[teejers1]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

And "much lower" equals . . . ?

There has to be an algorithm or formulas that can at least attempt to come up with an "acceptable" infection rate. Of course, I still think it has to be tied to you know what - because hospital capacity should be the driving force in making policy.  And staff resources is certainly a component of hospital capacity.

"We want to ensure that we have sufficient hospital resources for those who need it" is a policy that makes sense, is easily understood, and can (you would think) be subject to a formula, given certain assumptions (informed by experience) re: number of positive tests ==> number of hospitalizations ==> number of deaths.

"'High' infection rates and death are bad" is not really something you can base policy on . . . unless you're a SiP-at- all- costs warrior (as you and others may be).  It's nebulous, subjective, and not particularly useful for setting policy (again, beyond "we must all SiP till further notice).  

Ultimately, "acceptable level of risk" is a policy decision.  Period.  And that's true even if you assume you can get consensus on some basic "scientific truths" about Corona virus.

[teejers1]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

And "much lower" equals . . . ?

There has to be an algorithm or formulas that can at least attempt to come up with an "acceptable" infection rate. Of course, I still think it has to be tied to you know what - because hospital capacity should be the driving force in making policy.  And staff resources is certainly a component of hospital capacity.

"We want to ensure that we have sufficient hospital resources for those who need it" is a policy that makes sense, is easily understood, and can (you would think) be subject to a formula, given certain assumptions (informed by experience) re: number of positive tests ==> number of hospitalizations ==> number of deaths.

"'High' infection rates and death are bad" is not really something you can base policy on . . . unless you're a SiP-at- all- costs warrior (as you and others may be).  It's nebulous, subjective, and not particularly useful for setting policy (again, beyond "we must all SiP till further notice).  

Ultimately, "acceptable level of risk" is a policy decision.  Period.  And that's true even if you assume you can get consensus on some basic "scientific truths" about Corona virus.