We don't have a model for how to understand exposure and immunity dynamics for this population. My personal sense/estimate is that between 10% and 20% of the child population has been sufficiently "exposed" to now be considered "safe" but I would not bet my children's lives on that measure. I am eagerly awaiting the day I can get my kids tested for antibodies, but even if they test positive I can't consider them or us to be "safe" until we know a whole lot more.
At any rate, given just the reported numbers, a conservative back of the envelope risk-of-significant-impact from "exposure" in the teen/pre-teen set is somewhere between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000.
Which says there been three coronavirus related teen+preteen deaths with no underlying conditions (all of which were teens IIRC) in NYC and another 6 with underlying conditions.
Do you have a more reliable source?
Also, 1 in 1000 is close to the estimated infection fatality rate for the general population (estimated between 0.1% and 0.5% normally) and kids are supposed to be a couple of orders of magnitude less at risk than the population average. So your numbers all seem utter nonesense to me.
I've never even heard of a preteen death of covid.
There is essential work, those jobs are wartime/highly hazardous jobs, and deserve all of the support and gear that actual war fighters get. That isn't happening.
Finally, Fed liquidity is a tool with far greater power than we are utilizing. To not exercise that power, and to not equip hazard roles- is simply barbaric.
Good luck and good health to you.