Read on Twitter
1/What an execrable tweet. So many things wrong here.
Let’s start by making sure we are clear about what this new paper actually says.
This is important because it is clear that people touting it . . . have not read it. https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1278445193155489793
Let’s start by making sure we are clear about what this new paper actually says.
This is important because it is clear that people touting it . . . have not read it. https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1278445193155489793
2/ The paper argues, based off an n of 23, that transmission from symptomatic children is “plausible” because there is evidence that symptomatic children shed infectious SARS-COV-2.
Right off the bat, there is one thing that should make us suspicious.
Right off the bat, there is one thing that should make us suspicious.
3/ This paper is analyzing *symptomatic* children—a VERY small percentage of infected children.
Yet, the conclusions being drawn by hacks are not limited to the role of symptomatic children.
Yet, the conclusions being drawn by hacks are not limited to the role of symptomatic children.
4/Ex: @DrEricDing doesn’t say the new study finds *symptomatic* children spread as easily adults.
His sweeping claims refer to children, period, and says that they as a whole are equal transmission vectors.
Not what the paper says, as is apparent from even the abstract.
His sweeping claims refer to children, period, and says that they as a whole are equal transmission vectors.
Not what the paper says, as is apparent from even the abstract.
5/ In fact, the paper does not even find that symptomatic children are equal transmission vectors.
Incredibly, despite the way it is being framed, the paper does not even observe transmission at all.
Let me repeat that. The paper does not observe transmission.
Incredibly, despite the way it is being framed, the paper does not even observe transmission at all.
Let me repeat that. The paper does not observe transmission.
6/ Rather, the study observes shedding. It finds symptomatic children shed virus & *speculates* (without observing) that they plausibly also transmit.
This may be reasonable speculation, but that is not the same thing as observation and to pass it off as such is misleading.
This may be reasonable speculation, but that is not the same thing as observation and to pass it off as such is misleading.
7/ It is also beside the point. No one denies that it is plausible that children can transmit. That is a strawman.
Again, everyone agrees that children *can* transmit. So, a paper arguing that what no one denies is plausible is far from breaking—its a damn banality.
Again, everyone agrees that children *can* transmit. So, a paper arguing that what no one denies is plausible is far from breaking—its a damn banality.
8/ The REAL issue is whether children play a role in transmission comparable to that of adults—are they, as @DrEricDing announced, equal vectors of transmission? No! And to suggest that this is paper shows otherwise would be risible if it weren’t so reckless.
9/ The paper doesn’t even attempt to resolve that question.
Nor could it. The paper is concerned with what could be. But we have compelling direct observational evidence from all over the world showing that children in fact play a lesser transmission role.
Nor could it. The paper is concerned with what could be. But we have compelling direct observational evidence from all over the world showing that children in fact play a lesser transmission role.
10/ Speculation about what could be can’t defeat direct evidence of what actually is.
To elevate the former over the latter is not science but sophistry.
And for a professor to go on CNN and do this is inexcusable.
To elevate the former over the latter is not science but sophistry.
And for a professor to go on CNN and do this is inexcusable.
11/ Before I close, I want to cal your attention to the observational evidence (not speculation) out of the Netherlands.
Look at these data and tell me: If children were equal transmission vectors, what is the probability that we find data like these? It is virtually zero.
Look at these data and tell me: If children were equal transmission vectors, what is the probability that we find data like these? It is virtually zero.
12/ The data are equally striking out of Iceland and Ireland too. And they equally refute the nonsense that @DrEricDing and other are spewing.
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.21.2000903
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.21.2000903
13/ In short, to act like this paper is ground-breaking is bad enough. It‘s not.
To claim this paper proves children are equal vectors—an issue it does not even address, much less prove—is absurd.
And to do that while ignoring actual evidence on point is beyond the pale.
To claim this paper proves children are equal vectors—an issue it does not even address, much less prove—is absurd.
And to do that while ignoring actual evidence on point is beyond the pale.
@BallouxFrancois and @MarkSlifka, am I missing something? Have you seen this paper and how it is being used?
