Because it would reveal they hyped COVID to crash the economy and hurt Trump.
Wouldn't that be an embarrassment if they all went back to school and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!
Wouldn't it be a tragedy if they all went back to school and hundreds of teachers, and children with asthma, and other "pre-existing conditions" got sick. I don't know of ANY parent who is so desperate for their children go back to school that they are prepared risk their children's lives or health to send them back.
CONTROL THE VIRUS. THEN TALK ABOUT RE-OPENING. IT'S NOT JUST THE RIGHT WAY, IT'S THE ONLY WAY.
Another ignorant Canuck who doesn't know that children's death rate is virtually zero and they don't effectively transmit the disease.
You also don't care that children are being harmed by being kept at home, they don't effectively learn on computers in replacement of live instruction and that poor kids may not have computer access at all.
Just another hate filled leftist
Yes and No. Ultimately, the jury is still out because while they
think that's the case, they're not 100% sure. And it still doesn't change the fact you can't rule the virus spreading with older children. Not every child who attends school is a first grader.
The point still stands. Lower the virus infection rate, take the necessary precautions and issue the relevant guidelines...and we could get back to something resembling normal..including sending kids back to school.
Since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, scientists and health authorities have often observed that children do not appear to contract and transmit the virus to the same extent as adults.
www.sciencealert.com
Or what we could do is open schools for kids up to high school grades. High school kids can stay home while their parents work and learn online.
The study showed 10 years old and older spread the virus as fast and efficient as adults....
The study on 10 years younger children, is not complete yet... They are not showing as contagious, but believe it could be the younger ones were isolated more... it could be they too are just as infectious....
Pretty much the opposite from what I've heard and read. Any credible link to your claim here?
This new study says young adults can spread COVID-19 rather easily.
www.deseret.com
The study of nearly 65,000 people in South Korea suggests that school reopenings will trigger more outbreaks.
www.nytimes.com
I'm not subscribed to the NYT and never will be, so I read your other article. It was mostly talking about kids over the age of 10. It's not that kids under 10 can't catch it, but it's likely they won't. I did read one theory that the receptors that the virus attaches to are not mature enough in children. Again, exceptions to every rule. But while looking around, I came across this article. I didn't read it because I can't, but if you're subscribed to the NYT, this was posted only 20 hours ago.
Young children have consistently been slow to catch and spread Covid-19. Experts have a few hunches why.
www.nytimes.com
Thank you Ray! The article is interesting and I learned some things! They mentioned the receptors not being fully developed as a possibility that you had mentioned...
Here is a part of the article:
Another way researchers have gauged whether children were less likely to catch the coronavirus was to track infections within households where at least one person had tested positive. Two studies in China found that children were less likely than adults to catch the virus from an infected person living with them. A third study showed no difference.
Some researchers hypothesize that the virus cannot make its way into the cells of younger children as well as it can into those of adults because children make fewer receptors, called ACE2, which is where the virus docks.
As children grow into adolescence and adulthood, they make more ACE2 receptors. Their risk for infection and sickness from the coronavirus would, theoretically, likely increase. The evidence for this hypothesis is limited. To establish a link, experts would have to demonstrate it in lab mice and then in large studies of people over time.
It remains unclear whether young children spread the coronavirus to other children and to adults, according to a handful of studies. (A recent study from South Korea found that unlike the case for children under 10, older children transmit the virus as well as adults do.)
“It certainly doesn’t seem like young kids play a huge role in transmission, but it’s early days in this pandemic. It’s not conclusive yet that they don’t,” Dr. Chiang said.
One theory suggests that because children’s smaller lungs do not push out as many droplets as adults’ do, they also push out fewer droplets potentially containing the coronavirus, said Jeffrey Starke, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who sees patients at Texas Children’s Hospital.
Whether it’s small lungs, less-welcoming cells or other factors, the reason for why kids may be more resilient to catching and spreading the virus is elusive. Even under the best of circumstances, it can take decades for researchers to understand how an infectious disease behaves in adults, let alone its nuances in children.
“With many health issues, children can get the short end of the stick and don’t get studied until we figure out what’s going on in adults,” Dr. Schleiss said.
