Coronavirus (infant, infants, pattern)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

That's a de facto argument for allowing the government to prosecute parents who let children socialize as they please.

Good luck. The mask order is practically (legally) unenforceable by virtue of the fact it isn't enforced. If you think there's more chance than that to successfully prosecute people for letting their kids have a life, I say go for it. Once all these cases hit the courts, I expect the legal challenges to drag on for years or decades as the constitutional issue is meted out. This is precisely why it won't happen too.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

We don't know enough about this virus to draw conclusions about its risk to chlldren.

Oh, I'm with you on that but it cuts both ways. In fact, I'm with you on we don't know enough about most aspects of this virus to draw solid conclusions about anything. We can surmise that the shut down helped stem the spread and reopening increased new cases, and that masks have some effectiveness in particular situations and we can extrapolate mortality to some degree. Other than that, there's no absolutes.


But yes, I'm well aware of mis-c. I'm also aware that kids can get hit by cars, drown in pools, be abducted by nutcases, fall and hit their heads, have jets crash on top of them and a whole host of other dangers, all of which have happened in San Diego at some time or another. But there's only so much bubble wrap to go around. And as much as we don't know about covid, we do know quite a lot about depriving children of normal socialization and that's why people aren't just locking their kids up in a closet until this all ends (which may be never). That doesn't mean throw caution to the wind and let them do whatever they want, but it does mean an allowance to let them live their lives as a kid. Like I said, it's a weighed risk like everything else.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Oh, I'm with you on that but it cuts both ways. In fact, I'm with you on we don't know enough about most aspects of this virus to draw solid conclusions about anything. We can surmise that the shut down helped stem the spread and reopening increased new cases, and that masks have some effectiveness in particular situations and we can extrapolate mortality to some degree. Other than that, there's no absolutes.


But yes, I'm well aware of mis-c. I'm also aware that kids can get hit by cars, drown in pools, be abducted by nutcases, fall and hit their heads, have jets crash on top of them and a whole host of other dangers, all of which have happened in San Diego at some time or another. But there's only so much bubble wrap to go around. And as much as we don't know about covid, we do know quite a lot about depriving children of normal socialization and that's why people aren't just locking their kids up in a closet until this all ends (which may be never). That doesn't mean throw caution to the wind and let them do whatever they want, but it does mean an allowance to let them live their lives as a kid. Like I said, it's a weighed risk like everything else.

I would be more worried about kids spreading the virus rather than dying from it.

A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.

The findings suggest that as schools reopen, communities will see clusters of infection take root that include children of all ages, several experts cautioned.

“I fear that there has been this sense that kids just won’t get infected or don’t get infected in the same way as adults and that, therefore, they’re almost like a bubbled population,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota.

“There will be transmission,” Dr. Osterholm said. “What we have to do is accept that now and include that in our plans.”

Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

The new study “is very carefully done, it’s systematic and looks at a very large population,” Dr. Jha said. “It’s one of the best studies we’ve had to date on this issue.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/h...YHCKz6fLE4ZMvo

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by joosoon

yes, I'm well aware of mis-c. I'm also aware that kids can get hit by cars, drown in pools, be abducted by nutcases, have jets crash on top of them and a whole host of other dangers...

...none of which will happen inside a school. And the medical threats from COVID that we don't even know about may happen.

Originally Posted by joosoon

but there's only so much bubble wrap to go around.

I'm not into bubble wrapping them. But this is a tough time for parents of any age kid going back to school next month or this fall, including college students who are headed back to dorms. More time is needed to gather information about this virus.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Good luck. The mask order is practically (legally) unenforceable by virtue of the fact it isn't enforced. If you think there's more chance than that to successfully prosecute people for letting their kids have a life, I say go for it. Once all these cases hit the courts, I expect the legal challenges to drag on for years or decades as the constitutional issue is meted out. This is precisely why it won't happen too.

You're Looker now?

Any small community that isn't allowing kids back in school could just put a draconian curfew on them instead of using old-fashioned laws such as child neglect on many parents.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Any small community that isn't allowing kids back in school could just put a draconian curfew on them ...

Once again, good luck.

This is about as likely as your private gathering idea is to happen.


I'm guessing you don't have kids or else you'd be able to relate to what I'm saying. Locking them up for the duration of a virus which may likely become endemic, is not really an option. Ours have been total champions during all this and I'm super proud of how they've dealt with it. If you think tightening the screws on already stressed kids is going to help, I encourage you to contact your representatives and tell them to revoke Newsom's emergency powers so they can get to work crafting all these gestapo measures instead.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I would be more worried about kids spreading the virus rather than dying from it.

Sure, and that is a concern because extended family are high risk. But that's why we take precautions around them.


But I still think that we would've seen a surge just after schools were closed if kids are major carriers. If there had been a pattern in April where lots of adults who work at schools were diagnosed with covid, there would be really good evidence for that being the case. That would've been a real world example of proof, better than any modeling could predict. With the near certainty that the virus was here as far back as February and possibly earlier, the likelihood it stayed out of the school system for all that time is low. That's my opinion, of course -- not asserting it as fact.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

...none of which will happen inside a school.

We were talking about kids playing together in the neighborhood. That's been going on since the shutdown to some degree, moreso now as this drags on for months. CDC even factored this into their earliest figures about the effectiveness of school closures. Kids still congregate in spite of the school environment not being there. It's just a fact of life.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Once again, good luck.

This is about as likely as your private gathering idea is to happen.


I'm guessing you don't have kids or else you'd be able to relate to what I'm saying. Locking them up for the duration of a virus which may likely become endemic, is not really an option. Ours have been total champions during all this and I'm super proud of how they've dealt with it. If you think tightening the screws on already stressed kids is going to help, I encourage you to contact your representatives and tell them to revoke Newsom's emergency powers so they can get to work crafting all these gestapo measures instead.

Some children scarcely socialized offline before the pandemic. Get yours dogs to play with. Once there is a safe, moderately effective vaccine, kids will be required to get it before going back to school for that semester. It looks like high school students in particular spread virus almost like adults and currently are too social. Society is the priority, and strictness is what ends the pandemic.

Or move to a place where the virus is under enough control that schools are open. A trickle of parents are doing that.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Sure, and that is a concern because extended family are high risk. But that's why we take precautions around them.


But I still think that we would've seen a surge just after schools were closed if kids are major carriers. If there had been a pattern in April where lots of adults who work at schools were diagnosed with covid, there would be really good evidence for that being the case. That would've been a real world example of proof, better than any modeling could predict. With the near certainty that the virus was here as far back as February and possibly earlier, the likelihood it stayed out of the school system for all that time is low. That's my opinion, of course -- not asserting it as fact.

It's probably the opposite of fact, false. Didn't I already tell you that by the time it was drizzling in the general population, the schools were already closed? Therefore, your early-spring case study did not actually happen.

Wishing the virus is not a big deal empowers it.