Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS 21 Harrisburg)   Well it looks like younger people are less likely to catch COVID-19, according to research   (local21news.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, old half, Study, People  
•       •       •

483 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 17 Jun 2020 at 11:14 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



12 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-17 9:52:35 AM  
They still need to try avoiding catching it.
 
2020-06-17 11:13:56 AM  

kdawg7736: They still need to try avoiding catching it.


From what I've seen, they're not worried one bit.
 
2020-06-17 11:29:10 AM  

edmo: kdawg7736: They still need to try avoiding catching it.

From what I've seen, they're not worried one bit.



From what I've seen, the adults are not too worried about it either.
 
2020-06-17 11:30:42 AM  
Their data is based on confirmed tests, not actual cases.  Their symptoms are generally much weaker, most don't even see the doctor if they contract it, and never get tested/confirmed.

While it's likely accurate that their lack of serious symptoms makes it less likely they'll transmit it, I don't know that what they're measuring links to their conclusion.
 
2020-06-17 12:40:21 PM  

edmo: kdawg7736: They still need to try avoiding catching it.

From what I've seen, they're not worried one bit.


Good.  Then they can get back to work.  I need a haircut.
 
2020-06-17 12:41:00 PM  
FTFA: As for asymptomatic transmission, the authors said more research is needed.

With such a short article, I have to question the science used in this "study". They don't seem to address the idea that young people may actually be catching it, but as they are not symptomatic and haven't been tested, I guess they fall into the "not infected" bucket.

This is why we need adequate testing: A test to see if you currently have it (preferably before being contagious), a test for being contagious, and a test to see if you have had it in the past (antibodies). As far as I understand it, we really don't have adequate testing for all three conditions yet, and testing is still far too low to make conclusions like this "study" does.

When a co-worker came down with COVID-19 like symptoms back in March, they told him to self isolate, but don't bother with the test. Was he ever counted? Did he really have it? At the time, states were struggling just to test hundreds, let alone the tens of thousands they needed at the time (and millions now). Yes, he was a younger adult (20s).
 
2020-06-17 12:54:22 PM  
I blame crazy eyebrows, nose-bushes, and ear thickets.

All that hair gives covid a place to breed and boost viral load.
 
2020-06-17 12:55:38 PM  
I changed my mind! It's because a child's tissues are more elastic.
 
2020-06-17 12:55:55 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: edmo: kdawg7736: They still need to try avoiding catching it.

From what I've seen, they're not worried one bit.


From what I've seen, the adults are not too worried about it either.


Oh, when you're in the 20% mortality cohort, you worry about catching it. 5-1 is good for horse races. Bad for dying.
 
2020-06-17 1:02:04 PM  

LesserEvil: FTFA: As for asymptomatic transmission, the authors said more research is needed.

With such a short article, I have to question the science used in this "study". They don't seem to address the idea that young people may actually be catching it, but as they are not symptomatic and haven't been tested, I guess they fall into the "not infected" bucket.

This is why we need adequate testing: A test to see if you currently have it (preferably before being contagious), a test for being contagious, and a test to see if you have had it in the past (antibodies). As far as I understand it, we really don't have adequate testing for all three conditions yet, and testing is still far too low to make conclusions like this "study" does.

When a co-worker came down with COVID-19 like symptoms back in March, they told him to self isolate, but don't bother with the test. Was he ever counted? Did he really have it? At the time, states were struggling just to test hundreds, let alone the tens of thousands they needed at the time (and millions now). Yes, he was a younger adult (20s).


In my anecdotal experience, people don't want to get tested.  The free sites in my city are deserted.  I had some time to kill one day so I got tested.  41 people standing around "working" the testing site and at 9:30, I was the first customer of the day and the only one I saw in the ten or fifteen minutes it took.  (Not complaining about the wasted money as people need jobs right now).   The one by my house, which is admittedly not free unless you have certain types of insurance, I've only seen three people ever there, and I drive by it every day.

Unless you want some Orwellian mandatory testing policy, you're never going to get adequate data on this.
 
2020-06-17 4:24:20 PM  

FLMountainMan: LesserEvil: FTFA: As for asymptomatic transmission, the authors said more research is needed.

With such a short article, I have to question the science used in this "study". They don't seem to address the idea that young people may actually be catching it, but as they are not symptomatic and haven't been tested, I guess they fall into the "not infected" bucket.

This is why we need adequate testing: A test to see if you currently have it (preferably before being contagious), a test for being contagious, and a test to see if you have had it in the past (antibodies). As far as I understand it, we really don't have adequate testing for all three conditions yet, and testing is still far too low to make conclusions like this "study" does.

When a co-worker came down with COVID-19 like symptoms back in March, they told him to self isolate, but don't bother with the test. Was he ever counted? Did he really have it? At the time, states were struggling just to test hundreds, let alone the tens of thousands they needed at the time (and millions now). Yes, he was a younger adult (20s).

In my anecdotal experience, people don't want to get tested.  The free sites in my city are deserted.  I had some time to kill one day so I got tested.  41 people standing around "working" the testing site and at 9:30, I was the first customer of the day and the only one I saw in the ten or fifteen minutes it took.  (Not complaining about the wasted money as people need jobs right now).   The one by my house, which is admittedly not free unless you have certain types of insurance, I've only seen three people ever there, and I drive by it every day.

Unless you want some Orwellian mandatory testing policy, you're never going to get adequate data on this.


I think its because getting tested hurts like a biatch. They basically put a rod up your nose and scratch your brain.

/anyway thats what the medias are saying
 
2020-06-17 4:37:01 PM  

lolmao500: I think its because getting tested hurts like a biatch. They basically put a rod up your nose and scratch your brain.

/anyway thats what the medias are saying


It's really not a big deal.  About five to ten seconds of being right on the edge of sneezing.

Of course modern Americans have to tranquilize themselves to deal with hangnails and mildly socially anxious situations, so sure - it's pretty much waterboarding.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.