Does DCPS care? New model shows even with masks, 40% of students will still be infected with Delta

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

That makes no sense. Delta hasnt been around long enough for there to be any data on long term impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

Citation, please.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext

You’ll need to copy/paste that link. Published yesterday.

Thanks for posting this. It's a useful study, but for purposes other than what you've stated, because it emphatically does not indicate what you're talking about.

I don't think you read the introductory materials carefully. I can see why, because it's a bit confusing, but essentially they're saying the length is not very different from that of children who tested negative for SARS-COV-2 (and thus were infected with some other virus). And the length is certainly not what we would consider long term, since it's 4 weeks with mild symptoms like anosmia, headache, and fatigue, and max 8. Fifty-six days of symptoms suck, but as an asthmatic child, I can tell you that I would regularly have a mild cough for months.

Please also note that this is all proxy-reported (not self-reported, even for 16-17 year olds!) data from an app available for free download. This is NOT a representative population. Also note that in the UK, the older children do not have access to vaccines like they do here. There is a significant age variation-- for ages 5-11, the duration for symptoms was typically 2 days.

Serious illness was statistically absent, and they couldn't do any sort of analysis based on hospital visits, since they were so rare.

Notably the children who were infected with something OTHER than SARS-COV-2 had a GREATER symptom burden over their entire illness, even if it didn't last quite as long.

There is not a single sentence in here which suggests substantial long-term illness in children. Parents should feel reassured by this study.

Thank you for explaining!

[Anonymous]

lol one of the conclusions is basically "we should actually care about other illnesses bc they suck more"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

That makes no sense. Delta hasnt been around long enough for there to be any data on long term impact.

Correct. The paper she cited below was not about Delta.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that.

I feel like every time I see a very dramatic non-measured statement about what a paper says, it eventually becomes clear that the poster hasn't read it. Of course this paper isn't sounding an alarm.

[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:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

Citation, please.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext

You’ll need to copy/paste that link. Published yesterday.

Thanks for posting this. It's a useful study, but for purposes other than what you've stated, because it emphatically does not indicate what you're talking about.

I don't think you read the introductory materials carefully. I can see why, because it's a bit confusing, but essentially they're saying the length is not very different from that of children who tested negative for SARS-COV-2 (and thus were infected with some other virus). And the length is certainly not what we would consider long term, since it's 4 weeks with mild symptoms like anosmia, headache, and fatigue, and max 8. Fifty-six days of symptoms suck, but as an asthmatic child, I can tell you that I would regularly have a mild cough for months.

Please also note that this is all proxy-reported (not self-reported, even for 16-17 year olds!) data from an app available for free download. This is NOT a representative population. Also note that in the UK, the older children do not have access to vaccines like they do here. There is a significant age variation-- for ages 5-11, the duration for symptoms was typically 2 days.

Serious illness was statistically absent, and they couldn't do any sort of analysis based on hospital visits, since they were so rare.

Notably the children who were infected with something OTHER than SARS-COV-2 had a GREATER symptom burden over their entire illness, even if it didn't last quite as long.

There is not a single sentence in here which suggests substantial long-term illness in children. Parents should feel reassured by this study.

Thank you for explaining!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

Citation, please.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext

You say "long term," but article says 1.8 or 1.9% have symptoms "over 56 days." So more like 1 in 50 kids with COVID still have symptoms after 2 months. I don't know if that's really "long term."

[Anonymous]

Where even did the 1 in 22 number come from? I don't see it in here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

Citation, please.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext

You say "long term," but article says 1.8 or 1.9% have symptoms "over 56 days." So more like 1 in 50 kids with COVID still have symptoms after 2 months. I don't know if that's really "long term."

And those "symptoms" are very minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

Citation, please.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext

You say "long term," but article says 1.8 or 1.9% have symptoms "over 56 days." So more like 1 in 50 kids with COVID still have symptoms after 2 months. I don't know if that's really "long term."

And was that of all children or did they report by older/younger?

[Anonymous]

I want to report the original comment for misinformation, but the discussion of the article has been really helpful.

[Anonymous]

Another article on long COVID in kids, with a good study design.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210520/Swiss-study-suggests-very-low-prevalence-of-long-COVID-in-pediatric-population.aspx

Results show that seropositive children did not report long COVID more frequently compared to seronegative children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember some serious mitigation measures at sleep away camp when a camper was diagnosed with chicken pox a couple of days into it in the mid-80ies. Those were not parties. They took it extremely seriously, but that was forty years ago. They didn't need to do 1917-type masking because it wasn't a deadly pandemic, but they didn't have access to the rapid tests and abundance of masks we have in 2021. There is no excuse for this.

This is not a "deadly pandemic" for the under 12s.

If I had just written "they didn't have access to the abundance of masks we have in 2021", I'm pretty sure the tit-for-tat snarky retort would have been "Well in 1917 they figured out a way to mask up."

It's just a fact that it isn't.

Right.
Yet, it's enough of a health risk to unvaccinated children and society at large that masks in school mostly mandated. School mask mandates are necessary but not sufficient, hence OP's alarm.

No, it’s a large enough health risk to ONLY society at large, specifically the segment of society that is choosing not to protect themselves (immune compromised aside, sorry y’all). I could not care less anymore about that segment of society, but particularly when they force children to shoulder the burden of their selfish choices.

This is where you lose me. Doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm on Delta in children. The latest stats are 1 in 22 children infected have long term symptoms. That’s very concerning, when you are talking about a highly transmissible virus. We should be working together to pressure DCPS to implement every mitigation strategy possible. Pretending children are not at risk is foolish.

That makes no sense. Delta hasn't been around long enough for there to be any data on long term impact.

I'm the 17.07 PP ("right"), not the Lancet study poster. Thanks for posting it!

The Lancet paper is causing consternation, because people/journalists read the conclusion and say "yay, no big deal", and experts read the numbers and say it's very bad. One in 22 kids having symptoms for over 4 weeks and one in 50 kids having symptoms for over 6-8 weeks, is a huge number of children.

Delta is vastly more infectious, and it's suspected of being twice as virulent. We have no reason to believe the 'likely twice as virulent" wouldn't apply to children.

Long-covid, meanwhile, has shown to occur after cases ranging from hospitalized to cold-like very mild. Regardless, it would be extremely unlikely that (and totally unreasonable to assume) that the occurrence of long-covid would be lower, or much different in delta than in the original or the alpha variant versions of the virus.

And if you say "5 weeks of symptoms is not the lifelong disease you're being hysterical about", consider that the UK currently has 33,000 children with long-covid and the UK has had to set up over 100 long covid clinics for adults and children suffering from long covid. That represents more than the 4.4 % number in the Lancet paper.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/11/their-childhood-has-been-stolen-calls-for-action-to-tackle-long-covid

Fran Simpson of Long Covid Kids said: “Children who’ve got long covid – it’s completely destroyed their lives for some of them. They’ve gone from being children going to school, seeing their friends, having hobbies, to not being able to school. Some are not well enough to walk – they’re using wheelchairs. Others are not eating properly because of the impact on taste and smell. It feels like they’ve had their childhood stolen.”

About 7% to 9% of children who become infected with covid go on to develop some long-Covid symptoms, according to Office for National Statistics data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/06/nhs-sets-up-specialist-young-peoples-services-in-100-million-long-covid-care-expansion/
Announced mid-June 2021:

The NHS is setting up specialist long COVID services for children and young people as part of a £100 million expansion of care for those suffering from the condition.

The 15 new paediatric hubs will draw together experts on common symptoms such as respiratory problems and fatigue who can directly treat youngsters, advise family doctors or others caring for them or refer them into other specialist services and clinics.

Some pediatric hospitals in the US South have started to set up pediatric long covid clinics as well, although I haven't come across much data on pediatric long-covid here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where even did the 1 in 22 number come from? I don't see it in here.

4.4%=1/22.5

[Anonymous]

There’s nothing to suggest that delta is more virulent in children, and it’s even questionable whether it’s more virulent in adults. The reason we should not generalize from adult to children in COVID is because as we’ve seen it’s not a good extrapolation. COVID in kids does indeed seem different on a variety of metrics from COVID in adults.