# Did someone say that children are not likely to get Covid 19.



## Tintagel (16 May 2020)

Did Leo or someone recently say that children were not likely to get Covid 19?

I wonder why this was said?  Is it so schools can open, so creches can open, so grand parents can be called in to mind children, so that they don't have to be red faced for not providing child care for HSE children?

Are they really saying that they can become infected but have light symptoms?  However can they be carriers and infect others?

Yet this article seems to say different.









						Coronavirus: Children in England more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than any other age group, study warns
					

Almost one in five (18%) children aged between five and 14 years old have contracted the virus, new research suggests.




					news.sky.com


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 May 2020)

Tintagel said:


> Did Leo or someone recently say that children were not likely to get Covid 19?



No one has said that.

HIQA recently published this report, which concluded:

“There is currently limited information on the contribution of children to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Very few definitive cases of virus transmission from children have been published to date. From the small number of published studies identified, it appears that children are not, to date, substantially contributing to the household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. From one study, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children in schools is also very low.”

The report is highly qualified, like most reports on covid-19 and children, because there is not yet enough large-scale reliable data.


----------



## mathepac (18 May 2020)

Maybe you're thinking of this report from another thread :-

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

_..."And young adults and children *in normal health* have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19...."_

My interpretation is that they can catch it, develop milder than usual symptoms or even be asymptomatic, but may still pose a threat of infection with the virus to at risk groups e.g. older people or those with underlying health conditions.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 May 2020)

There are reports that coronavirus can trigger the rare inflammatory reaction "Kawasaki disease" in children... CMO Holohan has said that up to seven children in Ireland had been investigated for links to this particular disease:








						Cases of seven children investigated for inflammatory disease linked to Covid-19
					

Cases of the Kawasaki-like syndrome have been observed in children in the UK, US and Italy.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple (18 May 2020)

Of the cases identified so far in New York there have been zero fatalities in those under 18 years of age.
It is reasonable, based on what it known so far, to say that children are not in danger from Covid19. They can of course get it and infect others.


----------



## Leo (18 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Of the cases identified so far in New York there have been zero fatalities in those under 18 years of age.



Worldometers puts New York deaths in the 0-17 age group at 9 as of May 13th, 3 of whom had no underlying health condition.


----------



## mathepac (18 May 2020)

mathepac said:


> https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation


"*In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths*, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. *For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. * "


----------



## Purple (19 May 2020)

Leo said:


> Worldometers puts New York deaths in the 0-17 age group at 9 as of May 13th, 3 of whom had no underlying health condition.





mathepac said:


> "*In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths*, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. *For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. * "


Possibly because 9 out of 8.5 million is 0.000000105 so just about zero.


----------



## Leo (19 May 2020)

Purple said:


> Possibly because 9 out of 8.5 million is 0.000000105 so just about zero.



Yep, pretty close, and lower than the rate of gun deaths! It's really those 45 and over are at risk...


----------



## odyssey06 (20 May 2020)

The breakdown of Irish figures by age group (but no cross checked versus existing conditions) shows that 36 children under under 15 were hospitalised.















						A total of 36 children aged under 15 have been hospitalised with Covid-19
					

The latest county-by-county breakdown shows Leitrim, Sligo, Waterford and Carlow have the least amount of cases.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple (20 May 2020)

Hospitalised but were they admitted to an ICU and did they have a pre-existing condition? The dearth of good data and the misrepresentation of the data which is used in very frustrating.


----------



## mtk (20 May 2020)

Note WHO report on china outbreak published months ago states page 11 ...

 "Of note, people interviewed by the Joint Mission Team could not recall episodes in which transmission occurred from a child to an adult."



			https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf


----------



## odyssey06 (29 May 2020)

A study by the journal Eurosurviellance found that there was no transmission of Covid-19 among children in Ireland’s schools before they were closed by the government on 12 March. The authors suggested that the findings add to evidence that children do not appear to be drivers of Covid-19 transmission.

Full details here:








						Irish-focused study finds no evidence that Covid-19 was transmitted in schools before government closures
					

The authors suggest that evidence of transmission among school children has yet to emerge.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple (29 May 2020)

Good data here on risk to children, from children and school closures.


----------



## Drakon (1 Jun 2020)

Though we have no proof, my wife and I are convinced we got C19 from my (then) six year old. He missed a few days of school the week the schools were closed down. 
A play date of his for that week cancelled as the other kid was under the weather. 
A number of his buddies also missed school because they had “a bug”.
One of those kids, the eldest of four, was the last of his family (and foreign au pair) to catch “that thing that’s going around”.  His father had it too but was busy at work so only stayed home sick for a day or two.
By my calculations, based on what I know of C19, that father had brought C19 into his workplace around the third week in February!

I think kids are no more or no less carriers of C19, but they suffer less (my son was sick about five days, my wife and I 15 days).

Incidentally, my wife tested positive for C19 but tested negative for antibodies in the pin prick test, the first of three, the fastest and least reliable.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2020)

There were lots of other respiratory illnesses circulating in January and February. The chances are that most people in the "I think I got it too" group (including me) didn't actually get it.


----------



## Drakon (3 Jun 2020)

Possibly, but I’m referring to my own family’s case. My wife was sick and tested positive.  All her colleagues tested negative. Her only other “close contacts” (as defined) were the rest of the family. Only one of those had been sick prior to her feeling sick, that being my son, so it’s reasonable to assume she caught it from him.  It had to come from somewhere, you know. The virus didn’t just fall out of the sky!


----------



## Drakon (3 Jun 2020)

BWT, if a person tests positive then I think it’s fair to say that they don’t just fall into the “I think I got it too” group...


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2020)

True.


----------



## Leo (3 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> BWT, if a person tests positive then I think it’s fair to say that they don’t just fall into the “I think I got it too” group...



Unless of course they fall into the small group of false positives.


----------



## Drakon (3 Jun 2020)

LOL!


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2020)

I've friends where the husband got it and the wife didn't even though both were sick and displaying symptoms. Turns out she had a different infection.


----------



## Drakon (3 Jun 2020)

Poor woman. All that anguish and no antibodies to show for it.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> Poor woman. All that anguish and no antibodies to show for it.


I tolk her she had a moderate case of Man Flu.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> Incidentally, my wife tested positive for C19 but tested negative for antibodies in the pin prick test, the first of three, the fastest and least reliable.


My wife got her remaining antibody test results today. She’s tested positive. So if immunity exists, she’s immune!


----------



## Leo (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> My wife got her remaining antibody test results today. She’s tested positive. So if immunity exists, she’s immune!



Anecdotal evidence from among my wife's colleagues shows a wide discrepancy in the levels of antibodies found during testing last week. Those who are just recently recovered showed high levels while those who tested positive 12+ weeks ago had very low levels. The lower levels may relate to milder cases rather than just time since infection though. It'll be interesting to see more data to see whether there is much in the way of lasting immunity.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Not sure about her levels, I’ll asked her when she gets home. She tested positive about three months ago, was symptomatic for >2 weeks, so it’s good news that she has antibodies. 
How long they’ll be active for is anyone’s guess. 
But if antibodies aren’t active, or don’t give immunity, then no vaccine will ever work.


----------



## Purple (8 Jun 2020)

Researchers in Singapore have found people who got SARS still have antibodies, which protect from Covid19 as well, 17 years after being exposed to SARS.


----------



## Leo (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> But if antibodies aren’t active, or don’t give immunity, then no vaccine will ever work.



Could be like the flu vaccine where you need to get it every year just before flu season starts, and it lasts long enough to see you past the season. Still to early to tell.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Vaccines generate antibodies. If the antibodies don’t do their job, no vaccine will work.


----------



## Leo (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> Vaccines generate antibodies. If the antibodies don’t do their job, no vaccine will work.



Antibody levels aren't a constant! If it were that easy they'd just vaccinate everyone for every known flu strain once, rather then focus the vaccine to a subset of likely candidates each year.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Leo said:


> Antibody levels aren't a constant!



Agreed. The levels aren’t constant and they decrease with time. The antibodies of the common cold tend to last only six months. 



Leo said:


> If it were that easy they'd just vaccinate everyone for every known flu strain once, rather then focus the vaccine to a subset of likely candidates each year.



The reason there is an annual vaccine to the seasonal flu is because the flu mutates/evolves from one winter to the next.
Last years vaccine is unlike to be effective in the winter of 2020/2021.
I had the seasonal flu in 1993/1994. Anyone have that? The hallucinations?

My parents had the “Sydney Flu” of 1999/2000. People still talk about that one.


----------



## Leo (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> Agreed. The levels aren’t constant and they decrease with time. The antibodies of the common cold tend to last only six months.



So now vaccines do work...


----------



## RedOnion (8 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> The antibodies of the common cold tend to last only six months.


Really? Do you have a link to back up that statement?

"The" common cold is caused by over 200 known different viruses. That's why young kids get so many more colds than adults, as they build up antibodies to each.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

RedOnion said:


> Really? Do you have a link to back up that statement?



The Business Post’s daily Coronavirus Ireland Podcast has it a few weeks back. One of their guys (not Nadine O’Regan or Suzanne Mitchell, the presenters) had a report on vaccines and vaccines.
I listen to it on SoundCloud but AFAIK it’s on their website too.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

Leo said:


> So now vaccines do work...




Sorry, what I meant is that if C19 antibodies don’t work, there is no chance of a C19 vaccine working. 

Obviously, all the vaccines on the market, from mumps to chicken pox and so in,  work because their are valid antibodies produced by the body.
But, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, if C19 antibodies may not be “valid” (for want of a technical work), then there will be no C19 vaccine.


----------



## Drakon (8 Jun 2020)

My wife’s gone so I asked her. 
She’s had three anti-body tests. One negative and two positive. The former was a quick turnaround test, about 10 minutes. 
The other two took a few days for results. 

No antibody levels give, just that the antibody levels were high enough to give a positive result.


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> But, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, if C19 antibodies may not be “valid” (for want of a technical work), then there will be no C19 vaccine.



It's not that they're not valid, it's about how long the body maintains sufficient levels of them to produce a strong enough immune response to fight the virus. Lots of studies on this area at the moment, but it may be some time before we know.


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> ...if C19 antibodies may not be “valid” (for want of a technical work), then there will be no C19 vaccine.



By “valid” all I mean is “do the job” as opposed to “not do the job”.


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> By “valid” all I mean is “do the job” as opposed to “not do the job”.
> Binary 1 rather than Binary 0.



It's not a binary situation though. Antibodies individually will do the job, it's a matter of whether you have enough of them to overpower all the virions present in the system.


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

I’ve edited my post. Do you understand now?


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> I’ve edited my post. Do you understand now?



It's really not clear how you you arrived at no hope for a vaccine.


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

If the C19 antibodies don’t provide immunity, or there is no amount of C19 antibodies that will, no C19 vaccine will work. Simple as. 

In lay man’s terms, a vaccine that works generates sufficient antibodies without the individual ever getting sick. Those antibodies in sufficient quantities go on to give the person immunity. 

However, some have suggested any amount of C19 antibodies won’t give immunity. If this is the case, the C19 vaccine will not work.  

I’d a rough morning home-schooling my 5 yo daughter and my 7 yo son. 

Thankfully your education is not my responsibility. I soldiered on with them but with you I give up. 

I’m getting an insight into those that claim “the flu jab gives you the flu”!


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> Thankfully your education is not my responsibility. I soldiered on with them but with you I give up.



Wow, thanks for trying.



Drakon said:


> If the C19 antibodies don’t provide immunity, no C19 vaccine will work. Simple as.



Right, to try return the favour, you need to understand it's not as simple as 'I have antibodies, therefore I am immune.'  The level of antibodies present and the immune response triggered versus the level of infection present is where it's at. 

Just because you have antibodies does not mean you are automatically immune for life. Some vaccines give close to life long protection, many don't and require boosters. It's recommended for example that the Tdap vaccine is administered during every pregnancy as the effects are short lived.


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

A friend of mine tested positive for C19 back in April. He’s genuinely stumped as to where he got it. Said he’d zero contact with anyone bar his family, none of whom “were sick”.
He said he went for a run one day and swung by the shop in the way home to pickup milk, and reckons he contracted it there. 
I reckoned he got it from one of his kids, aged 8 and 11, I think. 
Anyway, he’s made an appointment with his doctor for the entire family to get antibody tests. He’s determined to either rule them in or out. But chances are, if he did get it from them, and they were asymptomatic, they won’t have the antibodies anyway.


----------



## Leo (9 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> ...and they were asymptomatic, they won’t have the antibodies anyway.



They will at some level, antibodies are not the product of symptoms. One of the drivers behind calls for more antibody testing is to determine how many asymptomatic carriers there were in the population.


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

You’re wrong, apparently, based on testing...
Another friend of mine lives in Parma. 
Here’s a text, he sent a few days back:
“

Parma hospital staff who tested positive for covid but were a symptomatic or had light symptoms all subsequently tested negative for antibodies.

“


----------



## Drakon (9 Jun 2020)

It’ll probably said by some, that those asymptomatic people from
Parma who had tested positive for C19 and are now testing negative for C19 antibodies DO, in fact, HAVE antibodies. Just NOT ENOUGH to return a positive test. 
‘Tis a disgrace, Joe, A DIZ GRACE


----------



## Leo (10 Jun 2020)

Drakon said:


> It’ll probably said by some, that those asymptomatic people from
> Parma who had tested positive for C19 and are now testing negative for C19 antibodies DO, in fact, HAVE antibodies. Just NOT ENOUGH to return a positive test.



Now you're getting it. Do you know which test kit they used there? Lots of the early ones weren't very sensitive, so lots of false negatives as they weren't able to detect lower levels.

The body always creates antibodies in response to infections as part of its natural defence.


----------



## Drakon (10 Jun 2020)

I haven’t gotten it yet, but my wife has put me on the list should the clinical trials be opened to close contacts of C19 positive cases. 

If you/anyone needs/wants to brush up on infections/antibodies/immunity, good podcast here. Marie Culliton won’t see you wrong:





__





						SoundCloud - Hear the world’s sounds
					

Explore the largest community of artists, bands, podcasters and creators of music & audio




					soundcloud.com


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Jul 2020)

Children and young adults *between the ages of 10 and 19* can transmit the coronavirus in a household just as much as older people, according to new research in South Korea.
Researchers from the South Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who studied reports of 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 patients also found that* kids 9 and younger *transmitted the virus in their households at rates that were much lower, CNN reported.
The study found that the highest COVID-19 rate at 18.6 percent for household contacts of school-age children and the lowest rates at 5.3 percent for kids younger than 9 was the middle of school closures.









						Older children may transmit COVID-19 as much as adults
					

Children and young adults between the ages of 10 and 19 can transmit the coronavirus in a household just as much as older people, according to new research in South Korea. Researchers from the Sout…




					nypost.com


----------

