Back

@auscandoc this is a abstract a opinion piece, so one person opinion. It would really help to have a study.p

@JOK3R I read it as a prospective study no? “Materials and methods
2.1. Sample collection
Prospective surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 throat carriage was per-
formed among children, their parents, and employees in a single pri-
mary school in Liège (Belgium) from September 2020 to June 2021.
Weekly screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection through throat washing
was performed from September to December 2020. From January to
June 2021, screening was done twice a week using the same protocol.”

@JOK3R But I will admit the modelling stuff makes my neurones whimper :) e.g “Given that a case is assigned 𝐾 possible infectors with
frequency 𝑓𝑘, (𝑘 = 1, …, 𝐾), the entropy is defined as
−∑𝐾
𝑘=1
𝑓𝑘 log(𝑓𝑘)
such that an entropy of 0 indicates complete posterior support for a
given infector. Higher values indicate a larger number of plausible
infectors, hence higher uncertainty in ancestry assignment”

@auscandoc I'm not saying you are wrong, just opinion pieces don't give a very good picture.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9099553/ #covid19 #SarsCoV2 #SARS2

@JOK3R The thing I’m not getting is “opinion piece” as the paper I’m reading is not an opinion piece but was actually a prospective study and modelling.

@auscandoc if it's a abstract and as no study under the abstract it's normally a opinion piece. I would say try and look for more peer reviewed studies on the subject. I leant all this from a good friend who nearly a 30 year viral immunologist
Who marks other studie in the peer reviewed process.
Who was one of the scientists who created HPV vaccine.
And work globally with other scientists on COVID vaccines. This is no digg at you mate, more just pointing out be careful what you use as evidence

@JOK3R Wondering if we are talking about the same paper. Yes my original toot linked to the abstract but that has links to the full published text, which I have institutional access to (see screen shots). The subsequent text quotes were from the full (published, peer reviewed) paper.

But thanks for the link to the SR. Had not seen that one. Hope to read it later.

@auscandoc

@auscandoc I'm from the UK I know what was happening in our schools.
A study would of taking 1000 children tested every day to check on the spread. There using data and not a study, a data model. It only really coming to light the damage being done by sar-cov-2 on children
We have 2 Millon under 18 years old living with long term COVID.
The abstract say itself that a study needs to be done on. I get better studies from a friend. transmission .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833602/

@JOK3R They demonstrate further on in the paper the necessary sampling ratio to reflect the full population.

And none of this is denying the high prevalence of infection (and longCOVID) in children. In fact I interpret this study to refute a lot of the minimization that was (and still is) occurring.

Unfortunately (I believe anyway) there was too much false reassurance that “children don’t get it/get it badly”.

@auscandoc wow that was so wrong, what they first believed.
Not knowing much about sar-cov-2, now we know the real damage it doing to this young.
Neurological damage organ failure myocarditis, we now know it's always braking through the blood brain barrier. Aging them and causing brain damage.
But government are not listening to scientist anymore.
I did give you a follow, but for some reason it unfollowed so I followed back.

@auscandoc As you pls mate, I'm not hear to argue only learn and educate.