[ajphdiv]

Assuming children do not spread covid-19 as much as adults, it would be fair to say they still do spread at some degree. Therefore, the question is what is the risk tolerance that is acceptable to society? Are we as a society willing to accept that some adults will be infected and/or die as a result of children going to school? What's the acceptable risk tolerance for teachers? If there is an assumption that some teachers will die, how many is too many?

[Mountain_Skies]

There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children. What is that level? Doubt anyone wants to specify an exact number because then they will be forever tarred with that number of deaths. One thing is very obvious about this pandemic: the degree to which it has been politicized has made it impossible to respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk.

[harikb]

> respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk

Is there another example in the U.S where U.S citizens reacted reasonably and averted disaster?

[salmon30salmon]

It could be argued that the response to the Spanish Flu, Polio, HK Flu, H1N1, Zika, Swine etc. It appears by most measures this is an order of magnitude less lethal than Spanish Flu. THIS one, however, is political.

[atomi]

0.65% IFR as of the latest CDC estimates (July 10)[1]

We had fewer people in 1918 so this would still mean millions of deaths if we let this run it's course without mitigation.

My other concern is whether this virus will have adverse effects later in life when one's immune system weakens.

This virus may very well drastically drop our overall life expectancy.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

[salmon30salmon]

The update the CDC made is interesting. AS the footnote in the estimate table states, the IFR is taken from the pre-print _A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates_ by Meyerowitz-Katz, G., & Merone, L. et. al. The conclusion of their paper states:

> Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until May, 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents the ‘true’ point estimate..._

There have been several reports that the IFR has lowered since late May, so it will be interesting to see if they rerun their metanalysis with June/July data. Their paper also makes the point that this could be an underestimate due to reporting issues (under-reported deaths). But likewise it could be an overestimate due to under-reporting infections (with so many asymptomatic cases). I am a little concerned over the lack of mention of that fact in the paper, which to me is as important as the under-reported deaths.

I understand your concern regarding long-term impacts. While we can't dismiss those concerns, it would be the only coronavirus in the history of known coronaviruses to do anything like that. So with our knowledge of this virus and the family of viruses, we can say that is "unlikely".

Tissue damage from a lung infection is _not_ rare. The flu does this (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717150302.h.... Any pneumonia can cause scarring of the lung tissue, viral or otherwise.

If you are referring to the clotting and inflammation, again this is not altogether rare for a serious infection. Inflammation is common and not normally dangerous. The clotting is interesting, but also not unheard of. Also some interesting evidence that this may be a secondary infection (perhaps caused by venting? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836438/) https://principia-scientific.org/cv-19-autopsies-show-blood-...

There are going to be a lot of deaths. I can't argue out of that reality. It is really unfortunate. We will all known somebody who dies from this, or at least are within a free degrees. The debate, in my opinion, isn't on preventing all deaths, it won't happen. It is how do we minimize death while preventing long term societal and economic damage. And how do we protect the most vulnerable without causing those damages elsewhere.

I know it sounds weird, but the age stratification of the IFR is a HUGE gift of this virus. It is more age stratified than the flu or other common pandemic sources. We are very lucky. Next time we may not be, so I hope we can learn from this on how to prepare for what we feared this was.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The polio waves in the 40s and 50s I'd argue were handled pretty optimally. Public accommodations were (for over a decade!) shut down when needed to control the epidemic in their area, and the government pushed hard to fund vaccine development. But as far as I've read, there were no significant voices arguing either "polio is just a bad flu" or "we'd better shut down schools until the vaccine is ready".

[snowwrestler]

> There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children.

This seems to be a common thought, but it is an error to assume that incidence of death = acceptance of death.

The truth is, the socially and politically acceptable incidence of death from seasonal communicable diseases is 0. Yes, deaths still occur, but that is in spite of absolutely tremendous investment of resources to try our very best to get it down to 0.

To pick on the flu, for example, there is no tactic or resource that we have available that we have not deployed. We have invested many $billions to create an annual national vaccination program that aims for 100% uptake and is even backed by a special liability regime to manage lawsuit risk. It is the largest vaccine program we have for any disease.

We have also invested (and continue to invest) additional $billions in studying every aspect of the disease, how it invades the body, how it spreads, how it harms people, etc. We have spent even more to create public awareness of flu symptoms, treatments, and appropriate behaviors.

The fundamental difference between the flu and COVID-19 is the possibility of significant asymptomatic or presymptomatic contagion. With the flu, you're not really contagious until you are symptomatic, so getting people (including kids) to stay home when they feel sick does as much good as a lockdown would. We don't really know for sure with COVID-19. So far it seems like a big possibility, hence the emphasis on masks, separation, stay at home, etc.

Also unlike the flu, we don't know what COVID-19 does to the human body. We don't know how long post-infection immunity lasts, and we don't know what chronic ailments might linger with survivors.

The reality is that we can't compare it with "other threats of similar risk" because we don't know what the risk is yet. That's why it is appropriate for the current response to COVID-19 to differ from the way we fight the flu and other more well-understood communicable diseases.

[leetrout]

My wife is a teacher and my daughter will have to return to day care if schools resume.

What bothers me the most is that just like retail / grocery store workers we put people with the lowest earning potential and generally worst benefits directly in the path of this. I don’t want to get COVID but unless I convince my wife to quit her job my odds of getting it greatly increase due to situations out of my control.

[matz1]

I don't want to get covid either but the risk is low enough that it doesn't bother me at all. I try to live my life as it was before pandemic as much as i can.

[kilroy_jones]

Isn't living life in the same way pre-covid the reason the US is having so many new cases?

[SpicyLemonZest]

It is. I think that's pretty universally acknowledged, even by those who think it's the right strategy.

[matz1]

Yes but many new cases doesn't mean its bad. Most of it are either asymptomatic or having mild symptoms.

[kilroy_jones]

It does seem that way, and I hope it remains so. The demographics have shifted younger. I do worry about my parents, grandparents and friends who have preexisting conditions and the increase risk with so many more cases around.

[rhacker]

At least in the United States, I suspect that the adults spreading it are doing it enough that it won't even register as a blip on the radar.

[BurningFrog]

Even when kids go to the physical school, teachers could still video in for the teaching.

Yeah, sounds a bit crazy, but could probably be made to work.

[markvdb]

Let's say you're putting a group of twenty-five random sixteen year olds together without a live coach. What could possibly go wrong?

[BurningFrog]

The 16 year olds could step up. These are tough times.

I have much less faith in 8 years olds.

I like the young proctor suggestion a lot!

[wang_li]

They could hire one or two 19-20 year old proctors to be in the room with the kids. Would be pretty safe.