There has never been more confusion about the role of children in transmission of #SARSCoV2 , and tensions are running high over implications for #schoolsreopening
When considering transmission risk we must consider 2 classes of factors;
Non-modifiable: The biology of the host and pathogen
Modifiable: Behavioural or environmental influence
Since we can change the latter via policy/guidance etc, we'll focus on the former
2/13
How easily to children catch the virus?
Household contact tracing studies suggest less easily than adults; by about half given the same exposure, based on 4 reviews of all the evidence (links in next tweet)
There are some suggestions for biases to explain these findings why this might be the case
Some of these are not correct (e.g. "irrelevant because schools closed" or "cases missed because not symptomatic") and none explain the effect size
5/13
Whilst seroprevalence can't tell us about susceptibility (some effects will be due to exposure), most representative studies have found lower rates of seropositivity in children which would support these findings
The findings are more pronounced in young children (<10y)
We have some indirect evidence from studies of viral loads, suggesting they are broadly similar in children, including those asymptomatic
But we want to know what happens in real life
8/13
2 studies on the same data from South Korea (one adjusting for shared exposure, the other not) seemed to suggest a very low attack rate from infected children, in the setting of extreme infection prevention measures
A further study from Trento, Italy, seemed to suggest children might be more contagious than adults, but this study has some important biases (covered below)
Well there's some evidence infectiousness is correlated with symptoms, and as ~50% of children may be asymptomatic, this might reduce their contribution to transmission
Conclusions
-Children about half as susceptible
-Have roughly same amount of virus
-May be less infectious, ?due to less symptoms
-Lots to learn once schools open
Vinay points correctly to the bias prone endpoint of self reported URTI symptoms and implies the entire difference between groups could be due to “the placebo effect”
The problem is, this is almost
certainly not a result of placebo
It’s detection or ascertainment bias
2/
Vinay describes as much in his piece, when he mentions different interpretations of vague symptoms between people with or without masks depending on their beliefs
Wear a mask and wake up tired? Probably nothing
Not been wearing a mask? Could be the start of something…
3/
The rationale behind this is that some have postulated PASC could be due to viral persistence - SARS-CoV-2 hanging around when it should have been cleared
Anti-virals might help clear the virus and resolve symptoms
2/
The evidence base behind this theory is far from clear, but given the general mess of evidence in the field this seemed like a reasonable trial
It could also serve as possible therapeutic diagnosis (if it works, it gives evidence towards the possible cause)
3/