Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
May 4, 2011
2,029
1,010
743
Charleston, SC
https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1298618737197711360
Reporting ages like this is so frustrating. If I used the 0 to 19 agree range like most states do in this report and then called it "children" in a research report or publication, I'd get skewered. This gives a false sense of mild illness among adolescents and early adults because they're lumped in with a group that has even milder illness. Same thing for overall transmission, since children 2 to 10 have repeatedly been shown to catch and spread it less. The opposite is also true that it will make the risks look worse for younger children since most people hear "child" and think 12 or under (even the picture seems to show 10 kids around 10 years old). It's hard to blame the journalists on this one, too, because they're using the AAP language. They either need to disaggregate the data or call it children, adolescents, and in most states, young adults. Pediatricians of all people should know better.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
24,633
22,181
1,743
Isn’t it amazing how none of this started till school did.... and with no 10-14 day lag like that has occurred with every other driver..... and like hasn’t happened anywhere in the world......

Kids have been interacting in completely uncontrolled environments the entire time.....sports have been going since May.

Its a mystery......
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
6,979
6,073
1,743
OKC
We're also in week 1 of school. Let's wait to judge this for another 2 weeks.
I believe many districts have been in session for at least 2 weeks now. All we keep hearing is the media talk about student/staff cases, but the overall numbers aren't rising at least yet.
 
May 4, 2011
2,029
1,010
743
Charleston, SC
The key is NOT to stop in-person school. Kids getting COVID should not be perceived as a negative. The key is to keep kids away from senior citizens and vulnerable people.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. Even setting aside risks of complications and spread to adults, they'll still have to quarantine at home and if they're young, they'll need parents to stay home with them for at least two weeks. Any working parent of small children can tell you that is definitely a negative.
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,910
1,887
1,743
I'm not sure I'd go that far. Even setting aside risks of complications and spread to adults, they'll still have to quarantine at home and if they're young, they'll need parents to stay home with them for at least two weeks. Any working parent of small children can tell you that is definitely a negative.
Symptomatic, of course. But parents do that now and stay home with their children for flu, sore throat, strep, etc. But students shouldn’t be staying home and quarantine just because someone in their class tested positive.
 
May 4, 2011
2,029
1,010
743
Charleston, SC
Symptomatic, of course. But parents do that now and stay home with their children for flu, sore throat, strep, etc. But students shouldn’t be staying home and quarantine just because someone in their class tested positive.
Two weeks is a long time to have to take off for an illness. That wipes out most people's sick leave, if they have sick leave.

The kids will still have to quarantine if they were in close contact with another kid who tested positive, but some districts might let them return after a negative test. Contact tracers have very specific guidelines about how to determine close contact and risk.
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,910
1,887
1,743
Two weeks is a long time to have to take off for an illness. That wipes out most people's sick leave, if they have sick leave.

The kids will still have to quarantine if they were in close contact with another kid who tested positive, but some districts might let them return after a negative test. Contact tracers have very specific guidelines about how to determine close contact and risk.
People, as long as they are not vulnerable, don’t need to test if they were in close contact if person did not have symptoms.(CDC guidelines)