[2] is a great article about how different cities in 1918 made various choices about socially isolating and the impact of that.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journal-plague-year-1...
My point is, if you stratify death rates by age[1] you see that children are at a very, very low risk from COVID-19. This is the nuanced approach that universal lockdowns trample over.
You literally employed the "think of the children" fallacy[2] (technically appeal to emotion) when you know well that children are at a low risk.
I mentioned flu, TB, and malaria because they kill legions of children every year. TB killed 200,000 children in 2018[3]. Malaria kills .5 million children a year worldwide[4]. So don't tell me you care about the children. Unless of course you mean American or European children, in which case make your case but admit to yourself that you are viewing the world through a lens of personal risk, not actual risk.
Either you want to save the children, in which case we need to dedicate 20% of our GDP to combating TB, malaria and flu worldwide, or you only care about local children, in which case you are okay with burning through 20% of our GDP to prevent kids from getting a disease which isn't dangerous to them.
[1] https://twitter.com/daniellevitt22/status/126945491074919628...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosi...
How about, we have national regulations for safe interactions, rules requiring ppe when appropriate, and available ppe. Your company has to provide it if you work together. It turns out its very very hard to provide ppe that protects people when they work closely together (see the meat packing plants, see hospitals). My families economic safety is also impacted if I'm dead or in the hospital with covid, even if they are all in your 'safe' category. Only a few 100 kids will die unnecessarily so we can open the economy?