We've been here before Remember this study from South Korea which was widely reported to show children aged 10 - 19 were just as infectious as adults? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article … 4/10
-
Show this thread
-
And remember this study ON THE SAME DATA which corrected for shared exposure (the index case and suspected secondary case both exposed to same original infection source) and found extraordinarily low rates of confirmed secondary infections? https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/06/archdischild-2020-319910 … 5/10
2 replies 12 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
This study has the same methodology, and suffers from the same massive source of bias Children (particularly young children) do not travel alone, especially during lock down in a pandemic They are getting exposed at the same time as their close contacts (usually family) 6/10
4 replies 12 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
The infected close contacts around same age are likely to be siblings who would be going wherever the index case is going, being exposed to the same sources of infection It is impossible to tease out who the index case infected and who got infected at the same time as them 7/10
1 reply 7 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
We can see from the graph that the older the children (and more mobile/independent) the lower the rate of associated positive close contacts were around the same age Reduced "infectiousness" seems unlikely to be the cause 8/10pic.twitter.com/L6yJVYH1XF
1 reply 7 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Now it may be the case that infected children are just as infectious; it has been difficult to determine Indirect evidence from schools/family clusters with known direction of transmission has suggested not, but we can't be certain This study doesn't get us closer 9/10
3 replies 7 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
What we should have learnt by now is; -These studies have massive bias for children which cannot be overlooked -Single studies (no matter how big) should not influence policy without context of previous evidence -In contact tracing, small and detailed beats big and dirty 10/10
12 replies 24 retweets 158 likesShow this thread -
-
Then again, I'm not sure how to read your frowny faces. Are you frowning at Munro, or the BBC?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because the term "biggest COVID spreaders" is very ill-defined. I doubt many epidemiologists, including the India study authors, would measure "bigness of COVID-spreaderness" by same-age transmission rate, particularly for a demographic with overall lower-level infection rate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
BBC. "Biggest spreaders"...
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.
