All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

Who is making that argument? Increased transmission in children is bad. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

And thus far there's been no indication that delta is more virulent to kids than prior strains. We can look at countries like the UK that have already had delta to see what the hospitalization rate among kids with delta has been.

Here's a report from BMJ regarding delta and hospitalizations. Regarding kids:

"Are more children becoming ill?

Steve Turner, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registrar and consultant paediatrician at Royal Aberdeen Children’s hospital, said, “As it stands there are very few children in hospital in Scotland and across the whole of the UK due to covid. We’re not seeing any evidence of an increase in paediatric admissions with covid. A very small number of admissions who test positive for covid is what we’d expect.

“Our experience over the last 15 months is that many children who test positive have come into hospital for something else, like broken bones. At the moment the situation in the UK is stable. The number of children in hospital with covid remains very low.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1513

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

And thus far there's been no indication that delta is more virulent to kids than prior strains. We can look at countries like the UK that have already had delta to see what the hospitalization rate among kids with delta has been.

Here's a report from BMJ regarding delta and hospitalizations. Regarding kids:

"Are more children becoming ill?

Steve Turner, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registrar and consultant paediatrician at Royal Aberdeen Children’s hospital, said, “As it stands there are very few children in hospital in Scotland and across the whole of the UK due to covid. We’re not seeing any evidence of an increase in paediatric admissions with covid. A very small number of admissions who test positive for covid is what we’d expect.

“Our experience over the last 15 months is that many children who test positive have come into hospital for something else, like broken bones. At the moment the situation in the UK is stable. The number of children in hospital with covid remains very low.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1513

Ok so what is your plan for quarantined students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

It specifically says secondary schools, ie: teenagers, by the way. Teenagers in the US are eligible for the vaccines. They are not in the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

It specifically says secondary schools, ie: teenagers, by the way. Teenagers in the US are eligible for the vaccines. They are not in the UK.

Good catch!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

And thus far there's been no indication that delta is more virulent to kids than prior strains. We can look at countries like the UK that have already had delta to see what the hospitalization rate among kids with delta has been.

Here's a report from BMJ regarding delta and hospitalizations. Regarding kids:

"Are more children becoming ill?

Steve Turner, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registrar and consultant paediatrician at Royal Aberdeen Children’s hospital, said, “As it stands there are very few children in hospital in Scotland and across the whole of the UK due to covid. We’re not seeing any evidence of an increase in paediatric admissions with covid. A very small number of admissions who test positive for covid is what we’d expect.

“Our experience over the last 15 months is that many children who test positive have come into hospital for something else, like broken bones. At the moment the situation in the UK is stable. The number of children in hospital with covid remains very low.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1513

Ok so what is your plan for quarantined students?

Hi non-sequiter. Is this you not engaging with the research again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

It specifically says secondary schools, ie: teenagers, by the way. Teenagers in the US are eligible for the vaccines. They are not in the UK.

Good catch!

“Latest data from the Office for National Statistics for the week to 29 May show that numbers of cases of covid-19 have been rising fastest in schoolchildren in years 7 to 11.3 Data from Public Health England show that the number of outbreaks involving variants managed by health protection teams in educational settings have been rising for some weeks and trebled in the last two weeks of May.4 In the week to 1 June health protection teams managed more outbreaks in educational settings than in any other defined setting, and the vast majority of outbreaks involved the delta variant”.

But again what is the plan with quarantined students. Trying to get back on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

And thus far there's been no indication that delta is more virulent to kids than prior strains. We can look at countries like the UK that have already had delta to see what the hospitalization rate among kids with delta has been.

Here's a report from BMJ regarding delta and hospitalizations. Regarding kids:

"Are more children becoming ill?

Steve Turner, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registrar and consultant paediatrician at Royal Aberdeen Children’s hospital, said, “As it stands there are very few children in hospital in Scotland and across the whole of the UK due to covid. We’re not seeing any evidence of an increase in paediatric admissions with covid. A very small number of admissions who test positive for covid is what we’d expect.

“Our experience over the last 15 months is that many children who test positive have come into hospital for something else, like broken bones. At the moment the situation in the UK is stable. The number of children in hospital with covid remains very low.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1513

Ok so what is your plan for quarantined students?

Hi non-sequiter. Is this you not engaging with the research again?

Isn’t the point of this thread lol?

[Anonymous]

so no, you aren't going to engage with the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

That we should have a virtual option. Seems pretty clear.

It specifically says secondary schools, ie: teenagers, by the way. Teenagers in the US are eligible for the vaccines. They are not in the UK.

Good catch!

“Latest data from the Office for National Statistics for the week to 29 May show that numbers of cases of covid-19 have been rising fastest in schoolchildren in years 7 to 11.3 Data from Public Health England show that the number of outbreaks involving variants managed by health protection teams in educational settings have been rising for some weeks and trebled in the last two weeks of May.4 In the week to 1 June health protection teams managed more outbreaks in educational settings than in any other defined setting, and the vast majority of outbreaks involved the delta variant”.

But again what is the plan with quarantined students. Trying to get back on topic.

Note that "years 7 to 11.3" doesn't mean ages 7 to 11. Those are the school grades.

""school Year 7 to school Year 11" includes those children in secondary school"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/4june2021#age-analysis-of-the-number-of-people-who-had-covid-19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so no, you aren't going to engage with the research.

I’m not even the original person that you were arguing with, but I did post the quote about 7-11 year old children from the article and asked to get back on topic. Alas, I’ve quickly realized this is a pointless discussion.

[Anonymous]

That's middle and high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so no, you aren't going to engage with the research.

I’m not even the original person that you were arguing with, but I did post the quote about 7-11 year old children from the article and asked to get back on topic. Alas, I’ve quickly realized this is a pointless discussion.

Gotcha just noticed that. Either way, I’m still not sure of the point of your argument. You two can continue now.