Family Party infects 41 people in North Carolina

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The title is misleading. It infected 14, which started a chain that infected 41 people—and let’s face probably a whole lot more by now.

The kids aren’t going to work. That’s maybe why they aren’t the big spreaders in the chart. But I wonder how the grandparents saw the kid without seeing the parents? Did they watch the kid while the parents were sick maybe?

And an adult passed it to their 17 year old child. Yes, people are stupid but their risk taking puts everyone at risk.

[Anonymous]

Is the assumption that all of those index cases were infected at the time of the party or they all got it from one family at the party?

[Anonymous]

OP, you're ridiculous to interpret this as supporting that kids aren't spreaders.
Kids aren't around a lot of people these days.
This demonstrates that kids can infect people that they are in close continuous contact with, like grand-parents.
School is 12-20 kids and 1-3 adults in an enclosed room for over 4 hours a day. That's a lot of people, regardless of the face covering, shields, open windows and hand sanitizer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. Freedom to do whatever they want is more important. Even if they die, they die free!!!

Unfortunately, they are killing others in the process.

And they’re dragging this out for the rest of us who have been responsible and put in our sacrifice to get the numbers low where we live.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating diagram and study. Thanks for sharing, OP.

I would like to have more info about what the kids were doing -- particularly the ones who didn't spread it to anyone. Were they in daycare? Was the one child who spread it to the grandparents and elderly neighbor being baby-sat by the grandparents (longer sustained contact)?

People just assume that the people they know don't have it -- only "strangers" are infectious. These family gatherings -- be they birthdays or funerals or whatever -- are as bad as bars being open. People want to get close. They end up sharing a lot of things (serving spoons), they shout b/c it's loud. Bad stuff.

We need to go back to having NO social gatherings in homes or anywhere. You only socialize within your household or when you are 6 ft. away from someone outside your household. That plus masks everywhere will knock this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating diagram and study. Thanks for sharing, OP.

I would like to have more info about what the kids were doing -- particularly the ones who didn't spread it to anyone. Were they in daycare? Was the one child who spread it to the grandparents and elderly neighbor being baby-sat by the grandparents (longer sustained contact)?

People just assume that the people they know don't have it -- only "strangers" are infectious. These family gatherings -- be they birthdays or funerals or whatever -- are as bad as bars being open. People want to get close. They end up sharing a lot of things (serving spoons), they shout b/c it's loud. Bad stuff.

We need to go back to having NO social gatherings in homes or anywhere. You only socialize within your household or when you are 6 ft. away from someone outside your household. That plus masks everywhere will knock this out.

No, it will just tamp it down. Then it will start up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People just assume that the people they know don't have it -- only "strangers" are infectious. These family gatherings -- be they birthdays or funerals or whatever -- are as bad as bars being open. People want to get close. They end up sharing a lot of things (serving spoons), they shout b/c it's loud. Bad stuff.

I've been to several outdoor gatherings. One thing I've commonly observed is that people start talking about something and then "oh I have to show you this picture on my phone" and before you know it people are passing a phone and leaning in to see pictures when before they were standing many feet away from each other.

It's just so ingrained and natural in our culture now to pull out phones to share something that people don't even realize they are doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. Freedom to do whatever they want is more important. Even if they die, they die free!!!

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The title is misleading. It infected 14, which started a chain that infected 41 people—and let’s face probably a whole lot more by now.

The kids aren’t going to work. That’s maybe why they aren’t the big spreaders in the chart. But I wonder how the grandparents saw the kid without seeing the parents? Did they watch the kid while the parents were sick maybe?

And an adult passed it to their 17 year old child. Yes, people are stupid but their risk taking puts everyone at risk.

A 17 year old is not a child lol. Maybe legally a child but not in COVID terms.

[Anonymous]

We should reference this thread whenever a poster says parties are fine, pods/bubbles are fine, travel with other families is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're ridiculous to interpret this as supporting that kids aren't spreaders.
Kids aren't around a lot of people these days.
This demonstrates that kids can infect people that they are in close continuous contact with, like grand-parents.
School is 12-20 kids and 1-3 adults in an enclosed room for over 4 hours a day. That's a lot of people, regardless of the face covering, shields, open windows and hand sanitizer.

I think it supports BOTH concepts -- that kids don't spread as much as adults do (there have been a lot of epidemiological studies or at least papers about this -- it is pretty hotly debated but over and over again, it seems that it is older kids, young adults and adults who do the most spreading) and YET that they CAN AND DO SPREAD it. Maybe not as much as adults, but they can spread it.

"Kids aren't around a lot of people these days" -- not here in the DC area maybe but it seems the people in this community were not wearing masks, mostly out and about the community, at parties with kids, going to work and likely sending kids to camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the assumption that all of those index cases were infected at the time of the party or they all got it from one family at the party?

I think so. There were 24 (about) at the party, and 14 came down with the illness very soon after. It is possible that dad got it and then passed it on to mom and kids in the family, though.

[Anonymous]

I've been to several outdoor gatherings. One thing I've commonly observed is that people start talking about something and then "oh I have to show you this picture on my phone" and before you know it people are passing a phone and leaning in to see pictures when before they were standing many feet away from each other.

It's just so ingrained and natural in our culture now to pull out phones to share something that people don't even realize they are doing it.

+1

IME the longer people spend with each other masked, the closer they get to “regular” distances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is not even news anymore. People are so dumb. Let them eat corona.

The news is that the 9 year old 4th grader infected two adults.

Kids aren't supposed to be able to infect adults, or so they are saying on the schools threads.

No one said it’s impossible for kids to spread it – – the evidence suggest that they are less likely to spread it than adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this is not even news anymore. People are so dumb. Let them eat corona.

The news is that the 9 year old 4th grader infected two adults.

Kids aren't supposed to be able to infect adults, or so they are saying on the schools threads.

Nobody is saying kids can’t infect adults - just that it’s much more rare as this chart shows.

Kids are more apt to stay home and not mix.

Adults go to work, grocery shop, run errands, etc.

Kids can carry and transmit; they just aren’t likely to since they’re basically at home.

This all changes when they go back to school.