Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought • Hacker News Board

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#31

Post by bfdm » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #29

fileeditview wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school. Making this about economics is nonsense. It increasingly baffles me how we accept all kinds of risk every day (e.g. traffic) but in the case of Corona forbid children very important parts of their childhood, while allowing all kinds of other use…

I think there's an interesting rhetorical split and contradiction. The same politic groups, that would argue that teachers are the heroes of society that we can't live without, are now arguing that school must under no circumstance resume. We must indefinitely put off in-person schooling. What? Is this the best we can do? Does this even measure up with scientific reality and risk calculation? Are teachers really that…

Buying food is necessary to stay alive. Kids attending school in person is not.

If there were a real plan in place to ensure safety, and if adults were willing to sacrifice in other areas like going out to bars then school could work if we had consistent isolated groups.

As it stands, at least in Ontario, there's been a strong push to "open up" bars and restaurants etc which to me is public mixing incompatible with the mixing of students in a class. Pick one: school or everything else.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#32

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

dripton wrote: post #14

threatofrain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope most 17-year-olds don't need babysitters. From a national perspective of producing competitive individuals in an increasingly international landscape? Yes, they do. They need at least a few hours of their day coached by an institution to direct their energies towards their studies. Otherwise Khan Academy would already solve 85% of the problems, because it is closely aligned to state curricula.

That's education, not babysitting. I totally agree that high school is important, but it should be geared more for teaching than for supervision. While elementary school does both.

And Khan Academy is the proxy for education without supervision. If teenagers didn't need supervision, than Khan Academy would already be doing 85% of the job, as it's a top-notch resource for education.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#33

Post by blub » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

fileeditview wrote: post #26

nickff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The push to start school is based on the perceived economic necessity (arguably a cost-benefit analysis), of providing childcare for parents of children between the ages of 5 and 17.

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school. Making this about economics is nonsense. It increasingly baffles me how we accept all kinds of risk every day (e.g. traffic) but in the case of Corona forbid children very important parts of their childhood, while allowing all kinds of other use…

No one's arguing that they should be locked down alone in a room for the duration of the pandemic. They'll spend time with their family and probably see at least some friends.

Somehow kids are able to survive summer holidays or home schooling without grave developmental consequences.

This is purely about economic consequences and it's a calculated risk that the outbreaks in schools will be able to be contained without having to shut down the entire educational system again and forcing families to both work and take care of their kids.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#34

Post by blub » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #29

fileeditview wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school. Making this about economics is nonsense. It increasingly baffles me how we accept all kinds of risk every day (e.g. traffic) but in the case of Corona forbid children very important parts of their childhood, while allowing all kinds of other use…

I think there's an interesting rhetorical split and contradiction. The same politic groups, that would argue that teachers are the heroes of society that we can't live without, are now arguing that school must under no circumstance resume. We must indefinitely put off in-person schooling. What? Is this the best we can do? Does this even measure up with scientific reality and risk calculation? Are teachers really that…

Schools and kindergartens even more are the perfect environment for spreading diseases and especially respiratory viruses. Spending multiple hours in a closed, often poorly ventilated room often without wearing masks is a recipe for disaster.

You're also misinformed about the risks to young people. An unknown amount of mild courses (I've read about estimates of 10%) result in long-term damage, just like with SARS. These people are called COVID long-haulers.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#35

Post by EliRivers » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

brandon272 wrote: post #20

It's baffling to me that there has ever been much of a question over whether kids can get and spread the virus to begin with. Many people seem to have taken the "kids are less impacted when infected" and converted it to a "kids can't get infected" or "kids don't spread the virus" conclusion. The provincial government where I live was recently excoriated for coming up with one of the weakest back-to-school plans in th…

Was there really a question? Or did our policymakers start from the required conclusion - the peasantry go back to work - and from there infer backwards to "their children need to go back to school so that said peasantry can go back to work"?

With that kind of thinking, I can understand that they don't actually have any idea about the transmission of Covid amongst children; they don't need that information as it has little bearing on the required conclusion.

I have presented something of a leading question. I know what I think the answer is.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#36

Post by blub » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #13

dripton wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope most 17-year-olds don't need babysitters. We can probably split the difference some on this between elementary school (where the babysitting really is kind of economically important) and the older kids.

> I hope most 17-year-olds don't need babysitters. From a national perspective of producing competitive individuals in an increasingly international landscape? Yes, they do. They need at least a few hours of their day coached by an institution to direct their energies towards their studies. Otherwise Khan Academy would already solve 85% of the problems, because it is closely aligned to state curricula.

Judging by the emotional fragility of college students and adults in the US, but also other countries which feel that words are violence and feel unsafe at the slightest sign of criticism of their ideas you might have a point that there's high demand for babysitters.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#37

Post by blub » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

gammarator wrote: post #28

The study does not support the article title. Viral load is not the same as contribution to epidemiological spread. The best study I'm aware of suggests an age-dependent effect, with older kids infecting others at about the adult rate, but young kids causing very little secondary infection: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-childr...

Which intuitively makes no sense, as any parent of toddlers or kindergarten kids can testify.

This virus would have to be unlike any other respiratory virus for young kids not to infect others.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#38

Post by blub » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #35

brandon272 wrote: post #20

It's baffling to me that there has ever been much of a question over whether kids can get and spread the virus to begin with. Many people seem to have taken the "kids are less impacted when infected" and converted it to a "kids can't get infected" or "kids don't spread the virus" conclusion. The provincial government where I live was recently excoriated for coming up with one of the weakest back-to-school plans in th…

Was there really a question? Or did our policymakers start from the required conclusion - the peasantry go back to work - and from there infer backwards to "their children need to go back to school so that said peasantry can go back to work"? With that kind of thinking, I can understand that they don't actually have any idea about the transmission of Covid amongst children; they don't need that information as it has…

I don't think it's just the government, at least based on what I see in e.g. Germany.

Society has decided that kids have to go back to school because anything else is just too inconvenient. The lame excuses about lower transmission rates and the risk of developmental impairment are conveniently put forward to justify the decision.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#39

Post by fileeditview » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #33

fileeditview wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school. Making this about economics is nonsense. It increasingly baffles me how we accept all kinds of risk every day (e.g. traffic) but in the case of Corona forbid children very important parts of their childhood, while allowing all kinds of other use…

No one's arguing that they should be locked down alone in a room for the duration of the pandemic. They'll spend time with their family and probably see at least some friends. Somehow kids are able to survive summer holidays or home schooling without grave developmental consequences. This is purely about economic consequences and it's a calculated risk that the outbreaks in schools will be able to be contained withou…

Maybe this is true for older children. For younger ones i cannot agree. Children go through various phases which are very important in their development. You cannot just postpone them.

Having the family (often only parents) around and maybe 1-2 friends from time to time is vastly different from a class of 20-30 pupils.

Also remember that the summer holidays you mention don't disappear. They additionally increase the time of separation. Especially this year where a lot of families won't go on vacation as usual.

Re: Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

#40

Post by johncearls » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #37

gammarator wrote: post #28

The study does not support the article title. Viral load is not the same as contribution to epidemiological spread. The best study I'm aware of suggests an age-dependent effect, with older kids infecting others at about the adult rate, but young kids causing very little secondary infection: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-childr...

Which intuitively makes no sense, as any parent of toddlers or kindergarten kids can testify. This virus would have to be unlike any other respiratory virus for young kids not to infect others.

I think the rationale is that the primary way SARSCOV2 is spread is via droplets in the air. The most effective way of doing that is coughing and sneezing, i.e. being symptomatic of a respiratory infection. Children are generally asymptomatic with SC2 and likely remain infected for shorter time frames as SC2 never really gets a strong foothold. These factors make the spreading of SC2 from children likely.