Children may transmit coronavirus at the same rate as adults: what we now know about schools and COVID-19

[2greys]

The role children, and consequently schools, play in the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard to work out, but that puzzle is now finally starting to be solved.

The latest research shows infections in children frequently go undetected, and that children are just as susceptible as adults to infection. Children likely transmit the virus at a similar rate to adults as well.

While children are thankfully much less likely than adults to get seriously ill, the same isn’t true for the adults that care for them. Evidence suggests schools have been a driver of the second wave in Europe and elsewhere. This means the safety of schools needs an urgent rethink.

Infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in children are generally much more mild than in adults and easy to overlook. A study from South Korea found the majority of children had symptoms mild enough to go unrecognised, and only 9% were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset.

theconversation.com/childre...

[teenieleek]

That’s worrying. Is this primary as well as secondary-aged children? I’ve just taken the decision to risk seeing my grandchildren between Christmas and New Year for the first time since February!

[2greys in reply to teenieleek]

I am sorry, but unfortunately it does seem possible, it is not saying it is a certainty but has an element of risk. You can minimise that risk with ventilation and keeping a visit as short as possible, especially with close contact. Sharon and I will not be seeing our children and grandson hard as it will be. My daughter and her husband, son will will not be seeing her in-laws either or her mother.

In our case, it is to protect the residents of the nursing home, who are not only elderly but also have comorbidities as well.

quote/ "At a minimum, precautionary measures should include the use of face masks by staff and students (including primary school students). Schools should also improve ventilation and indoor air quality, reduce class sizes, and ensure kids and staff practise hand hygiene."

[teenieleek in reply to 2greys]

I have been so careful but we’ve rented a cottage halfway between because no one wanted to risk flying, only for three nights, two days, son, dil, two children under 6 and the two of us. They’re in Surrey with not too high numbers, our number is 82 per 100k. We will just stay at the cottage (with swimming pool!). It’s a risk but what I can’t decide is how big a risk and is it worth taking? No one can answer that but me. Maybe wee Nicola or Boris will decide for me. I just think it’s rough that those whose family live two streets away and who have been seeing them, albeit in a restricted fashion, all year will now be allowed to have 2/3 households together for a couple of days at Christmas while those of us with far-flung family will be stymied by a too-narrow window.

[sassy59]

Doctor John Campbell mentioned this a while back so maybe testing in schools should be more rigorous and happen now.

Our granddaughter is spending more time at home than at school. She’s be sent home twice because a child or adult in another class tested positive and of course had to be home when her dad had covid. She’s 6 and in year one.

Government are too slow to act as children have been drivers of covid from the very beginning in my opinion. They carry all sorts so need regular testing. Dear me. Xxxx

[2greys in reply to sassy59]

I totally agree they should all be tested before Christmas, the temptation and expectation to see other family members like grandparents will be overbearingly huge.

[teenieleek in reply to 2greys]

Well, events have overtaken me. As I suspected, if I want to see my family I will have to break the law. This is so unfair and designed to obviate the situation where the many do exactly as they want in complete disregard of the rules. “They” have made the rules to accommodate them. Three households could be 15 or more, for five days in a tiny house, but I’m not allowed to have two days with another two adults and two children? I am past scunnered. This must be a Scottish word as it’s just acquired a dotted line. Great word, means: sickened, brassed off, fed up to the nth degree, said through gritted teeth with a touch of venom.

Look out for a picture in the papers of a 69 year old who’s been shielding for 10 months in handcuffs because she wanted to see her grandchildren.

[2greys in reply to teenieleek]

My lips are sealed, I know nuffin'.

[HungryHufflepuff in reply to teenieleek]

I'm really sorry to know about your plans. 💐

[Alberta56 in reply to HungryHufflepuff]

Me too. xx

[Ergendl in reply to teenieleek]

Virtual ((((hugs))))

[HungryHufflepuff]

I also saw your post about the number of children not in school. I can believe this. A Friend of mine has two boys. The oldest had to get a test as someone in his class tested positive. The son also tested positive so had to be off school for two weeks. Then my friend and the younger son got sick though weren't tested, but most likely had the virus as had all the symptoms. It seems children get and pass on the virus quite easily though seem to recover well (without knowing any long term effects) but are out of school a lot as a consequence.

[Lesleyr14]

Some kids who tested positive and were supposed to be self isolating, are out and about with their friends!I know this as I am a secondary teacher, and had to self isolate a couple of weeks ago due to a kid in my class having a positive test, yet she was seen out and about when she should have been self isolating!

Whilst this is just one incident, I cannot believe that it would be the only incident!

[MoyB in reply to Lesleyr14]

My daughter works in a school. A colleague from another school nearby reported that 3 children from one 'isolating' family were seen playing daily in the street with other children from the school and the games included rough and tumble so a lot of close contact. Ridiculous! Xx Moy

[Lfcpremier]

Yes. I have been campaigning for the children to break up from school a week earlier than the 18th Dec to ensure they have 2clear weeks & do not risk passing the virus on. Also protects the staff from schools.The days lost could be added on to Spring or Summer terms. Seems logical to me but the powers that be have no sense.

[Alberta56]

This is a bad situation. So sad for people who have been kept apart from their loved ones for ages and are now expected to spend Christmas without seeing them.😞😢😧

[Tempo57]

My husband and I have been saying this to each other for a while now. Just because most of the youngsters don’t show symptoms it’s obvious they can carry it and therefore pass it on. It’s a given knowing the basics of how transmission takes place.

My husband and I tested positive for the virus a second time in late September. My symptoms were extremely mild, more likely because it was my second time around with it. (My husbands symptoms were flu like aches and pains for a couple of days). However I am certain that I’d have been able to pass it on to others even though I felt well. I must have been a carrier during that time. We both isolated for 16 days. I consequently began decorating a bedroom from top to bottom the day after the positive test and during isolation, not only for something to occupy ourselves with, but also because we were both fit enough to carry on. The longer we stayed in isolation, the better chance we had of protecting others by making sure our bodies had wiped it out.

This has to be the same with children. They must be carriers of it. It sounds awful but we stay away from all kids. We even cross the road if we see them coming towards us! We know that these ‘unmasked’ youngsters could be possible carriers of the virus, (unknowingly of course). So as a joke, we whisper to each other “Covid-Kids, stay clear”!

We believe that schools and universities are far more responsible for spreading this virus than pubs are. When the kids returned to School this autumn the virus rate rose significantly. But the so called scientific advisor experts, such as Witty et al, decided pubs were the main source of spread.

Maybe they don’t visit pubs....!