[M T]

I just saw some recent data via talk that says: (1) viral load can be quite high in asymptomatic, even compared to symptomatic, and (2) viral load doesn't change much across age demographics, even at 1-10 yo category.  While #1 makes sense, #2 seems really odd to me given lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect.

Where's the data behind your claim of "lack of transmission in schools"?

You removed the "as much as we'd expect" part, which changes what I said.  There's definitely transmission, but you'd expect more super spreader events.  Totally possible there are plenty of those cases that are undocumented or I simply haven't seen because I'm not focused on this aspect of the pandemic.  I see you have posted data to counter BC, but given the conditions of these schools (indoor, somewhat packed, long duration, questionable ventilation) is transmission pattern same as we see in college populations or Rose Garden events?

[Getting back to COVID-19.  The Terry rule isn't limited to political debates.]

To clarify, my post quoted your entire content, without any part removed.  In my content, I referred to a specific part of it to make it clear what data I was asking about.

You stated something about the level of transmission, and you made what I will call a vague reference to "data via talk".  I was asking for data to clarify & support what you're saying about transmission in schools.  I don't know what is "lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect."    The use of "we" is problematic to me as I don't know who that is, or where I'd find that expectation.  Hence a request for data to support this  "lack".

I think we all would agree that BC is the most informed & respected person on the CARDboard regarding COVID.  BC referenced & quoted some material that claimed "low" infection rates ("similarly low rates") among students & staff.  I showed that the source's numbers correspond to "widespread" infection by California's definition. 

I believe there is widespread (not necessarily intentional, but perhaps wishful) misinformation that is claiming (often without data) low infections happening among children in schools, perhaps related to the earlier thoughts that children might not get infected, or, if infected, did not infect others.   I believe that part of the issue is that the shelter-in-place orders and school closure in the spring (thankfully) resulted in children being less exposed and so less often infected.  I also believe that some areas had fewer infections than other areas, making it very difficult to tease out the risks of 20-person gatherings, especially in cases where some of those may involve people that may not remember their hygiene rules.

I'm trying to pin the numbers about children & schools & COVID down so that someone who is a firm believer in following the data will have accurate & current data.


And, by the way, classroom size matters.  With 20 students, there are 190 pairs of possible infector - infectee pairs.  With 30 students, there are 435 pairs, more than twice the number.  If the chance of infection passing from an infected person is uniform, then you'd expect to get more than twice as many (2.25x) infections in a classroom that is 50% larger.  (4x pairs for 2x classroom size)  At least in the school district where I live, which allows parents to choose between remote or in-class teaching, the in-school classes are much smaller than normal.     I don't know if that's true elsewhere but it is something to remember when looking at today's stats.

[M T]

I just saw some recent data via talk that says: (1) viral load can be quite high in asymptomatic, even compared to symptomatic, and (2) viral load doesn't change much across age demographics, even at 1-10 yo category.  While #1 makes sense, #2 seems really odd to me given lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect.

Where's the data behind your claim of "lack of transmission in schools"?

You removed the "as much as we'd expect" part, which changes what I said.  There's definitely transmission, but you'd expect more super spreader events.  Totally possible there are plenty of those cases that are undocumented or I simply haven't seen because I'm not focused on this aspect of the pandemic.  I see you have posted data to counter BC, but given the conditions of these schools (indoor, somewhat packed, long duration, questionable ventilation) is transmission pattern same as we see in college populations or Rose Garden events?

[Getting back to COVID-19.  The Terry rule isn't limited to political debates.]

To clarify, my post quoted your entire content, without any part removed.  In my content, I referred to a specific part of it to make it clear what data I was asking about.

You stated something about the level of transmission, and you made what I will call a vague reference to "data via talk".  I was asking for data to clarify & support what you're saying about transmission in schools.  I don't know what is "lack of transmission in schools as much as we'd expect."    The use of "we" is problematic to me as I don't know who that is, or where I'd find that expectation.  Hence a request for data to support this  "lack".

I think we all would agree that BC is the most informed & respected person on the CARDboard regarding COVID.  BC referenced & quoted some material that claimed "low" infection rates ("similarly low rates") among students & staff.  I showed that the source's numbers correspond to "widespread" infection by California's definition. 

I believe there is widespread (not necessarily intentional, but perhaps wishful) misinformation that is claiming (often without data) low infections happening among children in schools, perhaps related to the earlier thoughts that children might not get infected, or, if infected, did not infect others.   I believe that part of the issue is that the shelter-in-place orders and school closure in the spring (thankfully) resulted in children being less exposed and so less often infected.  I also believe that some areas had fewer infections than other areas, making it very difficult to tease out the risks of 20-person gatherings, especially in cases where some of those may involve people that may not remember their hygiene rules.

I'm trying to pin the numbers about children & schools & COVID down so that someone who is a firm believer in following the data will have accurate & current data.


And, by the way, classroom size matters.  With 20 students, there are 190 pairs of possible infector - infectee pairs.  With 30 students, there are 435 pairs, more than twice the number.  If the chance of infection passing from an infected person is uniform, then you'd expect to get more than twice as many (2.25x) infections in a classroom that is 50% larger.  (4x pairs for 2x classroom size)  At least in the school district where I live, which allows parents to choose between remote or in-class teaching, the in-school classes are much smaller than normal.     I don't know if that's true elsewhere but it is something to remember when looking at today's stats.