UKH

This

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

was published by the Government on 17th December and on page 9 has the following -

"This is based on data up to the 2ndDecember 2020

•This analysis shows that children and young people are more likely to bring the virus into the household than those aged 17+. They are also less likely to catch the virus within the household. This is consistent with previous analysis of household transmission (14 October).

•External exposure shows how likely someone is to be the first case in their household. Young people (aged 2-16) are much more likely than those aged 17+ to be the first case in their household. In particular, those aged 12 to 16 are nearly 7 times as likely to be the first case in their household, compared to those 17+.

•Transmissibility shows how likely someone is to pass the virus on within the household, if they are the first positive case. The analysis shows that 2 –16 year olds are more than twice as likely to pass on the virus within their household compared to people aged 17+.

•Susceptibility shows how likely someone is to catch the virus, if someone else in their household has brought it in. Children aged 16 or under are less likely to get the virus from someone within their household compared to people aged 17+."

Dave

At first I thought it was intriguing that they were less likely to catch it within the household. Then I realised that if they were more likely to be the ones that brought it into the house in the first place, then they're more likely to have already had it, so it follows that they're not likely to catch it back from someone they've just passed it to.

"Schools are a vector of transmission between households" - thanks Boris; until last night I'm not sure anyone had considered that!

I find it worrying that Boris and the rest in power seem to be unable to spot something that most of the rest of us thought was, at least, very likely and, at worst, blindingly obvious.

I was almost ready to, sort of, accept Boris's change of opinion on schools - I saw him on the Andrew Marr show when he said, a number of times, 'Schools are safe'  - to closing schools on Monday until I read the above government document.

Dave

Throughout this pandemic I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that children don't spread this. Common bloody sense aside, it's nice to see some real data on this.

So our government has *known* *for* *certain* that opening schools would increase transmission since October, 14 and they have waited til now to close them. 

Bloody typical

Honestly I think Boris isn't very good at logical thinking. 

On a similar note lets face it there probably was more transmission in peoples houses a few months back than pubs, however people per square meter I'm willing to bet pubs were far worse. Encouraging people from different households to mix together without social distancing around a table is at best confusing to them as to why they shouldn't do that everywhere and at worst down right dangerous.

Children may be a significant vector BUT the spike happened AFTER schools closed for Christmas. Schools may not be a cause of spread but children coming free almost certainly are.

Bump.

Very interesting. I need to check the "17+" meaning, to make sure it really is anyone >16 and not, for instance, just those 17-18, which would throw a different light on those figures. Although assuming 12-16 means 12 < age < 17, I.e. 4 years, vs 2 years 17-18, that figure of 7x would still mean a factor of 3.5x

It does seem to agree with our real life experience of illnesses coinciding with children returning to school.

I thought it was always understood that children could catch the virus and pass it on to others, albeit that younger children were less likely to catch it and less infectious if they did than older ones? It shouldn't be a surprise either that, even if they are less infectious, young children are more likely to pass it on to their family - not many six year olds get back from school then routinely self-isolate in their rooms playing on the X-box and messaging their friends whilst not many 17 year olds sit on their parent's knee for a bedtime story. 

The counter-points were always that the risk of harm to the children if they did catch it was low - so it was safe for them - and the educational, developmental and psychological damage from not going to school was severe, especially for the least advantaged children.

On balance then, if overall transmission could be brought down enough by stopping other things - like going to the pub, concerts, football matches, house parties and traipsing round crowded shops buying stuff we don't really need, those should be stopped first with closing schools as a last resort.

Now, with all those other restrictions clearly not enough to stop this new variant, there aren't many other levers to pull.