Large studies on schools this week have dramatically different conclusions. Ones that show little spread ( @CDCgov’s) tend to rely on case counts. Studies using methods such as antibody tests find transmission equal or higher than in adults. Let’s use the best tools. #bcpoli 1/

“An antibody survey conducted by researchers in Geneva in May and December, using thousands of random samples, found that children of age 6 to 18 were getting infected as often as young adults.” (Study awaiting peer review.) #bced https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/europes-schools-are-closing-again-on-concerns-they-spread-covid-19-11610805601">https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www...

“In the second wave we acquired much more evidence that schoolchildren are almost equally, if not more infected by SARS-CoV-2 than others,“ said Antoine Flahault, director of the University of Geneva’s Institute of Global Health.

And here’s the @CDCgov study. Its limitations section acknowledges that low testing in kids and failure to account for asymptomatic spread may have influenced the results. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e1.htm?s_cid=mm7003e1_w">https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volu...

In U.K., before winter break, when schools were still open, “the positivity rate among children was higher than in most adult groups, especially in those older than 11.” (Wall Street Journal)
We had same in B.C.: 10-11% positivity in kids 10+. Maybe due to low testing—or not.

We have ways to get clear answers on schools: antibody tests, spot-checks using asymptomatic screening, sequencing to determine whether infection came from household or classroom. B.C. isn’t using these tools (other than UBC antibody effort). Can we do better @MichaelSchwandt?