> Children are Infrequently Identified as the Index Case of Household SARS-CoV-2 Clusters
> In analysis of the cluster index cases ... only 3.8% were identified as having a pediatric index case.
> These pediatric cases only caused 4.0% of all secondary cases, compared with the 97.8% of secondary cases that occurred when an adult was identified as the index case in the cluster.
> Clusters where the asymptomatic/symptomatic status of the contact cases was not described were excluded from the analysis. Even with this broader definition, 18.5% children were identified as the index case in the household clusters.
This really is _the_ important point of contention.
Phrased differently: Does viral spread in one cohort drive the viral spread in another?
And can policy be designed to drive wedges between cohorts to reduce such co-factors?
That being said, as it stands, the data doesn't support your claim. It seems child activity is largely independent of spread among adults.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1146/6024998
15 June 2021, Meta-analysis
> Children are Infrequently Identified as the Index Case of Household SARS-CoV-2 Clusters
> In analysis of the cluster index cases ... only 3.8% were identified as having a pediatric index case.
> These pediatric cases only caused 4.0% of all secondary cases, compared with the 97.8% of secondary cases that occurred when an adult was identified as the index case in the cluster.
> Clusters where the asymptomatic/symptomatic status of the contact cases was not described were excluded from the analysis. Even with this broader definition, 18.5% children were identified as the index case in the household clusters.