[VikingCoder]

Thank you for the detailed responses.

But please consider:

At the one extreme, someone says "31 confirmed death by Covid19 on children under 14 years." As though death is the only possible negative consequence, and since 31 is a very small number, that should put to rest any concerns.

At the other extreme end, we're worried about the teachers, the staff, and the families of the students. We're worried about children who get sick, don't die, and develop chronic conditions.

The real danger level is probably in-between those two extremes, is it not?

[__blockcipher__]

There is abundant evidence that children do not play a serious role in transmission, so concerns about the teachers are unfounded:

[COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame](https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07...) - July 2020

--

As far as negative consequences, there is no theoretical basis for long-term consequences of COVID-19. There is basis for medium-term lung abnormalities which happens in general with pneumonia, but that doesn't apply to children except the incredibly small fraction that actually have bad outcomes, which is so rare that we should literally treat it as a rounding error.

Even pediatric multi-inflammatory syndrome is incredibly rare.

No, most people are dramatically overestimating COVID-19 risk and dramatically underestimating risk of lockdown, universal masking, etc

[VikingCoder]

You're an interesting person. In the same comment you say "most people are dramatically overestimating COVID-19 risk," and then cite an article which says,

"Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents arguably the greatest public health crisis in living memory."

In other comments, you've claimed there's no long-term risk to children, while the article you cite says,

"emerging reports of a novel Kawasaki disease–like multisystem inflammatory syndrome necessitate continued surveillance in pediatric patients"

Then you just plain went to far, when you said "there is no theoretical basis for long-term consequences of COVID-19." Sorry, but "there is no theoretical basis" is an over-statement. If you had said, "The evidence indicates there are no long-term consequences," you would have maintained your aura of authority. But "there is no theoretical basis" is too far, especially since you cited an article that specifically mentions novel Kawasaki disease–like multisystem inflammatory syndrome. That's not just a theoretical basis, that's an example of a concrete basis. "There is no theoretical basis" doesn't mean, "the theory is incorrect," it means, "it's impossible for the theory to be correct," and that's a statement the evidence YOU CITED shows is not true.

I think you're more informed on the subject than average, but I am no longer convinced you have a good grasp of even the evidence you cite, let alone the body of available research. You Google well, but you don't really understand.

[__blockcipher__]

(1) Kawasaki-disease is not long-term risk. It's a disorder that goes away.

(2) Given your only argument against my statement of there being no theoretical basis is what I addressed in (1), there's not much for me to address here. So I'll throw it back at you: What long-term pathology has been observed in SARS-1?

It may be that we are using "long-term" in different senses. I don't consider 3 months to be "long-term". AFAIK most people raising alarm about (unfounded) long-term damage are implying either lifelong or at least years+, right?

(3)

> In the same comment you say "most people are dramatically overestimating COVID-19 risk," and then cite an article which says,

>> "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents arguably the greatest public health crisis in living memory."

I don't see how these statements are mutually incompatible. It's possible for COVID-19 to be the most serious pandemic in over a century - which it is - and for people to still be overestimating the risk.

There is a study that surveyed people for their estimated COVID-19 risk which supports my claim; people in the 20-29 age group estimated their risk of death if infected at 2%. Think about that. That's at minimum a 50x overestimate.

Humorously, the older someone was the less they estimated their risk in absolute terms; young people reported higher chance of death than older people.

[VikingCoder]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/monumental-acknow...

[tripletao]

What risk do you see in universal mask use? Lots of people have worn masks routinely for many years (medical staff, cleanroom operators, East Asians, etc.), without obvious bad consequences. Lockdowns are indeed expensive, but mask use seems pretty cheap to me.

[VikingCoder]

> There is abundant evidence that children do not play a serious role in transmission

Seems like there's evidence to the contrary:

Older children, 10-19, spread the Coronavirus just as much as adults, large study finds.

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