Children aren't major vectors for this particular disease, though. It was pretty obvious even at the time, and the evidence for this has only got stronger - they just don't seem to transmit Covid-19 very well, not to parents or to other kids. Also, closing schools risks them all starting to socialize in much less controlled ways all day outside of school, as the comment that started this thread points out is already happening, which means that they might end up being more of a vector for transmission rather than less. Then there's the impact on key workers and nurses, the child abuse epidemic caused by not having schools as an early warning system...

Pressuring the government to do something that's a terrible idea on the basis that they must be wrong because they're the government isn't "accountability". It's making the world a worse place for profit.

I thought 6-8 weeks ago we didn't know that children aren't major vectors (let alone that it was pretty obvious), and I'm not even sure we know that now. Can you provide some of this 'evidence that has gotten stronger' for this claim please?

Suggesting that closing schools is pointless because they 'might' be more of a vector because their parents lack the competence to instruct or control their children seems unnecessarily pessimistic. Were I in a position of authoring public policy around this kind of event, I'd a) vigorously adopt the precautionary principle, and b) assume we could convince the parents and the parents could then convince their own children.

I'm confused by the last claim you make -- I thought the 'for profit' camp was very much against closing schools (or indeed closing anything for very long).

> Children aren't major vectors for this particular disease, though.

That's a big claim. Care to provide a reference?

Just because kids don't die of it does not at all establish that they don't transmit it.

This study says kids have the same viral load as adults: https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1255555995671150597