Comment by keeganpoppen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by keeganpoppen | Hacker News Reader

this is interesting news, but it annoys me a little bit that all it really says is that children "can" carry a higher viral load... OBVIOUSLY the most salient fact is whether children are more conducive / likely to spread the virus / etc. because clearly the question is not whether children can get the virus, etc., but whether they are a more potent attack vector than the general population. or maybe people seriously thought that because the virus has reduced symptoms in children that children somehow don't... catch the virus at all? it is hard to not feel like there is a paternalistic bent in the way this information is presented, and one that exists only to subvert the kind of maximally shallow, facile social media critique that will be promulgated by people who are anti-mask/-etc. anyway... why must the communication of the truth in so many spheres be polluted by the mere possibility* of out-of-context quotation causing stupid people to throw a hissy fit? apologies if it turns out I misread the ambiguous wording in this report, though I think the point still stands generally, at least from my own experience...

You seem to be arguing two opposing points: both that there is a lack of certainty that would help the general public understand, and that somehow the information is being shaped by how the general public understands. Argue one point or the other, and you might get a more cogent response.

As it is, I'm left thinking that science is built on limited understanding, stating only what the evidence to hand supports, and that the problem with the understanding of the general public is that they want certainty now when there are only more questions and areas to research for now.

Research should not extrapolate far beyond what can be proven, regardless of how the result is filtered and distorted by consumers of social media.

> this is interesting news, but it annoys me a little bit that all it really says is that children "can" carry a higher viral load

No it doesn't. In the first paragraph it says:

> The infected children were shown to have a significantly higher level of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in ICUs for COVID-19 treatment, according to Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General Hospital for Children (MGHfC).

So they SHOWED in patients that it DOES have higher viral load. First paragraph.

The second paragraph contradicts your reading further:

> The study, “Pediatric SARS-CoV-2: Clinical Presentation, Infectivity, and Immune Reponses,” was published today in The Journal of Pediatrics.

> “I was surprised by the high levels of virus we found in children of all ages, especially in the first two days of infection,” says Lael Yonker, director of the

Maybe there's a reasonable question about how susceptible children are to infection? Like, conditional on infection they have high viral loads that likely make them spreaders, but maybe it's hard for the virus to take hold in children? Just speculation, personally not inclined to believe it.

To me the real issue here is how did they select the children. Unfortunately, I cannot find the paper. Why don't they ever link to these things? A likely restatement of this article is, "To have even mild symptoms of COVID, children need a much higher viral load than hospitalized adults." Again, I'd love to find the paper to see if my guess is right.

The paper is at: https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)31023-4/fulltext

Thanks! I'll note it is exactly what I thought. This was not a random population. This is children showing symptoms bad enough to warrant going to the hospital.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com