As a result, they are much less likely to be tested during the acute phase of the virus, when they are most likely to test positive. Put differently: Why might studies find lower transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children if the transmission rate were in fact the same as that by adults? In general, the reason lies in the fact that children with Covid-19 often have very mild symptoms, if they have any symptoms at all. And the existing research has plenty of flaws.Ĭhildcare Covid thumbnail Bright Horizons Any physician or scientist can tell you that the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from a piece of research rely firmly on the methodology of the study. What caused the initial embrace of the radical idea that children under 18 do not contribute to the spread of Covid-19, as well as its equally radical revision? I don’t have the answer, but my guess is that it is a combination of things.įirst, society is rightfully eager for children to return to school – possibly causing undue optimism to ensue from a handful of early, deeply flawed studies.īut equally to blame is a lack of intellectual rigor in examining the methodologies of the existing research on the spread of Covid-19 by children. This included the AAP, who, as of August 21, amended their initial statement to read, “Children younger than 10 years may be…less likely to spread infection.” What effect did this new research have on the magic virus evangelists? They merely adjusted the magic virus age demographic downward to accommodate the latest findings. This was quickly followed by research demonstrating significant peer-to-peer spread among pediatric populations in Israel and Georgia. They found that children aged 10-19 do, in fact, spread Covid-19 just as effectively as adults, with children younger than 10 contributing to a lesser degree. In mid-July, researchers in South Korea published what is perhaps the largest and most well-designed study to date on the transmission of Covid-19 by children. Politicians bent on reopening schools seized on these recommendations, culminating in Secretary of Education Betsy Devos’ claim on July 15 that “more and more studies show that kids are actually stoppers of the disease and they don’t get it and transmit it themselves.” Devos received widespread criticism for her remarks, but, in essence, her comments were merely a rearticulation of those of the AAP without the qualifiers. It is reckless to rely on a handful of small, inconclusive epidemiologic studies to overturn the acquired knowledge of a century of research on virology. Phrases like “does not appear” and “may be less likely” were technically accurate but dangerously cavalier. They noted that, “Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2…children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection.” On June 25, the AAP issued a statement in which they forcefully advocated for the reopening of schools. Georgia teen is being persecuted for telling the truth Not to mention the presence of conflicting evidence. Never mind the paucity of the available research at the time, nor the fact that the few existing studies had serious deficiencies in their methodology. On May 5, the normally staid British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an editorial titled “Children are not Covid-19 super spreaders: time to go back to school.” The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) quickly followed suit with a similar commentary, “Covid-19 Transmission and Children: The Child is Not to Blame.” Both advocated for the reopening of schools, with the editorial from the BMJ going so far as to argue that, “Governments worldwide should allow all children back to school regardless of comorbidities.” Instead, it was quickly seized upon and amplified by highly respected medical journals. The radical nature of the hypothesis should have resulted in a pause for serious reflection by responsible scientists and physicians. With these traditional viruses, children are recognized as significant drivers of transmission. This was an astonishing hypothesis because it ran contrary to everything we know about the transmission of traditional respiratory viruses, such as influenza and the common cold, which, of course, is often caused by a type of coronavirus. The thinking went something like this: In addition to children generally having very mild disease with Covid-19, they were also very unlikely to spread the virus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |