CDC says that 1.7% of COVID cases belong to children. [2]
Among children, CDC says 1.8% of cases required hospitalization. [2]
>>> 74000000*0.017*0.018 < 25000
True
[1]: https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/number-of-children
>> Among 95 children aged <1 year with known hospitalization status, 59 (62%) were hospitalized, including five who were admitted to an ICU. The percentage of patients hospitalized among those aged 1–17 years was lower (estimated range = 4.1%–14%)
And of course the number of children infected would be much lower than "all 74 million".
If we look at mortality, it is better. The current estimate for IFR in kids is about 1 in 300,000. That gives about 220 estimated deaths if every school age kid gets Covid. Cars kill more kids per year driving to school.
This is all horrendously tough to decide on, but we need to use the best data we can and understand the dangers and comparisons to other dangers.
Finally, kids are going to spread it anyway, so I think kids getting it is really a non-issue, except for the very vulnerable.
Staff/teachers are another concern. An even worse concern is people at kids' homes. That's the really tough part.
You need the Infection Fatality rate for mortality.
Granted, the situation has become a lot worse since then. It's still a good glance at how the virus spread before any measures were put in place. Especially for relative figures of how COVID behaves differently across age.
It's the parents that will be at risk.
This spring we rushed into something unexpected. We've had time to improve. But it seems that instead of focusing on improvements people are focused on their agenda.
Mortality isn't the only issue, either. We're seeing plenty of signs some folks survive, but with long-term health impacts.
(An overwhelmed medical system will kill vulnerable kids in non-COVID ways, too. Mortality of things like car accidents and asthma attacks and suicide go up if the ICUs are full.)
I'd expect my niece to survive COVID19 if she got it. But I'd also expect her to get significant kidney damage and possibly dialysis as a result. Every UTI she gets results in an emergency room visit under normal circumstances. We've been lucky enough that she hasn't had anything this year, but... she's definitely not someone we'd want to see COVID19 infect.
Not everyone's kids are 100% healthy out there. Keep that in mind. There are mutations out there that are completely silent and hidden, and we try to keep these little facts inside the family.
And adults for that matter. (Any teacher who has a similar immuno-comrpomised situation, or knows of someone similarly immuno-compromised is at risk).
------------
In any case, I "don't worry" about the potential death of my niece at all. What I care about are the long term health effects on her and her life. And for the long-term health effects of other children too.
This disease has been shown to ravage and disable athletes: destroying their lung function even when they survive. Deaths are hardly endgame: long-term chronic illnesses are still a problem to try to minimize.
When the child is sick with a disease, they bring it home. Now the parents are exposed.
/s if that wasn't obvious - but with a small element of truth.
> Strong statement: dumb kids are better than dead kids.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07...
Which the US refuses to do.
It's like we're the kid in school who refused to do their work, then has a tempter-tantrum because they have to forgo recess. And much of the EU (and Taiwan, Singapore, HK, etc) are the nerdy kid who finished early and now get to spend the afternoon doing something fun.
"It doesn't spread in European schools" doesn't really help us very much in evaluating what'll happen in America right now.