Yes. My question is should we be pushing to decrease COVID in kids specifically to protect adults? Even if kids are fine, are you concerned about their parents? I mean this as a genuine question.
Not really. Parents of young kids are generally low-risk, and even large reductions in the under 5s would have fairly minimal impact on the risk of their parents catching COVID-19 given the high population burden.
Also, an interesting article (pre-COVID) showing that households with children <5 show significantly higher rates of respiratory illnesses, and that the adults in those households (18-49) show similar rates to the <5s. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/210/11/1792/2908499
Honestly not sure what you're arguing here. Do you think that under 5s are causing over 75 infections? There are many reasons why this graph does not necessarily fit that explanation!
Yes, see this and my other linked referenced. It seems that people who are in households with <5s are infected with diseases brought home by the <5s. What is your alternative explanation?
This graph doesn't necessarily show anything of the sort. I agree that some cases undoubtedly pass between children and their parents, but imo for COVID-19 the impact of this at this point in time is quite small at a population level.
But there might be older, more at risk adults living in the household as well e.g. grandparents. Or a parent or other family member who is higher risk. I expect their outlook would be a bit different from yours.
That seems a little circular/defeatist - we can only reduce that high population burden by tackling some of the hubs of infection.
It might be the case that reductions in *only* one area might give underwhelming results, but IMO that's an argument for tackling multiple areas, not zero.
Comments
@gidmk.bsky.social appears to be saying “this is the data and what is the best theory to explain what this data means?”
Have you considered how your approach is problematic?
🤷🏾
It might be the case that reductions in *only* one area might give underwhelming results, but IMO that's an argument for tackling multiple areas, not zero.
- haven’t read the article?
- misunderstood the article?
- don’t want to accept the point (premise) of the article?
What is the “high population burden” you’re talking about, exactly?
Secondly, it’s weird to refer to kids as “hubs of infection”?
Lastly: vaccination?
🤷🏾