Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding is promoting a study broadcast by CNN that allegedly shows “children can spread virus as easily as adults” and “kids are equal vectors for transmission”. . .
New study of COVID in children finds children can spread virus as easily as adults. Therefore, kids are equal vectors for transmission.
(Good interview by @ashishkjha). #covid19 pic.twitter.com/zaXFbFC6e0
— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) July 1, 2020
. . . but this isn’t exactly what’s going on here. A thread ==>
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://t.co/yocqbYGKJM
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
First up, it’s a tiny sample size of kids who are already symptomatic:
Recommended
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. pic.twitter.com/sdgkcbtcOg
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
But “the conclusion being drawn by hacks are not limited to the role of symptomatic children”:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
“Not what the paper says”:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
And this:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
“Rather, the study observes shedding. It finds symptomatic children shed virus & *speculates* (without observing) that they plausibly also transmit”:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
And we’re debating a strawman here anyway:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
Here’s the real question:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
We have evidence from around the world on this already:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
An example:
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. pic.twitter.com/Rk7ZbUVx9q
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
And here:
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://t.co/xwZSaEXBPW pic.twitter.com/dHw6eNni2o
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
But it’s what we’ve come to expect:
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.
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
Read it yourself here:
14/ Here is the paper. https://t.co/Z72NOe3LEk
— Newman Nahas (@NahasNewman) July 2, 2020
***
