I just want to address this because it looks like schools reopening is going to be an apocalyptic experience for all involved, and that “socialization” (the one thing public schools had going for them) is going to be completely and thoroughly removed from any school who follows CDC guidelines.
I want to begin with a few disclaimers: I will try to keep the snark to a minimum here, but it’s really difficult lately. The amount of dumb in this world is getting to me, and sarcasm is sometimes a relief. So brace yourself, because I don’t think I’ll be able to keep it all in.
At first, everyone assumed children would be vectors of this virus, like they are with influenza , and they were accused of being asymptomatic carriers and spreading it to their own Grandmas and any other person they came into contact with, just by walking past them or being in the same room, etc. They’ve even been dubbed “super spreaders” in multiple headlines around the world.
Incidentally, comparing COVID-19 to influenza is becoming a punishable offense but in this case, it’s still okay.
Now that we have data, is there any evidence to continue believing this assumption? Possibly. But as always, here, we will focus on the suppressed studies and data, the little bits of evidence that are ignored and censored vigilantly; the pesky stuff that goes against the narrative of fear, fear, and more fear. The science that would possibly give us a more rounded view of the entire picture is rarely allowed these days. We are being forced to look at the world from one magnified, narrow perspective, and that perspective only.
On pubmed, you can find an article published on May 5, titled “Children are not Covid-19 Super Spreaders: time to go back to school.” (I found this title pretty shocking. It’s rare that something scientific gets published with a title that is so black and white, so confident.)
When you follow the link for full text, it takes you to the BMJ where the author says, “…On this presumption but without evidence, school closures were implemented almost ubiquitously around the world to try and halt the potential spread of disease despite early modelling that suggested this would have less impact than most other non-pharmacological interventions.
“Some regions have implemented widespread community testing, such as South Korea and Iceland. Both countries found children were significantly underrepresented. In Iceland, this is true both in targeted testing of high-risk groups compared with adults (6.7% positive compared with 13.7%) and in (invited) population screening, there were no children under 10 found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with 0.8% of the general population.” 
“A case study of a cluster in the French Alps included a child with COVID-19 who failed to transmit it to any other person, despite exposure to more than a hundred children in different schools and a ski resort.  In a school study from New South Wales, Australia, a proportion of 863 close contacts of 9 child and 9 teachers were followed for seroconversion as a marker of recent exposure.  No evidence of children infecting teachers was found.”
He finishes the article with going over the risk of Covid-19 and how that even with comorbidities, children are at very low risk for death or complications. He says the data is reassuring and he even cites recent evidence that school closures do nothing to halt the spread.  He goes on to say, “…does not change the fact that severe COVID-19 is as rare as many other serious infection syndromes in children that do not cause schools to be closed.” and finishes with saying these decisions should be made individually between doctors and their patients, but that ultimately, schools should be opened to all children.  (please read full article and all the science cited for a fuller picture)
On May 13, Health Information and Quality Authority published a metanalysis titled “Evidence Summary of potential for children to contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” 
Here is some of what they had to say:
“A total of three studies were included from the original search and an additional four
studies have been added based on this update, giving a total of seven studies overall
considered relevant for inclusion (Table 1). These comprised five primary studies
(five case series), one secondary analysis of data and one modelling study. Of the
five primary studies, four studies focused on intra-familial and close contact
transmission, (1-4) and one was a report on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools.(5)
The secondary analysis of data focused on household transmission clusters from
published literature and publicly available data.(6) The mathematical modelling study
estimated age-specific transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. (7) Four studies were from
China, (1-3, 7) one report was from Australia, (5) one in the French Alps,(4) and the
secondary data analysis paper included data from China, Singapore, South Korea,
Japan, and Iran. (6) Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 695.
“A case series describing the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 74 children
with COVID-19 admitted to two hospitals in China reported no evidence that the
virus was transmitted from these 74 children to others, although there is limited
reporting of how this information was ascertained in the manuscript.(3) Exposure
data was available for 68 of the 74 patients with 65 (96%) of these cases being
household contacts of adults whose symptoms developed earlier.“
Adults are spreading this, and they’re not even asymptomatic adults. To phrase that differently, adults with symptoms are the main spreaders of covid-19. As is the case with almost every single virus and bacteria on the planet and in all of history. Typhoid Mary made history because she was such an anomaly. It’s verging on insanity to make models based on anomalies and pretend that we’re all suddenly typhoid marys (maries?) running around, without a single symptom, killing people by getting closer than 6 feet.
“The analysis of public disclosures data(2) based on 419 index patients and their 595
household secondary infections, reported no cases of infection by an index patient
15 years of age or younger. Data presented suggests that three of the index patients
were aged less than 18 years and were linked with three secondary cases; however,
there are some concerns over the accuracy in the presentation of these data.
“…of which one was a nineyear old child, co-infected with other respiratory viruses (picornavirus and influenza A). While symptomatic, the child visited three schools (duration of visit was not reported) and attended one ski class. Overall, 172 contacts were identified of which 112 were school contacts. Of these, 169 individuals were contacted, 70 (41%) had
respiratory symptoms during the investigation and a total of 73 were tested with one
additional case of COVID-19 identified.”
He had three viruses in his system at once and still felt well enough to go to school and a ski resort. 😛 Apparently, he was spreading the other viruses, but he only spread COVID-19 to one other person. Those are pretty amazing odds.
“A report released on 26 April from New South Wales (NSW), Australia examined
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in NSW schools.(5) It examined the spread of SARS-CoV2 from 18 confirmed cases (nine students and nine staff) from 15 schools, to 863
close contacts (735 students and 128 staff) in these schools. All of these 18
cases are reported to have had an opportunity to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others in
their schools. The report’s preliminary findings were that only two students may
have contracted SARS-CoV-2 from the initial 18 cases.”
18 students, exposing 863 close contacts. Two. “may have contracted…” out of 863!
Conclusion of metanalysis: “There is currently limited information on the contribution of children to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Very few definitive cases of virus transmission from children have been published to date. From the small number of published studies
identified, it appears that children are not, to date, substantially contributing to the
household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. From one study, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in
children in schools is also very low.”
Cautiously optimistic, is how I would define the science at this point. It isn’t science that is wrapping our children in bubble wrap and forcing them to wear masks and take multiple baths in hand sanitizer per day. Just gotta say it.
On May 19, we find an article titled, “Children are unlikely to be the main drivers of the Covid-19 pandemic, a systematic review.” 
RESULTS: “We identified 700 scientific papers and letters and 47 full texts were studied in detail. Children accounted for a small fraction of COVID‐19 cases and mostly had social contacts with peers or parents, rather than older people at risk of severe disease. Data on viral loads were scarce, but indicated that children may have lower levels than adults, partly because they often have fewer symptoms, and this should decrease the transmission risk. Household transmission studies showed that children were rarely the index case and case studies suggested that children with COVID‐19 seldom caused outbreaks. However, it is highly likely that children can transmit the SARS‐COV‐2 virus, which causes COVID‐19, and even asymptomatic children can have viral loads.”
CONCLUSION: “Children are unlikely to be the main drivers of the pandemic. Opening up schools and kindergartens is unlikely to impact COVID‐19 mortality rates in older people.”
I’m only recently learning about viral load. Apparently, the more often you’re exposed (before you catch it, or during the time you have it), the heavier your viral load. The higher viral load, the more severe your symptoms. No one talks about how severe symptoms being a result of an increased viral load, would consequently make a person more contagious. Is it possible the less symptoms you have, the lower your viral load, and the less contagious you are?
These scientists seem to think so.
Is it really about protecting people when schools are staying closed but day cares are allowed to open? What is the difference between the two?
I always mention Sweden in these blog posts, but they’re almost the only country who didn’t opt in on this experiment, so comparing their stats is always a valid exercise.
They say, “Sweden’s decision to keep schools open during the pandemic resulted in no higher rate of infection among its schoolchildren than in neighbouring Finland, where schools did temporarily close, their public health agencies said in a joint report.” 
The present recommendations to reopen schools include no cafeteria time (children will eat in classrooms at their desks), regular disinfecting, wearing of masks for everyone over 2 years of age, social distancing at all times, even during sports activities which eliminates most sports entirely, and the list goes on. 
I’m not going to go over how detrimental it will be for children to be treated like lepers on a daily basis in an environment where they’re supposed to feel safe and carefree so that they can learn. If that fact isn’t readily apparent to you, I don’t think any amount of evidence will help. But there’s plenty of it out there. Plenty of doctors/psychiatrists/sociologists all warning of the long-lasting and irreversible dangers to children at impressionable and vulnerable developmental stages being treated like this.
The CDC is actually beginning to agree, over 2 months later on July 23rd:
“The best available evidence indicates if children become infected, they are far less likely to suffer severe symptoms. The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children. Scientific studies suggest COVID-19 transmission among children in schools may be low. International studies that have assessed how readily COVID-19 spreads in schools also reveal low rates of transmission.
Based on current data, the rate of infection among younger school children, and from students to teachers, has been low. There have also been few reports of children being the primary source of COVID-19 transmission among family members. This is consistent with data from both virus and antibody testing, suggesting that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.
The available evidence provides reason to believe that in-person schooling is in the best interest of students.” 
Did you catch all that? This is from the CDC, y’all! It’s like they’re finally reading the same science the rest of us are yelling about. 😛 They made some pretty big admissions:
- Children do not have severe symptoms from this virus.
- If they do catch it, it’s almost always mild.
- The best available evidence supports the fact that children are not spreading this virus.
- The best thing for our children is to go back to school. In person.
So if this virus is not dangerous for children, and if they are not spreading it, will we see a retraction of the guidelines that make going back to school basically like going to a post-apocalyptic prison? This is a visual of what their guidelines will look like now. Will they dial back the insanity based on the science?
I guess we’ll see.