It's worth noting that most kids don't have symptoms, and it's considered less worthwhile to test kids. So I'd assume the cohort of kids who are tested for COVID-19 are a heck of a lot more symptomatic than the child population at large (and that this is more exaggerated than the selection bias for adults who want a test).

I don’t think there is any evidence of that.

There tots is. :P e.g. Serosurveys of kids show significantly lower positivity rates than adults (fewer kids have had it); PCR testing of kids shows higher positivity rates than adults (a greater proportion of kids tested have it); other studies show seroconversion rates of kids are nearly as high as adults after infection.

The only way to get this outcome is if negative kids are less likely to be PCR tested than negative adults, or if positive kids are more likely to be PCR tested than positive adults, or both.

> I would expect you need the positive diagnosis for evaluating COVID19 treatment options for your kid.

From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of kids with covid do not require any treatment whatsoever, with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms.

Just don't let junior visit grandma.

> with only a small handful of anecdotes of kids having bad symptoms.

Most kids have no symptoms. If a kid has symptoms, they have a risk of them progressing, and COVID symptoms tend to progress fairly suddenly (or, at least, fairly silently, if you aren't continuously tracking O2 says, which results in a sudden-seeming transition from “mild symptoms”, or even no noticeable symptoms, to catastrophic symptoms.) While kids are far more likely to be completely asymptomatic, testing if they are exposed to determine need for monitoring, especially if they are already noticeably ill (and, thus, if you presumed they are infected, equally ought to be presumed to have missed the high probability in their age group of getting by completely asymptomatic.)

Right, but if you read the article, they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources. They are going to suffer long term consequences from Florida's general ignorance. There is no treatment yet, but if your child isn't infected and you have the means, then you should leave Florida and go to a state where they are smarter about social distancing and safety.

> they are asymptomatic with signs of lung damage and probably neurological damage as well from other studies on covid coming out from multiple sources.

Some of this research is rather worrisome. But it's important to not overstate what it says: we find evidence of lung damage in imagery of a small proportion of asymptomatic adults. (I'm not aware of any imaging study of asymptomatic children).

How significant these imagery findings are, what proportion is from COVID-19 (because if you image a bunch of people without COVID-19 you're going to find some weird things in imagery, too), and what proportion of adults infected would have this are unknown (even the asymptomatic adults who manage to get a positive test result and enroll in an imaging study are not typical). Let alone knowing how common this would be in children.

Do you have citations for those studies?

Considering the novel coronavirus somehow jumped over the Pacific Ocean, I reckon modern man's unprecedented mobility might be part of the problem. In light of that, panic flight might not be policy we should embrace. But then again, I hear Wyoming is great this time of year.

are you really willing to let your kid not receive treatment on a "anecdotal" evidence?

if the kid turns out to be that small percentage that do need intensive care - you would be kicking yourself.

kids have died from covid complications, they are not immune.

If the kid has symptoms, which is very unlikely, that's when you'd seek treatment. But if the kid has no symptoms, which is far more likely, what would there be to treat?

if the kid has no symptoms, and tests positive, it is a case to self isolate (the kid as well as the whole family) - so they don't transmit it to other kids and teachers who might be vulnerable. And in this case, it might very well be fatal to the teachers who are in close contact with the kid.

Why is this so hard to grasp? Being a disease carrier is a problem even if the kid doesn't show symptoms, especially it's been established that covid is transmissible with no symptoms.

As I said, "Just don't let junior visit grandma."

As far as I understand there is only symptomatic treatment. (apart from remdesivir, but not sure if I would give it a child before it really needs it (worried about sideeffects?))

My understanding is remdesivir is difficult to produce. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention but I wonder about the supply chain for some of these hard-to-manufacture drugs.