Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2020 3:28 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5176
So........ the alma mater of one of our ex Prime Ministers (and deputy Prime Minister), St Ignatius Riverview, had to close down on day one of reopening.

Pupil infected with Covid 19

:?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
The school today said that from June 8th the nursery and reception and year 6 can go back to school , with all these spacing / staggering / no soft toys out kind of conditions.
My youngest won’t be going back on this date and will stay at home with her year 3&4 siblings, at least for June whilst I’m on furlough and there is a few weeks of medical knowledge about effects (if any) of loosening lockdown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
backrow wrote:
The school today said that from June 8th the nursery and reception and year 6 can go back to school , with all these spacing / staggering / no soft toys out kind of conditions.
My youngest won’t be going back on this date and will stay at home with her year 3&4 siblings, at least for June whilst I’m on furlough and there is a few weeks of medical knowledge about effects (if any) of loosening lockdown.



Be careful Yeeb, there’s thunder storms today and in your world a very good chance you’ll be hit by lightning.... stay home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
bimboman wrote:
backrow wrote:
The school today said that from June 8th the nursery and reception and year 6 can go back to school , with all these spacing / staggering / no soft toys out kind of conditions.
My youngest won’t be going back on this date and will stay at home with her year 3&4 siblings, at least for June whilst I’m on furlough and there is a few weeks of medical knowledge about effects (if any) of loosening lockdown.



Be careful Yeeb, there’s thunder storms today and in your world a very good chance you’ll be hit by lightning.... stay home.


Try taking a day off from being a dick


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
backrow wrote:
bimboman wrote:
backrow wrote:
The school today said that from June 8th the nursery and reception and year 6 can go back to school , with all these spacing / staggering / no soft toys out kind of conditions.
My youngest won’t be going back on this date and will stay at home with her year 3&4 siblings, at least for June whilst I’m on furlough and there is a few weeks of medical knowledge about effects (if any) of loosening lockdown.



Be careful Yeeb, there’s thunder storms today and in your world a very good chance you’ll be hit by lightning.... stay home.


Try taking a day off from being a dick



Mate, there’s a genuine risk of lightning strikes. Get under the sofa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6562
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9604
Location: Ultracrepidaria
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

Unfortunately this also seems to apply to the schools.
It's an utter nonsense what they're doing at my lads school. Banning books, 5 kids in s classroom being told not to get close to each other and nor allowed to play together at break times. This is for reception and year 1.
I'd certainly take yeebs attitude if I had a kid that age. What is the point of school in those conditions?

Year 6 are more not going back until there's room for them, as the whole school has five kids per classroom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
message #2527204 wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

Unfortunately this also seems to apply to the schools.
It's an utter nonsense what they're doing at my lads school. Banning books, 5 kids in s classroom being told not to get close to each other and nor allowed to play together at break times. This is for reception and year 1.
I'd certainly take yeebs attitude if I had a kid that she. What is the point of school in those conditions?

Year 6 are more not going back until there's room for them, as the whole school has five kids per classroom.



It’s a nonsense from unions that want to stay shut until September.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26481
bimboman wrote:
backrow wrote:
bimboman wrote:
backrow wrote:
The school today said that from June 8th the nursery and reception and year 6 can go back to school , with all these spacing / staggering / no soft toys out kind of conditions.
My youngest won’t be going back on this date and will stay at home with her year 3&4 siblings, at least for June whilst I’m on furlough and there is a few weeks of medical knowledge about effects (if any) of loosening lockdown.



Be careful Yeeb, there’s thunder storms today and in your world a very good chance you’ll be hit by lightning.... stay home.


Try taking a day off from being a dick



Mate, there’s a genuine risk of lightning strikes. Get under the sofa.


I think yeeb’s youngest may have an underlying condition. I could be wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Yup, middle one - she’s fine but technically in the ‘higher risk’ bracket and we get sent lots of nhs stuff about her for extra precautions and stuff. And guess what, one of the precautions is ‘try extra hard not to get into contact with a virus sufferer’


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18453
backrow wrote:
Yup, middle one - she’s fine but technically in the ‘higher risk’ bracket and we get sent lots of nhs stuff about her for extra precautions and stuff. And guess what, one of the precautions is ‘try extra hard not to get into contact with a virus sufferer’


Not that my boy is year 1 or 6, nor in an at risk group, but if he was, or anyone living with me was, he wouldn't be going to school either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10591
6.Jones wrote:
Lorthern Nights wrote:
backrow wrote:
Whenever the school says for my kids to go back, I’m adding a few weeks onto that just to be sure. Council can do one if they think I’m takeing even a tiny chance with my own kids, i want to be sure there are no blips or increase in infection rates.


Based on what exactly? Have your kids got pre-existing conditions that make them more vulnerable?

This sort of stuff is why so many kids are driven to school because of the potential pedo hiding around every corner.


It's a bit different to that. The latest numbers from every empirical study [regardless of what Bimbo say] show children get the disease at about the same rate as adults. This is a new disease, and we don't have enough data yet [or time] to determine the long term effects on anyone, and that includes children. We don't know where in the body of children the disease makes a home, because we haven't had enough dead children to cut up and find out.

It's absolutely right that the mortality rate is low, but that's not the only thing to consider. If you look at the Chinese data, about 5% of children experience severe or critical symptoms. We have no idea what the long term effects of those are. It could be lifelong illness. It might be death, months or years later, like the polio virus or HIV. The only data we do have is the child mortality rate, one data point, six months in. That may bear no resemblance to the child mortality rate, one year in.

This is a global pandemic, and a serious illness. We all have to continue to be extremely careful, or it could be raging twice [or ten times] as badly in a year. There's this bizarre confidence that we've beaten it. We haven't. We've beaten it back, by social distancing. It has no resemblance to unfounded fears of child predators.


Groucho,

You have already said you dont have children but you will understand that parents make calls on what they deem as an acceptable level of risk and what is not every day. This will differ from household to household.

On this I am more than prepared to send the kids back asap as what i am seeing and you will not be as you dont have kids is that this lockdown is harming them more than, in my opinion, the chance of them ending up with complications from this virus, of which the evidence is weak at best. My kids have no underlying health issues but are most definitely suffering from the lack of social interaction that is a huge part of their lives and helps build balanced well rounded adults.

I am no different to any other parent here who will do anything for their kids and do the best to prepare them for the outside world, which believe it or not is full of risk and its our duty as parents to teach them on how to evaluate those risks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 926
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
Lorthern Nights wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Lorthern Nights wrote:
backrow wrote:
Whenever the school says for my kids to go back, I’m adding a few weeks onto that just to be sure. Council can do one if they think I’m takeing even a tiny chance with my own kids, i want to be sure there are no blips or increase in infection rates.


Based on what exactly? Have your kids got pre-existing conditions that make them more vulnerable?

This sort of stuff is why so many kids are driven to school because of the potential pedo hiding around every corner.


It's a bit different to that. The latest numbers from every empirical study [regardless of what Bimbo say] show children get the disease at about the same rate as adults. This is a new disease, and we don't have enough data yet [or time] to determine the long term effects on anyone, and that includes children. We don't know where in the body of children the disease makes a home, because we haven't had enough dead children to cut up and find out.

It's absolutely right that the mortality rate is low, but that's not the only thing to consider. If you look at the Chinese data, about 5% of children experience severe or critical symptoms. We have no idea what the long term effects of those are. It could be lifelong illness. It might be death, months or years later, like the polio virus or HIV. The only data we do have is the child mortality rate, one data point, six months in. That may bear no resemblance to the child mortality rate, one year in.

This is a global pandemic, and a serious illness. We all have to continue to be extremely careful, or it could be raging twice [or ten times] as badly in a year. There's this bizarre confidence that we've beaten it. We haven't. We've beaten it back, by social distancing. It has no resemblance to unfounded fears of child predators.


Groucho,

You have already said you dont have children but you will understand that parents make calls on what they deem as an acceptable level of risk and what is not every day. This will differ from household to household.

On this I am more than prepared to send the kids back asap as what i am seeing and you will not be as you dont have kids is that this lockdown is harming them more than, in my opinion, the chance of them ending up with complications from this virus, of which the evidence is weak at best. My kids have no underlying health issues but are most definitely suffering from the lack of social interaction that is a huge part of their lives and helps build balanced well rounded adults.

I am no different to any other parent here who will do anything for their kids and do the best to prepare them for the outside world, which believe it or not is full of risk and its our duty as parents to teach them on how to evaluate those risks.


I don't have school age children. I do have children. Three. One finished school and two too young. So I'm familiar with the choices parents make. I'm also familiar with home schooling. We home schooled [or more accurately travel schooled] for a year and my eldest suffered no ill effects from that, social or otherwise.

I disagree with most people here on what the odds are, and how they work in this situation. You don't take existential risks on irreplaceable assets at unknown odds. You don't risk your house on a surefire thing unless it's really surefire.

We really won't know the odds on the childhood effects of this virus for another six months or a year. We do know it causes serious cell damage in severe cases in adults. We don't yet know where or how that manifests in children. We know about the same proportion of children as adults get seriously sick. We don't know what the long-term effects of that are.

These are serious risks: not million-to-one longshots. I think people are making really bad choices, but it's their choice to make. Some people have no choice, and that's unfortunate. But, in my opinion, people with choices should keep their kids home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11964
Clouseau wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?

The point being there's a good chance there's no feasible way to minimise risk and return to normal. (Unlikely but very much in the ball park)

How long do you wait it out before it's genuinely a detriment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
Wendigo7 wrote:
Clouseau wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?

The point being there's a good chance there's no feasible way to minimise risk and return to normal. (Unlikely but very much in the ball park)

How long do you wait it out before it's genuinely a detriment?

That's the really tricky question for risk avoiders. There may never be a vaccine, in which case we pretty much have to get on with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
6.Jones wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Clouseau wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?

The point being there's a good chance there's no feasible way to minimise risk and return to normal. (Unlikely but very much in the ball park)

How long do you wait it out before it's genuinely a detriment?

That's the really tricky question for risk avoiders. There may never be a vaccine, in which case we pretty much have to get on with it.



Did you look at the health outcomes for children born in and around HK flu yet ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9604
Location: Ultracrepidaria
6.Jones wrote:
Lorthern Nights wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Lorthern Nights wrote:
backrow wrote:
Whenever the school says for my kids to go back, I’m adding a few weeks onto that just to be sure. Council can do one if they think I’m takeing even a tiny chance with my own kids, i want to be sure there are no blips or increase in infection rates.


Based on what exactly? Have your kids got pre-existing conditions that make them more vulnerable?

This sort of stuff is why so many kids are driven to school because of the potential pedo hiding around every corner.


It's a bit different to that. The latest numbers from every empirical study [regardless of what Bimbo say] show children get the disease at about the same rate as adults. This is a new disease, and we don't have enough data yet [or time] to determine the long term effects on anyone, and that includes children. We don't know where in the body of children the disease makes a home, because we haven't had enough dead children to cut up and find out.

It's absolutely right that the mortality rate is low, but that's not the only thing to consider. If you look at the Chinese data, about 5% of children experience severe or critical symptoms. We have no idea what the long term effects of those are. It could be lifelong illness. It might be death, months or years later, like the polio virus or HIV. The only data we do have is the child mortality rate, one data point, six months in. That may bear no resemblance to the child mortality rate, one year in.

This is a global pandemic, and a serious illness. We all have to continue to be extremely careful, or it could be raging twice [or ten times] as badly in a year. There's this bizarre confidence that we've beaten it. We haven't. We've beaten it back, by social distancing. It has no resemblance to unfounded fears of child predators.


Groucho,

You have already said you dont have children but you will understand that parents make calls on what they deem as an acceptable level of risk and what is not every day. This will differ from household to household.

On this I am more than prepared to send the kids back asap as what i am seeing and you will not be as you dont have kids is that this lockdown is harming them more than, in my opinion, the chance of them ending up with complications from this virus, of which the evidence is weak at best. My kids have no underlying health issues but are most definitely suffering from the lack of social interaction that is a huge part of their lives and helps build balanced well rounded adults.

I am no different to any other parent here who will do anything for their kids and do the best to prepare them for the outside world, which believe it or not is full of risk and its our duty as parents to teach them on how to evaluate those risks.


I don't have school age children. I do have children. Three. One finished school and two too young. So I'm familiar with the choices parents make. I'm also familiar with home schooling. We home schooled [or more accurately travel schooled] for a year and my eldest suffered no ill effects from that, social or otherwise.

I disagree with most people here on what the odds are, and how they work in this situation. You don't take existential risks on irreplaceable assets at unknown odds. You don't risk your house on a surefire thing unless it's really surefire.

We really won't know the odds on the childhood effects of this virus for another six months or a year. We do know it causes serious cell damage in severe cases in adults. We don't yet know where or how that manifests in children. We know about the same proportion of children as adults get seriously sick. We don't know what the long-term effects of that are.

These are serious risks: not million-to-one longshots. I think people are making really bad choices, but it's their choice to make. Some people have no choice, and that's unfortunate. But, in my opinion, people with choices should keep their kids home.


That's exactly the opposite to all I've read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
Quote:
We know about the same proportion of children as adults get seriously sick.



Groucho, that’s absolutely untrue. If that’s your reasoning for keeping the kids off then rest assured they’re fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 926
Wendigo7 wrote:
Clouseau wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?

The point being there's a good chance there's no feasible way to minimise risk and return to normal. (Unlikely but very much in the ball park)

How long do you wait it out before it's genuinely a detriment?

I don't have the answer to that question, wish I did (and the "normal" right now is no school).
But my kids are going to wait another 2/3 weeks before going back to school*. They're handling it and so are we. Other kids and their families are not, for various reasons, and priority should be given —and is given—to them. In the meantime why should we be taking unecessary risks?

*And they walk to school by themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9604
Location: Ultracrepidaria
Clouseau wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Clouseau wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The govt have done way to good a job of scaring the shit out of everyone.

So there's no risk?

The point being there's a good chance there's no feasible way to minimise risk and return to normal. (Unlikely but very much in the ball park)

How long do you wait it out before it's genuinely a detriment?

I don't have the answer to that question, wish I did (and the "normal" right now is no school).
But my kids are going to wait another 2/3 weeks before going back to school*. They're handling it and so are we. Other kids and their families are not, for various reasons, and priority should be given —and is given—to them. In the meantime why should we be taking unecessary risks?

*And they walk to school by themselves.


Again, each to their own and their own circumstances, but the level of risk in 3 weeks time of catching it should be negligible and still negligible for doing any serious harm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 926
message #2527204 wrote:
Again, each to their own and their own circumstances, but the level of risk in 3 weeks time of catching it should be negligible and still negligible for doing any serious harm.

Yes, well that's why we (as in my family) are waiting another 3 weeks. To reduce further risk —in our opinion, whatever that's worth— of one of them catching it now, passing it on to us etc, etc.
One of the reasons we didn't put them back to school straight away was to be able to visit my parents this weekend, therefore getting back to some sort of social normality. Hope this makes sense.
But then again we might be hit by lightning this weekend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
We know about the same proportion of children as adults get seriously sick.



Groucho, that’s absolutely untrue. If that’s your reasoning for keeping the kids off then rest assured they’re fine.


What science do your read, Bimbo? There have been three large-scale studies so far. One in China by Chinese researchers. One in China by Johs Hopkins researchers. And one in Germany by German researchers. They all reach similar conclusions.

Image

So to be clear: 125 / 2140 experienced severe or critical illness. That's six percent, which is in the same ball park as adults who require hospitalization. Severe or critical COVID-19 is a nasty disease. Those are the first tier of children at risk. Those are the numbers we have to look forward to if coronavirus becomes widespread in schools, because w e won't know until symptoms appear, two weeks later.

On the related subject of viral load, if you don't trust data from China, here's what German researchers at Institute of Virology at Berlin’s Charite hospital concluded:

Quote:
Data on viral load, as estimated by real-time RT-PCR threshold cycle values from 3,712
COVID-19 patients were analysed to examine the relationship between patient age and
SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Analysis of variance of viral loads in patients of different age categories
found no significant difference between any pair of age categories including children. In
particular, these data indicate that viral loads in the very young do not differ significantly from
those of adults. Based on these results, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of
schools and kindergartens in the present situation. Children may be as infectious as adults.


Epidemiological Characteristics of 2143 Pediatric Patients With 2019 Coronavirus Disease in China
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2020/03/16/peds.2020-0702.full.pdf

Epidemiology and Transmission of COVID-19 in Shenzhen China: Analysis of 391 cases and 1,286 of their close contacts
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf

Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions. Without any numbers, it's just motivated reasoning.

No one here would risk their house on that data, would they? Put your house on the line at today's odds, and we'll finish the bet in a year when the real odds are known? Really?


Last edited by 6.Jones on Fri May 22, 2020 6:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9106
Quote:
Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions.


Sorry but :lol: :lol: :lol:

I sent my 12 yo back to school. There were 3 to 5 kids in the classroom, they wore masks, washed their hands on a regular basis.

There are risks indeed though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
Quote:
What science do your read, Bimbo? There have been three large-scale studies so far. One in China by Chinese researchers. One in China by Johs Hopkins researchers. And one in Germany by German researchers. They all reach similar conclusions.


As for the subjective table regarding , mild , moderate etc. What are the hospitalisation numbers for children in Italy , Spain or the UK?

They reach the conclusion that it’s A very low mortality risk in children?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 926
La soule wrote:
There are risks indeed though.

Yes getting hit by lightning apparently. Stay safe :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
6.Jones wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
We know about the same proportion of children as adults get seriously sick.



Groucho, that’s absolutely untrue. If that’s your reasoning for keeping the kids off then rest assured they’re fine.


What science do your read, Bimbo? There have been three large-scale studies so far. One in China by Chinese researchers. One in China by Johs Hopkins researchers. And one in Germany by German researchers. They all reach similar conclusions.

Image

So to be clear: 125 / 2140 experienced severe or critical illness. That's six percent, which is in the same ball park as adults who require hospitalization. Severe or critical COVID-19 is a nasty disease. Those are the first tier of children at risk. Those are the numbers we have to look forward to if coronavirus becomes widespread in schools, because w e won't know until symptoms appear, two weeks later.

On the related subject of viral load, if you don't trust data from China, here's what German researchers at Institute of Virology at Berlin’s Charite hospital concluded:

Quote:
Data on viral load, as estimated by real-time RT-PCR threshold cycle values from 3,712
COVID-19 patients were analysed to examine the relationship between patient age and
SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Analysis of variance of viral loads in patients of different age categories
found no significant difference between any pair of age categories including children. In
particular, these data indicate that viral loads in the very young do not differ significantly from
those of adults. Based on these results, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of
schools and kindergartens in the present situation. Children may be as infectious as adults.


Epidemiological Characteristics of 2143 Pediatric Patients With 2019 Coronavirus Disease in China
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... 2.full.pdf

Epidemiology and Transmission of COVID-19 in Shenzhen China: Analysis of 391 cases and 1,286 of their close contacts
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20028423v3

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/u ... nt-age.pdf

Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions. Without any numbers, it's just motivated reasoning.

No one here would risk their house on that data, would they? Put your house on the line at today's odds, and we'll finish the bet in a year when the real odds are known? Really?



Erm, your Some of your links won’t load ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9106
You too Clouseau.

Profite de ce temps précieux.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52003804


0.01% of deaths in the UK are in the Under 15’s .


Stop saying the risks are equal.They’re not. Children are at almost no risk of death from Corona


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5176
Lorthern Nights wrote:
I am no different to any other parent here who will do anything for their kids and do the best to prepare them for the outside world, which believe it or not is full of risk and its our duty as parents to teach them on how to evaluate those risks.


Added to the list of people to check when they complain about soft-as kids nowawadays :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
La soule wrote:
Quote:
Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions.


Sorry but :lol: :lol: :lol:

I sent my 12 yo back to school. There were 3 to 5 kids in the classroom, they wore masks, washed their hands on a regular basis.

There are risks indeed though.


Schools with social distancing is fair enough. We know that social distancing works to inhibit the spread of the disease. Here in Australia, the government has scrapped social distancing guidelines in schools as 'unachievable'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
bimboman wrote:
Erm, your Some of your links won’t load ....

Fixed. :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
bimboman wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52003804


0.01% of deaths in the UK are in the Under 15’s .


Stop saying the risks are equal.They’re not. Children are at almost no risk of death from Corona


I'm not saying that. I'm saying the risks are unknown.

I'll say it again. The incidence of serious illness in children with COVID-19 is about the same as adults. However the short term death rate is near zero. What I'm talking about are the long term risks, about which we know nothing. They aren't one in 'millions' or even one in thousands. We simply don't know.

That's not the same as unknown odds from other random events, like lurking pedophiles, or asteroids, or dirt. Sending children into the park in normal times ins;t the same as sending them to school in a pandemic. The pandemic is real. It's only just started. It presents a real risk to everyone's health.

We do know the disease works by destroying host cells. All viruses do this, with varying degrees of destructiveness of the host. We know from the German study that the viral load is the same in children and adults. For the virus to exist in those numbers, it must've destroyed about the same numbers of cells. That number of cells in the lungs kills adults in about 1% of cases. Where are the equivalent cells being destroyed in children?

The answer is, we don't know. The outcome could be either way. It may destroy cells unrelated to life. All we know is that it doesn't kill straight away, as in adults. We need to know before we can declare the virus 'safe for children'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
On a related note, there's a surreal sense of invulnerability in the world. We've beaten the virus by flattening the curve. We haven't. Unless it mutates towards safety [which it might - most viruses mutate towards safety, because entropy] it will come roaring back again. What happened in New York can happen in cities everywhere. All it needs is one case of the virus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 63001
Quote:
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the risks are unknown.

I'll say it again. The incidence of serious illness in children with COVID-19 is about the same as adults. However the short term death rate is near zero. What I'm talking about are the long term risks, about which we know nothing. They aren't one in 'millions' or even one in thousands. We simply don't know.



Again , this just isn’t true. Almost no children have been hospitalised..... are we just down grading the word “serious” to mean a bit Ill?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18453
Vroucho that table you put up about severe and fatal cases in children is clearly not correct breakdown. They have very few asymptomatic cases, yet it's well known that there's a high percentage of asymptomatic cases in the general population, let alone children that are reported even in your links as potentially having an even higher proportion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 56120
6.Jones wrote:
On a related note, there's a surreal sense of invulnerability in the world. We've beaten the virus by flattening the curve. We haven't. Unless it mutates towards safety [which it might - most viruses mutate towards safety, because entropy] it will come roaring back again. What happened in New York can happen in cities everywhere. All it needs is one case of the virus.


While you are correct that technically we only need one seed, the reality is that once suppressed in the current climate it shouldn't start up as quickly again if everyone is doing their job between public vigilance, physical distancing where possible, testing and tracing.

Even if people go back completely to normal the testing and tracing regimes should stop it becoming a lockdown situation again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9604
Location: Ultracrepidaria
6.Jones wrote:
La soule wrote:
Quote:
Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions.


Sorry but :lol: :lol: :lol:

I sent my 12 yo back to school. There were 3 to 5 kids in the classroom, they wore masks, washed their hands on a regular basis.

There are risks indeed though.


Schools with social distancing is fair enough. We know that social distancing works to inhibit the spread of the disease. Here in Australia, the government has scrapped social distancing guidelines in schools as 'unachievable'.


I can imagine what would happen if Williamson announced that in the UK. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3057
message #2527204 wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
La soule wrote:
Quote:
Bimbo, I get you disagree. Post some numbers that support your conclusions.


Sorry but :lol: :lol: :lol:

I sent my 12 yo back to school. There were 3 to 5 kids in the classroom, they wore masks, washed their hands on a regular basis.

There are risks indeed though.


Schools with social distancing is fair enough. We know that social distancing works to inhibit the spread of the disease. Here in Australia, the government has scrapped social distancing guidelines in schools as 'unachievable'.


I can imagine what would happen if Williamson announced that in the UK. :lol:

Tories: the baby killing party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1593
Location: London
Quote:
Children and young people could be half as likely to catch coronavirus than adults, a scientific review of studies from around the world has suggested.

Researchers found those aged under 20 had 56% lower odds of catching SARS-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus which causes the disease Covid-19, from an infected person.

But the review of global test and tracing and population screening studies, led University College London (UCL), said evidence “remains weak” on how likely children are to transmit the virus to others.

Researchers also concluded they did not have sufficient data to examine whether children under the age of 12 differed to teenagers in terms of susceptibility to the virus.

Lead author of the research, Professor Russell Viner of the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, said it was the “first comprehensive study” to review what is and is not known about “susceptibility and transmission” among children


Not sure whether that really helps at all though


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Boomslang, CarrotGawks, Hong Kong, Jay Cee Gee, RuggaBugga, sonic_attack, UncleFB, Yourmother and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group