A really important thread on that South Korea/kids study that got widespread coverage that, in my view, was not warranted because even without extra info, its statistics were internally weird plus findings not in line with previous research. Plus ages were inappropriately binned.https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1292852036720091136 …
-
-
I understand this but the study, as is, wasn't informative for the 10-19 age group, especially not as a whole, and especially for the younger end of the spectrum—but maybe none at all. Unclear. Decisions should not be driven by single studies like this. https://twitter.com/BaYouCanCallMe/status/1293154647436333057 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
We may sadly be doing both; some places recklessly opening up without plans or protections while we're also needlessly spooking parents into extreme measures. I see both a lot. I'm advocating for: preponderance of studies and resources/plans based on that.https://twitter.com/dmjossel/status/1293155091357237259 …
Show this thread -
To be clear, as the linked thread makes it clear, there is no claim anywhere that kids aren't transmitting *at all*. The opposite of that, however, isn't how that SK study was represented, especially in headlines, that somehow, 10-19 is same as adults.https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1293156276394917888 …
Show this thread -
Not blaming the parents! We needed to aggressively put resources into schools and it wasn't done. It's terrible all around. But understanding the relative risk is important so we can prioritize: younger kids; outdoors when possible; PPE for teachers; etc.https://twitter.com/NOLAcuse/status/1293158961529659392 …
Show this thread -
Conclusion: studies are coming out quickly, but luckily, there's great pre- and post-publication peer-review going on by many scientists. Almost all issues are flagged within days; some resolved quickly, some needing further study. Slowing reporting to reflect all this will help.
Show this thread -
I'm aware of similar: kids as young as 10 that were set to have in-person interaction with resources and protections (including outdoors) are now online-only partly due to media coverage of that single study. (Not a single outlet thing! It was widespread!)https://twitter.com/TheNickFoy/status/1293162857270476802 …
Show this thread -
For a review of what we do & don't know about kids, see this *review* by
@mugecevik@mlipsitch &@EdwardGoldste16. That South Korea study wasn't interpretable for transmission—yet the correction is less likely to have same reach. Reviews > one new study.https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1294690950489530369 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's a pity the early NZ school outbreak doesn't seem to have better data. A fair bit of interpretation, but can't see any records.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In the absence of “preponderance of evidence,” isn’t the best approach better “safe than sorry?” Isn’t it better to keep kids home and minimize socializing until we do know the risks better?
-
Sometimes. For some kids, closing schools completely or partially isn't safer from an infection stand-point (haphazard childcare instead; more mixed networks) and damage from isolation and lack of access to social services is also high (abuse; mental health; poverty). Not easy!
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.