Article in Nature magazine:
But other studies, including some from South Korea, Italy and Iceland, where testing was more widespread, have observed lower infection rates among children. Some studies from China also support the suggestion that children are less susceptible to infection. One, published in Science on 29 April2, analysed data from Hunan, where the contacts of people with known infections had been traced and tested for the virus. The authors found that for every infected child under the age of 15, there were close to 3 people infected between the ages of 20 and 64.
A study3 of a cluster of cases in the French Alps describes one nine-year-old who attended three schools and a skiing class while showing symptoms of COVID-19, but did not infect a single person. “It would be almost unheard of for an adult to be exposed to that many people and not infect anyone else,†says Munro.
Kirsty Short, a virologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, led an as-yet unpublished meta-analysis of several household studies, including some from countries that had not closed schools at the time, such as Singapore. She found that children are rarely the first person to bring the infection into a home; they had the first identified case in only roughly 8% of households. By comparison, children had the first identified case during outbreaks of H5N1 avian influenza in some 50% of households, the study reports.
Few studies exist of transmission from schools to the broader community, but an Australian report from an ongoing investigation suggests that it’s limited, and much lower than with other respiratory viruses, such as influenza. Among more than 850 people who had been in contact with 9 students and 9 staff members confirmed to have COVID-19 in primary and high schools in the state of New South Wales, only two cases of COVID-19 were recorded among those contacts, both in children.
Not a slam dunk, but lots of evidence that kids rarely suffer much from the virus and don't seem to spread it in the same way adults do. There is a limit to this effect when the kid gets into the mid to high teens (15+) they start to look more like adults, although the danger to them specifically is extremely low. Also keep in mind that cases of Covid-19 are clearly incredibly underreported. It was in the country before it became a household name or was clearly understood as a risk by the medical community, and tests continue to be unreliable or hard to get. It's still very hard to get a test for antibodies.
But one could look at a study in Chelsea, MA where 200 random people walking the streets of Chelsea were tested, and it was found that 30% had antibodies. That study was in April!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/17/business/nearly-third-200-blood-samples-taken-chelsea-show-exposure-coronavirus/A statistical analysis from the Imperial College of London concluded that the likely level of infection in MA is 10x the reported number, again because many infected people were never tested, and this will undoubtably continue for some time.
I'm not saying this isn't a lethal virus for the sick and elderly. It's an undeniable fact at this point, given the 117k+ deaths attributed to the disease. But we can not continue to force the world to live in a bubble and prevent young people who are not facing any substantial risk from Covid-19 from resuming their lives to some degree, because people who 70+ years of age have a 4-15% chance of dying from it. If you have Heart disease you have a 10% chance of dying from Covid-19. If you have Diabetes it's 7.3%. You also are substantial risk of dying from the flu with these same diseases.
We have techniques to slow the spread of the disease and protect ourselves, but the vast majority of us already have a healthy immune system that can fight it off. If 13% of the population of massachussets already has had Covid-19 and survived, and 16% of New York residents have had it, then mortality rates are vastly overstated.
I won't pretend to have the perfect prescription for how fast things should open up or what measures should be instituted, beyond those that are currently underway, but I can tell you that much of the country and the world at large is moving in that direction.
Lots of people have been watching Sweden closely as they chose not to quarantine at any point, and still have faced roughly the same mortality rates.
While other countries were slamming on the brakes, Sweden kept its borders open, allowed restaurants and bars to keep serving, left preschools and grade schools in session and placed no limits on public transport or outings in local parks. Hairdressers, yoga studios, gyms and even some cinemas have remained open.
Gatherings of more than 50 people are banned. Museums have closed and sporting events have been canceled. At the end of March, the authorities banned visits to nursing homes.
That’s roughly it. There are almost no fines, and police officers can only ask people to oblige. Pedestrians wearing masks are generally stared at as if they have just landed from Mars.
As of May 1, the estimated % of the population recovered was 26%. If there is a lesson from Sweden, it's that what is really needed is hyperfocus on the people most at risk, which is the elderly and those battling life threatening disease. These are the people who need to be protected, and around whom additional precautions are required. The eldercare system and healthcare system is the battleground for Covid-19, not the hockey rinks and ball fields of the world.