Largest COVID-19 contact-tracing finds children key to spread, evidence of superspreaders

It's superspreaders, few people that spread the virus the most that are the drivers behind the spread of the virus.

#coronavirus #COVID19 #science
It's enough to see the words: children & super-spreaders together to conclude such articles are utter BS.
@Arpad Could you please elaborate it? This is the report of a large scale scientific study
Agreed. "Superspreader", in this context, is a statistical term. There is no a priori reason to believe a child cannot be a "superspreader".
Cass M diaspora
Kids get colds and flu; I don't know why people would assume they can't get COVID; I would assume mild or asymptomatic cases. BUT the comma in the headline makes it clear (along with the summary) that the superspreaders aren't necessarily children.
As a parent I can guarantee the children are usually super-spreaders of any thing they can caught. Most of the times the grownups are already imune to a lot of things they catch, other they aren't. I lost the count of the times one of my children caught something, and in the kid garden they caught a lot of things, and it spread to all or almost all household.
Cass M diaspora
A friend said with the shut down in March, the whole family was healthier than they'd ever been.
What it means super-spreader? It spreads more than the rest (the adults), right? I assume we can agree children get less ill than adults. Now, just think for yourself (there is evidence supporting this & articles) who spreads more: a body which is overwhelmed by the virus replication (the person fills sick) or a body where the virus gets easily neutralized (there are no symptoms). Even if the virus lies dormant inside the body of the child (there is no evidence for such a thing) the children are not super-spreaders, compared to adults.
Cass M diaspora
IF you read the article, it says children can get the virus AND there are are superspreaders.
The researchers found that the chances of a person with coronavirus, regardless of their age, passing it on to a close contact ranged from 2.6% in the community to 9% in the household. The researchers found that children and young adults—who made up one-third of COVID cases—were especially key to transmitting the virus in resource-limited populations
Emphasis mine.

Anyone can be a superspreader, including children. Are they likely to be? Schools are much larger gatherings than adults are allowed, even in restricted areas and small children appear to have fewer symptoms. Children are an important LINK in contact tracing.

I don't know why people are fighting the child aspect so much while ignoring the good news that should help with effective intervention in addition to wearing masks.
A study of more than a half-million people in India who were exposed to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, suggests that the virus' continued spread is driven by only a small percentage of those who become infected.
First of all virus and disease transmission is not my field of work so I can't neither pretende to know a lot about it. What I have read so far is that people without symptoms can and usually do transmit it. Their viral charge (louse translation from the Portuguese term for it, not sure if it is the correct word in English) is lower but still capable to transmit, which seems to be in some contradiction of the study mention by @Cass M with data from India. The non or low symptomatic people tend to infect more people because they don't know they are ill while people with strong symptoms tend to know it and behave according to it. So I can see how children with low or no symptoms can spread it more. With all this said the truth is this virus and the pandemic are very new in several aspects and all institutions are trying to take actions with incomplete information. There are things we know it helps to lower the transmition rate but it is not certain that there aren't other that would be more effective.
Cass M diaspora
I don't think that it's contradictory @Andre Wemans, just another piece in the puzzle. It seems superspreaders (people or events) are just better at getting the virus airborne and exposing new hosts.

I am not an immunologist or epidemiologist but I have training in a health field and worked in science, health/safety and risk assessment. I feel like people are looking for black and white in a new illness; health outcomes are only really visible in large populations and seen random as the personal level because no 2 people are exactly the same. This is amplified in new illnesses.
@Cass M perfectly in agreement, really scientific medical approach was always very difficult due that not two individuals react the same way and the difficulty of separate causality from correlation on so highly noise data. Being this a new virus, people and institutions trying to cope with it and so much uncertain makes it very hard, so it may appear genuine research data that at the first glance seem to be contradictory but in most cases are probably complementary can be very confusing.