The actual paper says: "transmissibility was not assessed in this study"
And the number of asymptomatic pediatric positives in the study is.... 3. Their viral loads are not broken out. 
And then there's still the fundamental reason every German medical society rejected Drosten. We have substantial empirical evidence children do not significantly transmit. Viral load measurements can only help us understand *why*, not disprove that observational evidence.
In this case the media hype came directly from a *press release* unhinged from the underlying study. Incredibly reckless by @MassGeneralNews. (Also doesn't help that the actual paper is not linked in the hype release.)
A study of 49 positive "kids" age 0 to 22 -- just 3 asymptomatic -- found early infection viral loads higher in "kids" than adults at much later, not comparable, time points.
Quote: "transmissibility was not assessed in this study"
Press release: silent spreaders!!!
Quote: "transmissibility was not assessed in this study"
Press release: silent spreaders!!!
Can't even blame the media this time... the press release itself was unhinged. Outrageous.
Essentially a confession of agenda-driven, conclusionary research.
A press release blasted around the world today claimed proof of "silent spreaders"; the paper has a grand total of three asymptomatic "children" and their ages were 0 to 22.
A press release blasted around the world today claimed proof of "silent spreaders"; the paper has a grand total of three asymptomatic "children" and their ages were 0 to 22.
I repeat: the Mass General "silent spreader" study included a total of three asymptomatic "kids" ages 0 to 22.
Good enough for another big anti-school media cycle!
This is what they go with because this is all they have. All the real evidence piling up on the other side.
Good enough for another big anti-school media cycle!
This is what they go with because this is all they have. All the real evidence piling up on the other side.
