How will schools be able to go back in September? (Continued)

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

It's a false figure. Children were not being tested.

What would be the point? if a parent gets it the whole family have to isolate anyway. A test isn't pleasant for an adult, you wouldn't be too keen to put a child through it if you didn't have to.

In the past 10 days there has been a 16% increase in infections in children under the age 14, there was a similar percentage increase announced in the states yesterday.



Why?

Because we have to test them now, the virus hasn't just decided to infect children now.

The narrative being peddled that children don't really get the virus was always horseshít.

what was the increase in infections among adults? And among population as whole? To indicate your conclusion could be correct you would have to show increase in positive tests among rest of population is lower. Also are we talking about USA or Ireland. IF it's usa we would also need more information on their test policy.

Mrsmum

The testing doesn't be long coming close to home. After one week at school, I now know seven young children, no teenagers yet, who have been tested. All of them are unconnected to each other, in different parts of Ireland and tested because of their own symptoms. All of them were negative though. It's going to be a long long winter of testing.

meeeeh

Mrsmum wrote: »

The testing doesn't be long coming close to home. After one week at school, I now know seven young children, no teenagers yet, who have been tested. All of them are unconnected to each other, in different parts of Ireland and tested because of their own symptoms. All of them were negative though. It's going to be a long long winter of testing.

More they test better it is in my opinion and more likely the schools will stay open.

Mrsmum

meeeeh wrote: »

More they test better it is in my opinion and more likely the schools will stay open.

Yes. Has to be done, of course.

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

what was the increase in infections among adults? And among population as whole? To indicate your conclusion could be correct you would have to show increase in positive tests among rest of population is lower.

No I wouldn't, think about it.

It's rate of growth of that percentage.

The rate of growth in that particular age bracket has always been a fraction of the adult population (because of not testing).

If the rate of growth was replicated across all age groups we would be averaging around 480 cases a day.

JDD

Boggles wrote: »

It's a false figure. Children were not being tested.

What would be the point? if a parent gets it the whole family have to isolate anyway. A test isn't pleasant for an adult, you wouldn't be too keen to put a child through it if you didn't have to.

In the past 10 days there has been a 16% increase in infections in children under the age 14, there was a similar percentage increase announced in the states yesterday.



Why?

Because we have to test them now, the virus hasn't just decided to infect children now.

The narrative being peddled that children don't really get the virus was always horseshít.

You could well be right. 2.5% does appear to be a very low figure, I would have expected that there would be more symptomatic children than that over the course of the pandemic who should have got a test. It's hard to know where the final figure would land though, even if we had tested all symptomatic children. In fairness, from March to June, we weren't even testing all symptomatic adults.

When you say there has been a 16% increase in the number of under 14s testing positive, is that a higher figure than the overall increase in infections? What I mean is, if we had 100 overall infections ten days ago, 10 of which were children, and now we are at 116, of which 12 are children, that's not so concerning. That just reflects the overall increase. If the number of overall infections stayed at 100, but the number of children rose to 12, well that would be more concerning.

I know what you are saying about the increase in infections in children in the US, but I would be reluctant to draw conclusions from that particular country. The range of restrictions go from schools completely closed in one state, to completely open in another, with some states only opening schools this week. It would be very difficult to draw any conclusions from such a big diverse country.

average_runner

Boggles wrote: »

It's a false figure. Children were not being tested.

What would be the point? if a parent gets it the whole family have to isolate anyway. A test isn't pleasant for an adult, you wouldn't be too keen to put a child through it if you didn't have to.

In the past 10 days there has been a 16% increase in infections in children under the age 14, there was a similar percentage increase announced in the states yesterday.



Why?

Because we have to test them now, the virus hasn't just decided to infect children now.

The narrative being peddled that children don't really get the virus was always horseshít.

That is false, kids were getting tested if they showed symptoms in the past. Our little one will have at least another 2 tests before tonsils are removed

Boggles

JDD wrote: »

When you say there has been a 16% increase in the number of under 14s testing positive, is that a higher figure than the overall increase in infections?

I'll explain it this way with rounded off numbers.

Lets say 10 days ago we had 31,000 confirmed infections.

1000 of those in the age bracket 0-14.

30,000 in all the other age brackets combined.

16% of 1000 = 160 +1000 = 1160

Now lets say in those 10 days we had 1500 confirmed infections in the rest of the age brackets.

1500 as a percentage of 30,000 is 5%.

The actual number of cases is far bigger but the rate of growth is less than a third.

16% > 5%

Boggles

average_runner wrote: »

That is false, kids were getting tested if they showed symptoms in the past. Our little one will have at least another 2 tests before tonsils are removed

Because every child in the country has been admitted for a Tonsillectomy.

:rolleyes:

deliege

caveat emptor wrote: »

Cluster in Berlin school.

(...)

In France yesterday, Prof. Karine Lacombe (teaches infectious diseases and public health in numerous universities there, and has been one of the mediatic figures re. covid19 these last few months) was on the radio. She announced having been tested positive recently, and said she suspect she got it through / from her daughter, who was back in school last week:

https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/coronavirus-la-professeure-karine-lacombe-testee-positive-au-covid-19_AN-202009080355.html

... So there you have a well known epidemiologist going against the "kids don't contaminate grown-up" mantra that has been repeated here and elsewhere...

deliege

Boggles wrote: »

It's a false figure. Children were not being tested.
(...)

The narrative being peddled that children don't really get the virus was always horseshít.

Exactly. In my native country, kids were mostly not tested - and this is still the case now for kids under 6 - they are being tested "only if needing to be hospitalised or if in close contact with someone who is high risk"

https://www.ln24.be/2020-08-15/covid-19-en-belgique-les-3-5-ans-ne-seront-plus-automatiquement-testes-en-cas-de

... and that is still true. In this piece from Monday, two childminders from an afterschool have been tested positive; the parents of the 210 (!) kids deemed to have been in close contact with them while they were potentially infectious are asked to keep them home for the next 14 days but won't be tested unless they fit the criteria above. Kindergarten classes concerned are still open.

https://www.lesoir.be/323449/article/2020-09-07/ixelles-210-eleves-de-maternelles-en-quarantaine

Don't test = no case = no contamination seen in school... Handy?

JDD

Boggles wrote: »

I'll explain it this way with rounded off numbers.

Lets say 10 days ago we had 31,000 confirmed infections.

1000 of those in the age bracket 0-14.

30,000 in all the other age brackets combined.

16% of 1000 = 160 +1000 = 1160

Now lets say in those 10 days we had 1500 confirmed infections in the rest of the age brackets.

1500 as a percentage of 30,000 is 5%.

The actual number of cases is far bigger but the rate of growth is less than a third.

16% > 5%

Sorry but, where are you getting the 160 new infections in 0-14 year olds in the last 10 days from (I realise these are rounded off figures). Is there a link on the HSE website with an age breakdown over the past 10 days or something?

I was going on the fact that 24 classes closed because of positive cases over the past 10 days - hence 24 new infections in the 5-17 age group. I know it's not quite the same age grouping but I wouldn't expect a massive increase in 0-4 year olds testing positive. Is there a lot more children getting positive tests outside of the school setting?

JDD

deliege wrote: »

Exactly. In my native country, kids were mostly not tested - and this is still the case now for kids under 6 - they are being tested "only if needing to be hospitalised or if in close contact with someone who is high risk"

https://www.ln24.be/2020-08-15/covid-19-en-belgique-les-3-5-ans-ne-seront-plus-automatiquement-testes-en-cas-de

... and that is still true. In this piece from Monday, two childminders from an afterschool have been tested positive; the parents of the 210 (!) kids deemed to have been in close contact with them while they were potentially infectious are asked to keep them home for the next 14 days but won't be tested unless they fit the criteria above. Kindergarten classes concerned are still open.

https://www.lesoir.be/323449/article/2020-09-07/ixelles-210-eleves-de-maternelles-en-quarantaine

Don't test = no case = no contamination seen in school... Handy?

It seems completely counterintuitive though. How would you get enough information to try and prevent the spread of the virus (which will ultimately do more damage to your economy if it gets out of control) if you are basically refusing to test 20% of your population? If that was the decision of our government, we would be completely shooting ourselves in the foot.

I don't think that's the policy here. Anecdotally it appears it is mostly children at testing centres at the moment. Given the number and range of "back to school" infections that are similar to Covid, I can see a high proportion of children being tested over the next month or two.

Boggles

JDD wrote: »

Sorry but, where are you getting the 160 new infections in 0-14 year olds in the last 10 days from (I realise these are rounded off figures). Is there a link on the HSE website with an age breakdown over the past 10 days or something?

I think there may be on the HSE website, but NPHET publish their figures every evening (2 day lag).

https://www.gov.ie/en/publications/

JDD wrote: »

I was going on the fact that 24 classes closed because of positive cases over the past 10 days - hence 24 new infections in the 5-17 age group.

Well no, I mean if a child test positive they wouldn't be sent to school (hopefully) or if they were a contact of a confirmed case and were awaiting a test themselves or restricting their movements.

JDD wrote: »

I know it's not quite the same age grouping but I wouldn't expect a massive increase in 0-4 year olds testing positive. Is there a lot more children getting positive tests outside of the school setting?

Almost all infections of children have happened outside school, primarily because schools are only back a wet week or so.

The point is the rate of infection in this age group in reality has always remanded steady (before school opened), we just haven't tested so we don't know the real actual rate of infection in children.

Now that wasn't important really, because they would have been home anyway.

The problem arises when we base reopening plans on the narrative that shure kids don't get it, which according to our (false) stats they don't.

The reality is catching up, currently 3 fold though.

The data will be muddied again going forward, because people will blame the rate of infection on schools reopening, where this may only play a minor role.

It's why you need up to date clear data to inform decisions.

TTLF

From a 6th year currently in school, it’s been a week and I know 4 people who have been or are about to be tested in my year.

It’s been a week.... 4 people in a week

TonyMaloney

TTLF wrote: »

From a 6th year currently in school, it’s been a week and I know 4 people who have been or are about to be tested in my year.

It’s been a week.... 4 people in a week

It'll be interesting to see if we hit our true testing capacity soon.

It's supposedly at 100,000 per day, but I have my doubts

average_runner

TTLF wrote: »

From a 6th year currently in school, it’s been a week and I know 4 people who have been or are about to be tested in my year.

It’s been a week.... 4 people in a week

I know about 10 people tested in the last week, mainly because they had a cough. All negative

average_runner

Boggles wrote: »

Because every child in the country has been admitted for a Tonsillectomy.

:rolleyes:

No he was original tested because he had a temp. He currently gets a temp every 3 weeks. Tonsils not coming out till dec

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

That's fair enough but we still don't have the actual numbers.

We do. What do you think I am basing the maths on? I rounded off for simplicity in the figures, but the ratios are pretty much spot on.

They are published every night and have been since the pandemic began.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publications/

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

We do. What do you think I am basing the maths on? I rounded off for simplicity in the figures, but the ratios are pretty much spot on.

They are published every night and have been since the pandemic began.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publications/

Ah come on, don't tell me you basing that on stats from beginning of pandemic when whole host of people were not tested and when criteria to test was completely different than now.

I thought you are talking from recent lets say week to week increases and not basing them on total numbers including spring which were complete fairytale numbers and when only people with severe symptoms were tested. Majority of them would be in older age brackets and all younger categories not just kids would be underrepresented. For data to be consistent and used in any meaningful way you have to include only periods when criteria for test is broadly similar and compare what increases are among groups and if one group is increasing more than others.

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come on, don't tell me you basing that on stats from beginning of pandemic when whole host of people were not tested and when criteria to test was completely different than now.

I was pretty clear from the start what the stats were based on.

I don't see how that matters on actual confirmed cases across the age ranges.

How else are you supposed to get an accurate figure on actual infection rate of children under 15?

meeeeh wrote: »

I thought you are talking from recent lets say week to week increases and not basing them on total numbers including spring which were complete fairytale numbers and when only people with severe symptoms were tested. Majority of them would be in older age brackets and all younger categories not just kids would be underrepresented. For data to be consistent and used in any meaningful way you have to include only periods when criteria for test is broadly similar and compare what increases are among groups and if one group is increasing more than others.

That's my point, kids were not being tested.

Now that they are, the confirmed instance ratio is 3 to 1 compared to all other age brackets.

facehugger99

average_runner wrote: »

I know about 10 people tested in the last week, mainly because they had a cough. All negative

It's a nonsense that hysterical parents are putting thier kids through a Covid test just because of a snuffly nose or a cough.

I certainly won't be.

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

I was pretty clear from the start what the stats were based on.

I don't see how that matters on actual confirmed cases across the age ranges.

How else are you supposed to get an accurate figure on actual infection rate of children under 15?




That's my point, kids were not being tested.

Now that they are, the instance ratio is 3 to 1 compared to all other age brackets.

I'm not a native speaker so I could have this wrong. Are you saying infections among kids are increasing 3 times as much as among adults? I really don't know what is the relevance of your data?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not the one making claims without backing them up.

Make a claim and back it up. It's primarily how your opinions will get taking seriously.

It's just good manners above everything else.

See I have now decided, no such interview exists and you have made it up, that would be accurate, wouldn't it? Be honest.

A separate source with the same claim. Maybe it now falls on you to disprove it?
Last line of article

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/toddler-with-covid-19-being-treated-in-intensive-care-39516866.html

khalessi

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's a nonsense that hysterical parents are putting thier kids through a Covid test just because of a snuffly nose or a cough.

I certainly won't be.

Sure why would ya:rolleyes: Btw a cough is one if the symptoms it should be done for

How to get tested
Coronavirus testing
- How to get tested
- What happens during the coronavirus test
- Test results
- Contact tracing
Last updated: 11 August 2020 at 11.40am

You may need to be assessed for a coronavirus test if you are in one of these situations:

1
You suddenly experience one of these symptoms and there is no other obvious cause:

fever
cough - this can be any kind of cough, not just dry
shortness of breath
loss or change to your sense of smell or taste
If you develop symptoms, you should self-isolate to stop the spread of coronavirus. Phone your GP straightaway to discuss your symptoms and whether you need a test for coronavirus. Getting an early diagnosis means you can get the help you need and take steps to avoid spreading the virus, if you have it.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing/how-to-get-tested.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIh-OoyPzb6wIV1WDmCh2TiA73EAAYASAAEgL9SfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

It isnt a bad test, kiddo is happy enough to get it done again if necessary and take sless than 30 seconds

irishblessing

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's a nonsense that hysterical parents are putting thier kids through a Covid test just because of a snuffly nose or a cough.

I certainly won't be.

As soon as I saw this thread has an update and you were the last poster, I knew it would be inflammatory nonsense you are posting. And so it is. It's not hysterical parents, it's HSE guidelines. No one here could take you seriously, but I'm sure you know that.

wirelessdude01

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's a nonsense that hysterical parents are putting thier kids through a Covid test just because of a snuffly nose or a cough.

I certainly won't be.

The school should be sending home any children that present with a cough.
It is one of the symptoms we are asked to look out for.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

A separate source with the same claim. Maybe it now falls on you to disprove it?
Last line of article

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/toddler-with-covid-19-being-treated-in-intensive-care-39516866.html

So it's up to me to disprove baseless claims?

Cool.

I'll get right on that.

irishblessing

Deleted User wrote: »

A separate source with the same claim. Maybe it now falls on you to disprove it?
Last line of article

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/toddler-with-covid-19-being-treated-in-intensive-care-39516866.html

The person who wrote this article is a journalist, nothing more. There are no sources cited for this statement:
"Children do not appear to be as susceptible to the virus as adults and there is a low rate of transmission among children."

And if the HSE are not reporting details on school outbreaks then how can the below statement be an absolute truth. The author appears to be writing that comment based on an absence of information, not a scientific review of available information with source cited.

"A number of children attending school have been diagnosed with the virus but there have been no outbreaks where one passes it to another."

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm not a native speaker so I could have this wrong. Are you saying infections among kids are increasing 3 times as much as among adults? I really don't know what is the relevance of your data?

No.

We will leave it there.

Also no one is buying your "I'm not a native speaker" nonsense anymore when you refuse to understand something that has been clearly explained several times.