicate that infection rates in young children are not lower than the population average (even if rates of clinical disease are).'

I guess Swiss grandparents may find out the hard way if their research is wrong

@lasttraineast I think you are referring to the review? This was not actual field research, it was a review of available evidence. It is common for scientists to do reviews where they look at current research and say this seems to be the case. At that point there was no research showing that children caught the virus and transmitted it at same rate as adults. The number of cases in children seemed to be lower because most children get it very mildly and those cases were being missed.

This research and I suspect the German research is more detailed and is showing that those initial thoughts were wrong.
This happens in science all the time. Its like if you look at my cat you would thing it has one owner on first look. But on further research you would follow it about and see that it has another neighbour who feeds him and thinks she is the owner as well. It does not mean it is fake news, just that more evidence becomes available.

@CathyandHeathcliff That is why I think any government making policies at the moment needs to be so careful. New evidence is emerging all the time.
We know very little still about this virus and scientists are learning new things every day.
We still don't really know about any possible long term health impacts. There have been very initial suggestions of these including lung damage, neurological problems, male infertility. But how common are these complications? And are there others such as an increase in ME or other post viral syndrome? We just don't know.

I read that children spread it at the same level as adults, the initial theory was they would be worse because of the coughing and sneezing. Most children aren’t coughing and sneezing and therefore aren’t spreading it that way.

watching tv tonight & teachers saying that teachers have been badly hit by coronavirus -I wonder where they got it from? What I think is there is a confusion about low viral load & transmission - a single dc with a light dose & a transitory connection may not infect that much but a dc with the same degree of infection who has a closer & longer duration connection (cant think of the word but you know what I mean) with another person is more likely to infect others. When you have a large group of dc who act as a mild soup of cross infection to each other no matter how mild it is the adult (ie teacher is more likely to develop a larger viral load etc etc) I really cant see why dc who have the virus cant infect others? One little boy who died infected his brother didn't he? Not logical to me

@TheDrsDocMartens actually this makes sense teachers usually have to get very close to dc especially younger ones. The plain fact is that we don't know & that makes it a dangerous experiment

That paper does not say what you think it does. It says nothing about children as agents of transmission.

It’s also nearly two months old.

I don’t know why people find this so hard to pull apart. There are separate issues:

Do children become infected at the same rate as adults (this paper says yes, some other papers say no)?

Do children develop the same level of viral load as adults (the German paper says yes)?

Do children transmit the virus at the same rate as adults (Dutch and Swiss government research and the WHO/China report say no)?

If you can’t understand that these are three different strands of information, you’re not really capable of second guessing government decisions on this.

cantory

Swiss authorities say it is now safe for children under the age of 10 to hug their grandparents, in a revision to official advice on coronavirus.

The health ministry's infectious diseases chief Daniel Koch said that it was ok for grandparents to hug their grandchildren.

“We don't want to take that away from them. Young children are not infectious because they do not have the receptors to be infected.”

They are so sure they are going to risk lives on it being impossible even though I think we have had children die of it which I would call proof they can catch it.

Where does that paper state that children spread it as effectively as adults?

It appears to state that children get infected at the same rate as adults but does not stipulate on the R-value associated with children vs adults.

Unless I'm missing something, just skim read it so that may well be the case.

Whatchipotle said

Agree with others saying that the paper is about infection rates, not transmission rates.

So there are viruses out there that are caught by children at the same rate as adults, children can have the same viral load as adults, but adults transmit it whilst children largely keep in contained with in their own bodies??
I did NOT know that.

And for a virus with a comparatively high R rate like C19 it’s thought this only applies to adults and children just keep it to themselves? Amazing!

Hmmm I am not sure how children transmit less? Are they more fastidious? (No). Less viral load? Maybe. It sort of goes against common sense.

They transmit less because it doesn't affect them in the same way it affects adults. Because it doesn't affect them in the same way they don't develop the same symptoms. And because they don't develop those symptoms they don't transmit it. That is my understanding anyway.

As I understand it Switzerland proved that children couldn't catch it even though some had died of it. Seems all news is fake news now.

They are insisting this is the case but other than the study of that one kid in the Alps, it’s not really clear why...

I understand it will need further research. But this paper is the best evidence we currently have and contradicts what many on MN have been insisting.

Major post fail!!!!

We still don't know. So instead of coming across as clever, which you smugly thought you were doing, you have done the complete opposite.

You sound like you really want it to be the case, OP?

No I simply want people to stop wrongly saying that Switzerland proved otherwise.
This is up to date research by two research teams.
@Hadenoughfornow

What?? It is the best evidence we currently have. Of course as well as these two pieces of research there will be more to see if the results of both those pieces of research can be validated?

@MiddlesexGirl There are now two pieces of research suggesting children transmit at the same rate as adults. One in Germany, one in China.

Surely though it would be good news if they didn’t spread it? You sound like you’re really relishing proving people wrong.
Anyway, it will be a while before we have any conclusive studies either way. The decision around when to reopen schools will be based on a variety of different factors.

I have only seen people say there is not enough evidence to say children spread. That's different from definitively saying they do not spread the virus.

I have seen people say they know 100% that children are super spreaders which is not proven yet.

@ChipotleBlessing The swiss research is just based on one boy I think? Perhaps he is an outlier?