Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Children’s role in spread of virus bigger than thought

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

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

#41

Post by johncearls »

Someone1234 wrote: post #6
keeganpoppen wrote: post #3

this is interesting news, but it annoys me a little bit that all it really says is that children "can" carry a higher viral load... OBVIOUSLY the most salient fact is whether children are more conducive / likely to spread the virus / etc. because clearly the question is not whether children can get the virus, etc., but whether they are a more potent attack vector than the general population. or maybe people seriously…

> this is interesting news, but it annoys me a little bit that all it really says is that children "can" carry a higher viral load No it doesn't. In the first paragraph it says: > The infected children were shown to have a significantly higher level of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in ICUs for COVID-19 treatment, according to Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General H…

To me the real issue here is how did they select the children. Unfortunately, I cannot find the paper. Why don't they ever link to these things? A likely restatement of this article is, "To have even mild symptoms of COVID, children need a much higher viral load than hospitalized adults." Again, I'd love to find the paper to see if my guess is right.

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

#42

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

blub wrote: post #34
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

Isn’t it misinformation to cite “an unknown amount” and then assume the worst case scenario to bolster your argument? This is the logic of an agoraphobe.

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

#43

Post by lbeltrame »

glormph wrote: post #23
lbeltrame wrote: post #19

This study does not prove that children are more infectious. The paper only tested for viral RNA, not for infectious virus. Given that some people are clinically recovered but still have RNA in the throat, and that presence of viral RNA may not equate with live virus (see a Nature paper from two months ago), this is a rather severe limitation. Note that they may as well be: but you can't infer this from these results…

Exactly. The paper itself concludes somewhat softer that "children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms" The patient group consisted of "children ... presenting to urgent care clinics or being hospitalized for confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children", so they are pre-selected , making the role…

I still feel a little sour about this result: mainly because it's "easier" to find data on adult patients, but children data are far harder to get.

So I feel this is a wasted opportunity.

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

#44

Post by lbeltrame »

johncearls wrote: post #41
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is interesting news, but it annoys me a little bit that all it really says is that children "can" carry a higher viral load No it doesn't. In the first paragraph it says: > The infected children were shown to have a significantly higher level of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in ICUs for COVID-19 treatment, according to Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General H…

To me the real issue here is how did they select the children. Unfortunately, I cannot find the paper. Why don't they ever link to these things? A likely restatement of this article is, "To have even mild symptoms of COVID, children need a much higher viral load than hospitalized adults." Again, I'd love to find the paper to see if my guess is right.

The paper is at: https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)31023-4/fulltext

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

#45

Post by lbeltrame »

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #22

If I read correctly the they're saying they found that children have higher viral loads in their respiratory tracts. They are then making a very logical leap to assuming that this means children will more easily spread the virus. Is it possible that this assumption could be wrong? Are there no studies on the actual transmission rates from children to others vs that from adults?

> If I read correctly the they're saying they found that children have higher viral loads in their respiratory tracts

As I wrote elsewhere in the comments, the researchers have equated the quantity of viral RNA with viral load. Studies in adults have shown that this is not always the case. There's no guarantee that there is active virus there (unless you try to infect cells with what you got from the swab).

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

#46

Post by derbOac »

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.

My theory is that there's cross immunity to other coronaviruses. This is now supported by molecular research but it's been my hypothesis all along. Basically little kids are so exposed to so many other coronaviruses they have greater immunity to sars-cov-2.

I've had this prediction I'd like to test with the right data that parents of young children, and those that work with them, have lower covid rates than demographically matched controls.

Ironically this would suggest that socially distancing kids might decrease immunity in the long run.

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

#47

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

bfdm wrote: post #31
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Kids attending school in person is not.

But you're not owning up to the possible irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing, career prospects, etc.

At least be honest about the tradeoffs. If I'm saying that people are overestimating risk and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease, it's like the other side of the debate is never that open and explicit about the very serious drawbacks and costs of their choices.

Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc.

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

#48

Post by dependenttypes »

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…

> Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school

No, absolutely not.

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

#49

Post by dependenttypes »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #47
bfdm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Kids attending school in person is not. But you're not owning up to the possible irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing, career prospects, etc. At least be honest about the tradeoffs. If I'm saying that people are overestimating risk and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease, it's like the other side of the debate is never that open and explicit about the very s…

> irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing

That will be the case if they continue school.

> Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc.

With that logic you are personally responsible for suicides, health effects of bullying and school slavery, etc.

> and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease

I do not think that blaming people for expressing their opinion will be worth much to the family who just lost one of its members. It is cheap for you to accept blame and worthless to these that suffer due to following the same belief.

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

#50

Post by jshaqaw »

blub wrote: post #38
EliRivers wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From what I see in my own children, depression and developmental impairment are not fabricated risks. I’m not saying they outweigh greater public health concerns regarding the spread of the disease but the worries I have for my kids if the next school year is entirely remote go entirely beyond personal inconvenience. There are sadly no perfect solutions here.
Post reply on HN