[yetanta]

The only thing you can say for sure is that 1/3 of the population that have children also probably have it. If that is true I do not think you can 'contain' it. You can speculate on the long term effects and what not. But you will probably get it. People always ask me what is my zombie plan. I usually reply with 'brrrraaaaains'.

[hedora]

They probably tested sick kids, and kids that were known to be exposed.

Here is one possible interpretation of the story:

The authors tested 100 kids in a COVID ward. Only, 33% had the disease, so the hospital is drastically over reporting COVID cases. This means actual death rates could be 3x higher than thought.

Here’s another:

We randomly tested all kids in Flordia, and 1/3 had coronavirus. This implies there are over 10x more coronavirus cases in Florida than previously thought, so the hospitalization rate and death rates in Florida are less than 10% was previously thought.

As written, the story tells us almost nothing. The most likely explanation is that the underlying study was studying some unrelated aspect of Coronavirus, and that this story is a mixture of sloppy reporting and clickbait. Without knowing how they sampled the population, you can’t infer anything about Coronavirus infection rates from the provided data.

[yetanta]

fair enough

[glennpratt]

> The only thing you can say for sure is that 1/3 of the population that have children also probably have it.

No, you can't say that, because this isn't a random sampling.

[yetanta]

So they tested the parents too?

[rodonn]

No, you can't even say that. 1/3 of those who are tested are positive. But people who go to get a test are more likely to have symptoms or have been exposed. The actual rate in the population is probably lower, though sadly we can't really estimate by how much unless someone runs tests on a random sample of the population.