Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of unknowns in those numbers - and a 50-100x increase in a somewhat rare condition isn't particularly helpful.

We need solid number to make informed decisions about risk.

This isn't about whether to wear a mask or not (anyone with a brain wears a mask) - this is more about whether to shut down schools and the economy.

> the scientists in question are experts, I trust them

Agreed, but they still aren't giving us NUMBERS.

View on HN

I don't know what you expect. This disease is about 8 months old and everyone is still learning a lot. First of all, you're being kind of demanding. Why don't you collect the numbers? The authors, in many cases, are busy on the side treating waves of critically ill covid-19 patients.

Also, this is from the journal "Brain". It's not in a epidemiology journal. They are just neurologists describing a possible tie between a new virus and a constellation of neurological symptoms. https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/doi/10.1093/brain/awa...

They call for further study in their abstract. This is a new discovery and you want population statistics? They want population statistics, too. The NUMBERS don't exist yet, because they published this on THURSDAY.

Perhaps Reuters should have waited for more information before writing this article.

Warning about a "potential wave of Covid-linked brain damage" when it's likely to be a rare complication is not responsible journalism.

Why? Because people shouldn’t know about something scientists are investigating or because you think Covid19 is over blown and this is just another thing in the bucket of “it’s not over blown” and you don’t like that?

Some people have a really bad day if you hurt their bucket of cognizant dissonance. They have an image of the world if you chip at it in any way, it just pisses them off. You can't convince these people. I'd like to say I've given up.... but my facebook feed says differently lol.

Well, isn't this interesting. On this same thread I'm being downvoted for correcting another comment's outdated quote of the CDC's estimated IFR. I posted the latest (higher) figure from the CDC, which increased the estimated number of people who will die, and some folks didn't like that.

And over here modmans is accusing me of thinking Covid19 is over blown, while you accuse me of cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that you simply dislike any suggestion that Covid19 is less serious than you think, while other people dislike any suggestion that Covid19 is more serious than they think.

Here's what I think: I think honest, factual discussion of this topic is important, and that includes considering all facets of the evidence. I think describing a rare complication as a "potential wave" is overblown. And I think the level of discussion of this topic, even here on HN, is among the worst I've ever seen.

> this is more about whether to shut down schools and the economy.

Can you give me any reason why schools should not be shutdown?

What happens when teachers catch the virus? Is the expectation that they should come to work? If they're supposed to quarantine for 3ish weeks, who fills in for them? And what do you think happens when large portions of the school catch the virus, or kids catch it and bring it home to their parents and family?

The reasons to keep schools open are simple: Kids from 1-10 are immune against COVID-19 and they don't spread the virus.

The risk for kids 11-18 is lower than the risk to survive the traffic to school. The risk to transmit from those older kids to their parents or grandparents are higher, esp. with comorbidity factors. So parents need to decide by their own. Note that parents need to decide that for every years flu season. This year's flu season is pretty soft on kids, and higher risks on normal age groups - in the US only, everywhere else the risk is lower. Most countries are below the normal morbidity rates this flu season. next year's flu season will be H1N1, which has a much higher morbity, but vaccines.

Kids from 1-10 are not immune. They still carry and spread the virus. They just don't get very sick.

There was a recent case locally where an infected child spread it to her entire daycare, infecting all the kids, and in turn infecting all the parents - one of whom died.

Do you have a link to that study?

Because kids not going to school means parents can't go to work - which means they cannot pay their mortgage/rent.

There are a lot of horrible things that happen when the economy shuts down.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

Kids go to school, the coronavirus rapidly spreads and then the school has to shut down again. What exactly did opening up the schools in the first place even do?

You know kids don't get infected at all, right? Or at least that's the latest "scientific consensus". There's no risk from schools re-opening, but children trapped at home unable to see their friends or learn things definitely has risks for them.

Plenty of adults work at schools. I understand the frustration. I cry for the lost year here in my kids’ lives. But I’m also not thrilled to sacrifice teachers and other educational workers on a bonfire. Will you personally volunteer to spend days in cramped classrooms with 25 kids?

Where would this "bonfire" come from? Have other professions experienced with a "bonfire" when they went back to work?

Will you personally volunteer to spend days in cramped classrooms with 25 kids?

Volunteer, no, obviously not. Pay me more than what I get now, sure. I'm not afraid of children. Nor am I retired or in any risk group. I know the data about the risks perfectly well - I'm in far more danger from simply getting to and from the school in the first place. It's other adults that can infect me, not children:

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-a...

Worldwide, relatively few children have been reported with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Data from the Netherlands also confirms the current understanding: that children play a minor role in the spread of the novel coronavirus. The virus is mainly spread between adults and from adult family members to children. The spread of COVID-19 among children or from children to adults is less common.

Where did this 'kids don't get infected' lie come from? Kids absolutely can catch the coronavirus, it's just far less likely to cause adverse effects.

They're still a vector of infection which means they're going to spread it to their family or teachers who can and will get sick and suffer adverse effects. Saying that there's no risk is wrong and harmful to spread.

Lie? Given how much chaos and contradiction comes out of the public health establishment every day, do you really think people who disagree are just lying, or have they seen other reports than you?

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-a...

Here's the public health arm of the Dutch government summarising the evidence:

No lie - current best understanding.

two statements:

"You know kids don't get infected at all"

"relatively few children have been reported with COVID-19,"

So, do get kids infected (at all) or not?

IF opening schools meaningfully contributes to hospitals filling up with deaths and (potentially brain damaged patients), then of course.

...but the degree to which that is true is the exact data we're asking for here.

Okay, but again you keep dancing around my actual question. You're not talking to me at all, you're talking so far past me that either you're ignoring my arguments or not seeing them.

If a teacher or a student catches the coronavirus, is the school supposed to stay open? If a teacher gets sick and has to stay home, who replaces the teacher? Who will risk themselves also getting sick to come in and substitute when there are confirmed coronavirus cases?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com