I’ll read it then. I’m not a fan of “science” that has not been at least minimally reviewed by an impartial peer. And, if it does actually show transmission from children to adults, of course that would impact my opinion. I have actually read the SK study this one uses the data from to make its claims. What it claims the SK study says is a gross mischaracterization. The SK study says quite clearly they found no instance of a case of COVID that could be clearly attributed as coming from a child to an adult. This is the same thing studies in China, Norway, Sweeden and I believe France have found. Fairly certain that reference at least will have to be edited or removed on review.
zantax
423
Thanks for your permission. I will. Government isn’t going to hesitate to tax the wealthy to cover the shortfall. And I am not even complaining, if there was ever a time for the wealthy to help everyone out, it’s about now.
Same reason I kept paying my cleaning ladies all through this to not clean my house.
Maybe you’re confused. we were talking about it being the locals responsibility to get kids to food, or food to kids.
Why would there be 20M foreclosures pending? I’m fairly certain people with mortgages were working (most likely still are). For the ones who were laid off, they were given money to pay the bills, why would they be in foreclosure? Not to mention the fact that foreclosures don’t happen the instant you don’t pay the mortgage, it takes months for the banks to foreclose. I question the veracity of the claim.
Landlords who’ve been stiffed might have a problem. But there ain’t 20M of those around.
The SK study shows that among children ages 0-9 who were the index patient (e.g. first infected in the family) that 5.3% of family members subsequently tested positive for covid. For the 10-19 age group, the positive infection rate jumps to 18.6%.
So again, this is in direct opposition of what you believe the study to claim…
One of the final sentences in their conclusion was: "We showed that household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was high if the index patient was 10–19 years of age. "
zantax
427
Zero transmission by children is not assumed in the comparative risk calculation.
You’re probably right. I might have confused the number of people affected by foreclosures (as a household) with number of potential foreclosures. My mistake. We’ll see what the next month of data has in store for us, but I don’t expect it to be good.
Most of us are just plain dumb and we can’t be trusted.
I wear my N95 in the subway due to all of the enlightened citizens not properly wearing their masks or taking them off once seated.
wrong, that’s the conclusion these guys in their non peer reviewed study made. Not the conclusion the SK scientists who actually did the study made. When it passes peer review, let me know.
and when the process is completed and the final study is released, i’ll be happy to read it. If their claims stand up, then it may have to be taken into account when making decisions about what measures are necessary to safely open schools.
Ummm, no… guess you didn’t read it.
Study is here: Contact Tracing during Coronavirus Disease Outbreak, South Korea, 2020 - Volume 26, Number 10—October 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
Quotes I provided previously are from the link. That’s their study… not someone else drawing conclusions from their study.
So yes, these are the author’s own words. 
odd you left out these gems then
in laymans terms, since they did not test possibly asymptomatic persons, they have no idea who gave who what.
and then tell you exactly that
and social distancing causes increased spread… amazing.
except when it doesn’t
and very well could be the index patient
translation: we don’t know
we don’t know
really?
no, not really
unsupported alarmism.
and finally, you’re wrong, this is not the peer reviewed study, this is a study that used the same data and has not been reviewed.
Lets see what this says after its been peer reviewed. Maybe they can sort out the contradictions and unsupported assumptions.
Read that again slowly. High-risk groups were routinely tested, meaning if they were symptomatic or not. Puts your statement to bed real quick. But do you understand why? You think the relatively large sample size had anything to do with it?
Im not entirely clear why you have a problem with the statement above.
Again, comprehension helps. The above statement says that they determined a greater level of transmission occurring among household members, rather than increased transmission from sources outside the household. They then acknowledge the high rate of transmission within households is likely the result of performing this study during a time when social-distancing measures were in place. Logically, that only makes sense. There’s literally nothing in that statement to suggest that social distancing causes increased spread as you claimed above. They’ve only compared rates of transmission within and outside of households. Only amazing thing here is how much you bungled a pretty straight-forward statement.
Again… huh?
Potentially. Here, they’re stating the limitations to this study…. This is clearly one of them.
Applicable to the three responses above. This is not a controlled study. In any study, there are limitations. In a controlled study you can minimize those limitations, and in studies like this, the potential limitations are greater. The data collected and observations made allow them to draw their stated conclusions, while also stating the limitations to these conclusions. These are not statements of “we don’t know”… the data have led them to certain conclusions, but their confidence in those conclusions are limited by the factors stated in the paper.
Yes, really. Their statement says they observed similar rates of transmission for covid as compared to other respiratory groups amongst all age groups. The second sentence acknowledges the lower rate of transmission observed among preschoolers… one age group. Nothing contradictory with these statements whatsoever.
Umm, I never claimed this study was peer reviewed. Lol. That’s why I asked you the question before, e.g. if there are value in studies not yet peer reviewed. Perhaps this study had been linked before, but I had not seen it. You had previously discussed the Chicago and Italy study with me, but not this one.
JayJay
437
Not unsupported alarmism.
We’ve seen spread in Israel, In Georgia, and in Mississippi now, at least, where we have a child-dominated group and COVID spread happens. I know you keep wanting to blame it on the adults in the schools as the ones doing the spread (statistically it’s dubious to simply assume this)…even if this is true in every case…it shows that you open up schools, where social distancing and other mitigation factors become very difficult to maintain over the course of a seven hour day in possibly poorly ventilated rooms, you run the risk of clusters of cases that in Israel at least, led to new outbreaks that led to a countrywide spike that was bigger than the first spike they had.
Understanding that there’s a risk of community spread and spikes when schools do full reopen is not, in fact, “unsupported alarmism”.
It’s actually happening.
American politics is infused with a readiness to sacrifice people and good values at the altar of cold, calculating economic efficiency.
A new statistic from the American Academy Of Pediatrics & The Children’s Hospital Association that 97,000 children tested positive in the last two weeks of July.
That is a whole bunch of kids that could pass it on. My greatest concern is how many of those kids are going into a multi-generational home and could spread it to older folks. There is a lot of talk about the mental health of keeping kids out of schools. How about the mental health of a kid who realizes that he just made one of his family sick.
1 Like
I know very well what the study says, and I know very well what it does not say. It does not say any transmission from children to adults was shown. It in fact says they cannot detect the direction of transmission. That, is the only relevant statement in the whole study.
