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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Is not caution advisable in the meantime?
-
Got to admit I am surprised to read this given that I am not hearing “we are exaggerating the risk” in the US from anyone I consider reliable or acting in good faith. The risks of the two extremes you mention are not equal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
All well and good, but as others have alluded to, we in our district have until Friday to decide.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And parents (and school administrators) have to decide within days or weeks what they are going to do. They don’t have time to wait for the preponderance of studies to make a decision. Can’t blame a parent for thinking that “winging it” isn’t a safe bet right now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is, decisions on kids and schools are being made, and have to be made, now, while that preponderance of studies takes time to develop. People have to decide what to do given that we don't understand well the extent to which kids spread. My view - caution is warranted.
-
Your concern that people are overreacting to individual studies showing kids spread well is fair, but there is also a huge amount of the opposite going on. Schools are reopening in many places with little or no no precautionary measures, based on similarly questionable findings.
- 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.