Concerned coronavirus is riskier in Children than people think ??

[nonameme]

Firstly, I'm not trying to 'scaremonger' or otherwise influence anything. Governments will do what they do regardless. I am aware of Children delaying education, and concern for school as Childcare for jobs and the economy.

I've been trying to find studies on coronavirus and Children.

I found this European study -

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30177-2/fulltext

582 cases, 4 tragic deaths.

0.69% fatality rate.

That's a whole fucking lot higher rate than flu in Children.

Please, Please don't think I'm trying to scaremonger, I would be happy to see proof to the contrary, I'm trying to think that this study was at a time where testing capacity in some of the countries studied out with hospitals was low, that there are some asymptomatic cases, that we will know more.

If we allow COVID to rip through our schools though ?? Which it absolutely WILL without a lot of measures in place. The nonsense about Kids not spreading has been well debunked.

I'm honestly not trying to scaremonger but that rate scared me..

Does anyone else feel the same ??

It’s a worry for sure. I don’t think it is always as benign as we are being led to believe. But the WHO have consistently said that it’s less dangerous in children so I am hopeful that is the case. I think if we did find out it had 0.67% fatality. Which works out at about 1 in 150 ? People would be much less keen to put their children back to school ? It would be a whole different ballgame for me

All the children in the study were those who were managed 'within the hospital setting'. Not all were admitted for in patient treatment but all were ill enough to go to hospital to be tested/checked out. So it is a very valid and relevant study for that group of children but the mortality rate can't be extrapolated to all children.

Schools were open for most of March in London when infections were increasing exponentially so you would expect to have seen lots of bad cases then if this were the case.

582 IDENTIFIED cases. They have to be pretty ill to be identified.

That doesnt translate to a 0.69% fatality rate in children as a whole though does it at all!

In fact the study itself says:

COVID-19 is generally a mild disease in children, including infants. However, a small proportion develop severe disease requiring ICU admission and prolonged ventilation, although fatal outcome is overall rare. The data also reflect the current uncertainties regarding specific treatment options, highlighting that additional data on antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs are urgently needed.

It is worrying - especially when you see studies like this. Not sure what to think. www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/07/31/new-evidence-suggests-young-children-spread-covid-19-more-efficiently-than-adults/#56f75dfa19fd

The risk of death at least is v v tiny for children:

In Germany - population 83 million - only 3 children / teens 0-19 have died in total
and they were reported to have severe underlying conditions

Schools reopened pt here (Germany) 4 May - end June
and childcare has been running since 2 June, including over the holidays while parents work

The risk in schools is to staff
especially teachers aged 50+ previously classed as vulnerable / shielded
also to any vulnerable parents & family members

Longterm effects on children:
too soon to say, but I'd expect we'd have seen reports by now if more than a tiny % were affected for more than a month or so

Yes you only have to look at the figures in the USA to see it's a problem.

The children in the USA the majority have not been in lock down like others countries. So its easier to see that they are affected. Unlike children in European countries where they have spent the majority of their time inside and not mixing.

The other thing is and which most seem to forget, and who keep saying children are not affected, they're fine, they're young, they're healthy. It has been proven they carry the virus, they pass it to adults. So while the child may recover most of the time, they are with adults and older children who can get very sick.

Even the risk to staff doesn't seem higher than in most other jobs

• but not lower either, hence they should be allowed masks if they wish

That Lancet study states "145 (25%) had pre-existing medical conditions"

So not a representative sample of children

25% indicates the study had a vastly disproportionate number of children with health conditions,
some of which could have been very serious

OK, so you haven’t read the study. There are a few critical factors you’re missing.

First, this is a study looking at risk factors among patients who had been diagnosed - ‘cases of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that had been managed at or managed remotely by their health-care institution (including individuals admitted to other hospitals or identified during community screening) before or during the study period.’ The vast majority of those cases were in children who had been diagnosed in hospital at the peak of the outbreak - so children who were already extremely unwell.

To quote the researchers themselves: ‘It is important to highlight that this study has primarily captured data from children and adolescents who were seen or managed within the hospital setting, and that the majority of participating units were part of tertiary or quaternary health-care institutions. Consequently, the study population is likely to primarily represent individuals at the more severe end of the disease spectrum.’

Second, it was not set up to be statistically reliable on death rate or to be representative of the population as a whole or even the hospital population - it is a cohort study with patients contributed by a self-selecting group within an invited group of institutions.

Don’t Forget The Bubbles is a great resource drawing together a lot of the latest paediatric Covid research.

Children were still at school during March. In London, the peak was around 2-3 April (would need to check exact dates). Schools closed on 20 March but we didn’t lock down until 3 days later. There was adequate time for us to see if there would be huge outbreaks in schools but they were not. The R was at its highest around this time.
I am still concerned about schools but not as concerned as some.

Children were still at school during March. In London, the peak was around 2-3 April (would need to check exact dates).

Nationally deaths peaked on 8 April. Average incubation period of 5-6 days to show symptoms, 6-7 days to become severely ill, and lowest average time from becoming symptomatic to dying is 14 days.

Meaning the peak of infection was well before schools closed. It would be very unlikely with the infection rate we had in mid-March, we would not have seen impacts in children then and over the last 5 months that will become evident in the autumn.

Here in Sweden we haven't had any deaths in children and only 23 have been in intensive care, but recovered. Our schools (up to 16) and nurseries have been fully open through out. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I've been thinking back to a day when I talked to a friend of mine in the middle of February - she's a children's A&E nurse and said they had had a crazy week with lots of really ill children with breathing problems. I do wonder if these have been checked up on now.

Schools were open for most of March in London when infections were increasing exponentially so you would expect to have seen lots of bad cases then if this were the case.

we did, we saw dozens of children in intensive care, and several deaths, in my part of London

Who is saying we didn't?

We have many children left impaired, unable to walk up stairs , for example, because of lung scarring. 2 in my tutor group alone. And a child who has not yet regained her hearing, in the same school. These might improve, or might not. No one knows.

So far, 667 children aged 0-5 and 600 aged 6-17 have been hospitalised for Corona in England.

20 of those age 0-19 have died.

I think that @mosquitofeast has identified something very important that is also referenced in the study OP linked to - that talking about all under 18s as a single group when it comes to Covid doesn’t really work as there are stark differences between 10 and under and 11-18 (as a group - obv a graduated thing as they get closer to adulthood.)

I’m assuming that as you’re talking about tutor groups, you’re discussing secondary age children. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood.

@mosquitofeast that's simply not true. The latest child data is dated 23 June. It states that across the whole of the UK 71 children had been treated in a PICU. 5 died, 65 recovered and 2 were still in PICU. If that 71 I can see data that says that at lest 18 of the children had serious underlying conditions. The current data suggests that children are more at risk of death from Treatment delays due to COVID than COVID itself.

yes, secondary age

@mosquitofeast that's simply not true

Whats not true|? Do you think |I imagined needing to go out and get new lift keys cut before we could invite my tutor group in to school for their orientation day at the end of term?

Or do you think I have dreamt having to provide a transcript for prerecorded online lesson?

Also, from the conclusion of that report -

"Considering that many children with mild disease will never have been brought to medical attention, and therefore not diagnosed, it is highly probable that the true CFR is substantially lower than the figure of 0·69% observed in our cohort. This hypothesis is further supported by an epidemiological study from China, in which the CFR in individuals aged 19 years or younger was only 0·1% (one death in 965 confirmed cases."

We need to note the difference between "CFR" and "IFR"; case fatality rate = fatality rate amongst those actually diagnosed; IFR = fatality rate for those actually infected (which will be much lower, as a considerable number of children, especially, will be undiagnosed).

It absolutely does not mean that 0.1% of children who catch CV will die, anything like it.

@Sosoblah if it was in Paris in December I am pretty sure it was here too apparently more pneumonia cases too in January

Seeing as it seems the vast majority of children are getting it with mild or limited symptoms I think it's safe to assume 582 identified cases are going to be a lot less than the reality and therefore completely throws off the 0.69% fatality risk.

No, I'm not worried.

I am not worried I cannot keep my child locked in forever he was already scared he needs normality in fact I was petrified about this virus in March but many people had it at work and all ok but saying that for everyone but a majority it is not serious

I just don't know what to think. Schools going back next week where I am.

As far as I can tell, not that many Children have been confirmed as having had COVID in the UK since testing has been offered to all. If only those in hospital are tested like what happened before, then it skews the figures for sure.

There haven't been many confirmed cases in Children since testing has been operational, or at least I think so.

Does anyone know how I'd find out a) when testing became accessible for most with symptoms, and b) how many Children total have tested positive since then and the outcomes ??

Again, I'm really not trying to scaremonger here I'm just trying to get more facts.