@GidMK @DrZoeHyde any views on this?
Getting attention in UK to say kids are safe & "should be tested less" (which feels like a big FU to teachers & vulnerable family who'd appreciate testing for kids where appropriate).
I have a bias of caution, so any real insight appreciated.https://twitter.com/russellviner/status/1310542680913575939 …
-
-
Generally it seems like their main conclusion - that contact tracing rarely finds as many children with secondary infections as adults - is true But what that means seems to me like a complex question
-
Also have to be VERY careful how we define 'children' here - the study mostly looked at people under the age of 10, for teenagers the results may look very different
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks for providing a view. As ever, seems many unknowns remain. The paper acknowledges many caveats & limitations, which is why I'm surprised it's the centre of a drive to test kids less. Schooling should be prioritised, just seems there're better ways than by reducing testing
-
The meta analysis gets worse if you dig a bit deeper and look at the studies which were included. For example, in the study by Wang et al. (reference 18), children were twice as likely as adults to not be tested (44% vs. 19%).https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30169-9/fulltext …
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.