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 ??

I saw some official stats recently (cant remember source, but PHE or similar) which shows how small the risk is for children. Like tiny tiny small.

@Ontopofthesunset

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.

I teach in an inner London primary school. We know of three children who required hospital treatment for Covid just after schools closed. One was very ill and took months to recover. It’s not just about the risk of death.

Lots of other children off with coughs/temps just before the school closed but we have no way of knowing if they actually had the virus or not. Many of the teachers certainly think they did although again we can’t be sure. It was definitely established in the school community as we also had parents receiving hospital treatment.

I think it is the right thing for schools to open but I struggle with the fact that our test and trace just doesn’t seem to be up to it. I really think the government should have sorted that out by now.

I'd like to find these sources. If anyone knows of any studies or sources of confirmed positive tests in Children since testing has been widely available vs fatalities in that time.

I am in an outer London suburb and am a governor at a large primary where none of the children have required hospitalisation. There have been lots of community cases though.

The ONS tracking survey (though data on age is not the strongest because of low infection rate) says ‘there is no evidence of differences in infection rates over the study period by sex and age bands’ (they test over 5s).

Oh shit, I thought the government had finally got test and trace fully operational for a while now ??

@DebLou47

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

But the big question though, is not just what percent of infections become dangerous, but how frequently can you catch it?

If the death rate is 1%, and the rate of being left disabled is 2%, and you can only catch it once, that is one scenario.

But if the death rate is 1% and the rate of being left disabled is 2%, and you can catch it 4 times a year, and without lockdown and social distancing you are likely to catch it 4 times a year, that is a completely different matter.

That means adults have an average life expectancy of 12 years, and an average of 6 more years healthy active life.

That could potentially mean the human race dying faster than reproducing, apart from anything else.

That is a worst case scenario, and the reality not likely to be anything like as bad, but no one knows. We don't know how bad it is right now, and we don't know how much worse it could be if it mutates into something nastier

@nonameme

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.

I am assuming you are in Scotland if schools are returning?

Over the entire pandemic, Scotland has recorded 165 cases in the under 15s, and zero deaths.

@nonameme it clear you have some anxiety which is spiralling because what do you want to find out exactly.

In England, we have recorded 3,551 cases in the under 10s, and 11 deaths.

My view is we really don't know.

We have to get community transmission down because we could do with kids not catching it, or spreading it.

I am concerned at people being ok with kids catching it on the hope it doesn't affect them badly.

We don't know enough really.

Sweden never shut schools.
0.05% of children tested positive
None died

www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN24G2IS

This is not to minimise risk - of course we need to be careful and respond to local rates and needs. But there is simply not evidence that reopening schools is a major risk. Personally I think the new drama on this is being led because of the US, where they have far higher rates and there is a lot of opposition to this from people who dislike trump's plans on the basis he supports them (I get it, he's dangerous and an arse, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that, the idea needs to be examined on its own merits).

@Quartz2208

Sorry, but I resent your comment. It's perfectly normal to have some level of anxiety during a pandemic ffs!! As for me wanting to 'find out exactly' , well yes I am trying to find figures. I'm assuming that the figures from when it was difficult to get tested won't be all that accurate, but since testing has been widespread, the cases in Children vs fatalities should show some more reliable information.
Don't see why that makes me an over anxious nutter tbh.

@PatriciaHolm

Thank you. Do you know where I could find case information in the 11 - 18 bracket please??

If you look at the spanish antibody study it shows that the risks of hospitalisation and death are very low for children

Some estimates of age-specific IFR :
mobile.twitter.com/GidMK/status/1290614470574665730

Ages 0-17: 0.002%

Sweden never shut schools.
0.05% of children tested positive
None died

Sweden have keep class sizes small and they are keeping yo bubbles and have the facilities and investment to do this.

We on the other hand are ramming the children into to small spaces 30 plus sizes, or hear groups
bubbles.

Bubbles is the most misleading term the government have ever used. It’s not a bubble. It’s just spin.

for Scotland -

public.tableau.com/profile/phs.covid.19#!/vizhome/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview

Zero deaths in the under 19s at all.

For England-

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England

22 deaths in the age group 10-19.

Thread on children and #COVID19, summarising the latest research:
mobile.twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1286985284102443008

25% of the kids in that study had pre existing conditions.

100% of the kids in the study had it bad enough to be identified and hospitalised.

And within SUCH a sample 0.69 % died.

You are comparing that figure to the generic flu in kids death rate? Can you not see that the entire premise of this comparison is flawed?

@Jrobhatch29

Thanks for that. Apologies, I don't know a lot about tables. So that means that from antibody testing they discovered that 180,334 Children aged 10-19 had had the virus (3.85%) , but that only 1,331 were confirmed by testing at the actual time of infection (not antibody) ?? Thanks

Firstly, I'm not trying to 'scaremonger

That is exactly what you are doing.

Definition, just in case: "the spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours"

In other words - find a sample of kids who have flu so bad they end up in a hospital setting. In that sample of hospitalised kids make sure 25% have pre existing conditions.

THEN compare rates.

Don’t compare apples and oranges.

[quote nonameme]@Jrobhatch29

Thanks for that. Apologies, I don't know a lot about tables. So that means that from antibody testing they discovered that 180,334 Children aged 10-19 had had the virus (3.85%) , but that only 1,331 were confirmed by testing at the actual time of infection (not antibody) ?? Thanks[/quote]
Yeah, they estimated how many children had had the virus using % that had antibodies

[quote nonameme]@Jrobhatch29

Thanks for that. Apologies, I don't know a lot about tables. So that means that from antibody testing they discovered that 180,334 Children aged 10-19 had had the virus (3.85%) , but that only 1,331 were confirmed by testing at the actual time of infection (not antibody) ?? Thanks[/quote]
Yes. And 253 of the 180,332 were hospitalised, and 5 died.