A review of paediatric coronavirus evidence revealed 'the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult.' Researchers have also failed to uncover any cases of children under the age of 10 transmitting the virus, which has killed more than 26,000 people in the UK.
Studies into the impact of coronavirus on children also found it likely youngsters 'do not play a significant role' in transmission of the virus, although experts admitted the facts are still 'unclear'.
Professor Russell Viner, of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, told the Telegraph: 'From around the world we are not seeing evidence that children are involved in spreading or transmitting the virus, but we do not have enough evidence.'
The review of 'pertinent paediatric literature' regarding coronavirus, led by Dr Alasdair Munro and published in partnership with the RCPCH, found current evidence 'consistently demonstrates reduced infection and infectivity of children in the transmission chain.'
Among the studies considered was an infected nine-year-old boy in France who did not pass the vicious virus on to anyone - despite being in contact with 172 people while contagious. The unnamed boy was at the centre of a cluster of cases which made international headlines in February. He and 10 others were struck down while staying in a ski chalet in the French Alps as Steve Walsh, one of the first Britons known to have the virus.
The child went to three different ski schools in eastern France while unknowingly infected, and mingled with other people.
'Whilst a single case study, this evidence suggests different transmission dynamics from children, supporting other data which consistently demonstrates reduced infection and infectivity of children in the transmission chain,' Don't Forget the Bubbles researchers said of the case.
Researchers added that studies of 'multiple family clusters' in Guanzhou, China also suggested children were unlikely to be 'the index case.'
The review concluded:
'Covid-19 appears to affect children less often, and with less severity, including frequent asymptomatic or subclinical infection.
'There is evidence of critical illness, but it is rare. The role of children in transmission is unclear, but it seems likely they do not play a significant role.
'There is no direct evidence of vertical transmission, and early evidence suggests both infected mothers and infants are no more severely affected than other groups.'
Reader Comments
R.C.
Even the stupid rules here say under 12s don't have to, and under 2s should not be wearing masks...
So do I. I feel like taking their parents aside but am stopped by knowing how useless it would be. The few attempts I have made to warn people of the dangers of wearing masks have been met with resistance and self righteousness.
Sigh!
Any number of cases would still never be significant ... and who cares if a child is even a mild risk of passing on some flu bug to an adult.
How incredibly selfish to traumatise children for the negligible risk of affecting adults who, by all accounts, would have had a good innings already
It makes me very, very sad. that our younger generations.The the most vulnerable in our world.
The communities in which we live, the society as a whole will not be able to participate fully, simply because they will have to wear a mask for the rest of their lives (my thought the way things are going). Never knowing the ,look of another passing in the street, just the eyes peeking above, a mask, that they will be required to be wear forever.
That thought fills me with anger, disgust and rejection. we cannot as a human being accept this as the new normal, it is the mindset of patholigical beings, that have infiltrated into the world of human normality.
Love, empathy, compassion, understanding, loyalty. true friendship, and many more attributes of a truly human being.
You whole quote is spot on! RC
I read an article on a sideline from another site about how to refuse this 'Gates-vaccine-type-thing' when it becomes mandatory. Bottom line is a letter to those who administer the jab, stating that they (medical personnel or institutions) agree to take full personal responsibility for any negative or harmful side affects. They of course will refuse to sign. Then you are within your right to refuse.
Of course that won't counter the tracking which will cut you off from your bank, credit, travel and possibly job. But it's a start.
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum!
The problem would be that even if they signed off, I believe that the way such liability waivers/immunity have been interpreted, it wouldn't be 'legally effective' in the sense if you got the jab and had horrific result, they would probably still be protected by that immunity. (Not saying it's right - it isn't.
There's room for a whole law review article on that point.)
Keep fighting the good fight!
RC
We could extend that to โthe lunatics are in charge of the worldโ.
I've had a number of 'religious' point out that this is right out of the book of Revelations. But I usually counter with - "Do you think it's possible that they're using it as a RECIPE BOOK?" Prophecy or instructions , it does fit.