This isn’t really in question anymore, though all science is open to improvement. Numerous studies have indicated this is true. Can you please show me why the scientific consensus on this is wrong?
I think children are a little tougher than you give them credit for.
5 Likes
I’m curious how old your kids are. The evidence is pretty strong that elementary and even middle schools are not major vectors for transmission. But high school students are basically and sometimes legally adults and there is a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about what role 13-18 year olds play in transmission.
TAS teacher, by the way.
1 Like
Nine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-macron-idUSKBN20Z3D4
“From Monday, until further notice, nurseries, schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, will be closed. For a simple reason: Our children and young people, according to our scientists, are the ones that spread the virus the quickest, even if they have no symptoms.”
March 2020? Seriously? Where is the empirical evidence?
Umm… There are clearly posters questioning your claims.
This story sends a bit of a chill down my spine.
1 Like
All empirical evidence. The science on this is pretty clear at this point.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n524
From link above:
" As children have mild forms of disease and teachers are able to protect themselves effectively—their rate of infection is similar to that of adults of the same age and sex2—the biggest risk associated with schools lies in transmission of the virus from children to parents and grandparents vulnerable to developing severe forms of covid-19. Infected children, particularly those younger than 10 years, are probably less contagious than infected adults.78 Nonetheless, schools may contribute to community transmission, and some,11 but not all,12 models consider school closures an important component of epidemic control. The emerging consensus is that schools do not seem to be amplifiers of transmission, and that cases in schools simply reflect prevalence within the local community.2"
Unfortunately too many people enjoy digging their head in sand to entertain their certitudes.
Yet in the America, the number of deaths with Covid (not from Covid) for kids under 18 is about 270. No known transmission to my knowledge has happened from a child to a teacher. Almost everyone agrees that kids are less likely to contract the disease, less likely to transmit it, and less likely to suffer severe repercussions from it. Telling kids they are the primary source of transmission is anti-scientific and psychological abuse.
1 Like
Hey, don’t pull me into your pie fight. This thread is about the danger to children and the article I linked discusses that in depth with real life examples of that.
I’m not interested in pie fights. I’m interested in facts.
Only “less likely to suffer severe repercussions from it” see link above.
From article:
"Data collected globally have previously shown that schools can reopen safely when community transmission is low.
But even in places where community infections were on the rise, outbreaks in schools were uncommon, particularly when precautions were taken to reduce transmission. "
So risk is real. Teachers should encourage student to take precaution.
I totally take your point that explaining to a 9 year old that someone might die if he doesn’t wear a mask is not a constructive pedagogic approach. But I don’t think that the argument is wrong in itself.