The risk of transmission in children was an area where there had been insufficient evidence
I am feeling better now!From the early onset of the pandemic, assumptions have been made that the rate of children coronavirus infection has been low, and mortality is negligible.
I have hypothesised the reason for children for getting severe infection, and I have more to write about it.
It is commonsense that if less children are tested, the number of children being tested positive would be low.
In fact, after many times being declined by The Age to publish my comments on the coronavirus crisis, it finally published my comment about testing the children, and if teachers and students are exempted from social distancing, so should the rest of the community. (See my earlier post in this group).
Just about half an hour ago, I read the following in The Age the following:
“Professor Sutton also urged parents to take their children to get tested if they show even really mild symptoms. He said the risk of transmission in children was an area "where there had been insufficient evidence" so far and he hoped expanded testing would shed light on infection rates in Victorian children.
"We don't know the extent to which kids are asymptomatic and the extent of which they are passing it on to each other and others," he said.”
Is it just a coincidence?
Thank you for reading.
