Marm, your criticisms made me take a second look, but I don't think they are on target. >> half of the references we review test all contacts, regardless of symptoms. One is unspecified, one tests symptomatic only, and one tests sx only but uses tested (not total) as denominator
-
Why should there be a risk associated with living with a child if infection rates in children (at least based on seroprevalence estimates) were no higher than in adults aged 20-64y?http://outbreaknewstoday.com/sweden-covid-19-studies-ongoing-infection-antibody-tests-in-blood-donors-98648/ …
Hi Ed. If adults and children are equally infectious, then risk is higher when living with an adult+children than only with an adult. If risk is the same, as estimated in the Wes cited population based study, then school attending children are not prone to infect family members.
-
-
In that paper, living alone has the highest point estimate for a risk, significantly higher than having an elderly co-resident: https://su.figshare.com/articles/preprint/Residential_Context_and_COVID-19_Mortality_among_the_Elderly_in_Stockholm_A_population-based_observational_study/12612947/1 … We don't understand the social mixing and other factors from the results of the paper.
-
They point out that mortality is elevated generally for people living alone, and the increase in COVID mortality for those living alone was not significantly different from the general increase.
End of conversation
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.