> Children don’t exist in isolation. They’re phenomenally good at spreading every infection to the rest of the household and everywhere else they go.

This really is _the_ important point of contention.

Phrased differently: Does viral spread in one cohort drive the viral spread in another?

And can policy be designed to drive wedges between cohorts to reduce such co-factors?

That being said, as it stands, the data doesn't support your claim. It seems child activity is largely independent of spread among adults.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1146/6024998

15 June 2021, Meta-analysis

> Children are Infrequently Identified as the Index Case of Household SARS-CoV-2 Clusters

> In analysis of the cluster index cases ... only 3.8% were identified as having a pediatric index case.

> These pediatric cases only caused 4.0% of all secondary cases, compared with the 97.8% of secondary cases that occurred when an adult was identified as the index case in the cluster.

> Clusters where the asymptomatic/symptomatic status of the contact cases was not described were excluded from the analysis. Even with this broader definition, 18.5% children were identified as the index case in the household clusters.

The GP explicitly says he is concerned for his child, and that's the only thing under discussion in this thread. In that context, it's worth pointing out that RSV is more dangerous to help people think about how they process this current risk.

It has been frustrating to see how these two non-mutually exclusive points have been used to debate each other. We talk around each other and can't have a logical conversation.

It's society's job to protect children, not the other way around.

Closing schools while opening bars is huge failure of leadership.

you could be like BC and keep everything open! at least it's consistent! -_-

Omicron is so contagious that its going to burn through regardless of moderate mitigation techniques. NYC went from 1 case to 40,000 in a month. Even if you lock down for 3 months to get back to 0. We'd be back to 40,000 the second we reopened.

Delay isn't worth anything unless hospitals are so bad people will die from preventable deaths.

Some people have adventures and others have “in-ventures”. You are ok with holing up in your abode for years of your life to avoid a mild risk (assuming you are under 70 years old and reasonably healthy). Others are not willing to live this way and would like the freedom to make that choice. Some people, by the way, have less choice, like the people that deliver your food and merchandise to the cave you call home or the people that treat your non-covid (of course) injuries and ailments.

Just because you didn't get it yet doesn't mean you can avoid it forever. Expecting permanent unceasing vigilance by everyone is absurd and unrealistic. The virus will never go away. Do you really think young people should cancel all parties forever?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

https://torontosun.com/news/world/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-t...

I don't have numbers handy, but I would suspect that at least 10x more Americans caught Covid at work as out partying. If only because people spend more time at work.

Only about a third of American households had anyone working from home during the pandemic. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/03/working-from-...

I do agree. Work and school are those special places where "COVID doesn't spread", according to the powers that be.

>Work and school are those special places where "COVID doesn't spread", according to the powers that be.

Who are those "powers that be"? According to OSHA[0] and CMS[2], workplaces (general workplaces and healthcare settings that accept Medicare and Medicaid funding, respectively) have grave risks of COVID transmission.

In fact, they feel so strongly about it that they've taken it to the US Supreme Court[1].

[0] https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...

[2] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/aamc-state...

Line 1: I'd like to protect them from becoming orphans

Line 2: Agreed, close bars, no one needs more drug addicts

The other members of the household are already vaccinated for COVID-19 if they want to be. The vaccines are still highly effective at preventing deaths.

RSV isn't really safe for adults either. But we accept the risk.

So effective, you go from 98.999% recoverable to 99.998% recoverable. Amazing. So glad we shut down everything and destroyed countless lives for less than 1% of gain.

Your numbers are . . . oddly chosen. Nevertheless, consider the following:

Calculate (1-(98.99/100)7.753 billion to get 78 million deaths Calculate (1-(99.998/100)7.753 billion to get 155,060 deaths.

That seems like really good progress.

"Germ Casserole" is the term I've heard used for schools from K through College during flu and cold season.

The concern raised is "everyone and their dog is getting omicron, and I'm worried about my child getting it when they aren't vaccinated"

Everyone else already has it, and have access to vaccines

And as TFA says, the rest of society is “vaxxed and done”. So why are we harming children by closing schools to “protect” people who are going out to bars and restaurants?

Right, so get vaccinated and get on with your life.

But what it got to do with vaccination? Children are going to still spread it whether they are vaccinated or not. There are some claims about vaccination reducing the load and therefore reducing infection of other people but I find it a very hard to control type of research and seeing so many vaccinated getting corona I don't think it is so significant in protecting other people and preventing spread. Maybe just a little bit, but how do you measure how much is the right amount in order to make kids getting the vaccination more beneficial overall than not?