> Closing schools had no impact on virus
This is what I mean by framing things as black and white. Why would you make such an incredible claim? How could you possibly support a claim that reducing community spread in schools (where children are around 50% as likely to spread the virus, not 0% [1]) has "zero impact" on community spread outside of schools? How could children at home equally spread covid to other childrens homes as if there were 30 of them wearing poorly fitting masks in a closed room?
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/we-now-kn...
> The role of young children in transmission seemed logical to some experts who have been tracking the evolution of the pandemic. “I think what was more surprising was how long the narrative persisted that children weren’t transmitting SARS-CoV-2,” said Sam Scarpino, PhD, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210817/youngest-kids-more-...
> Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34224257/
I've been working remotely since the pandemic started. I haven't gotten sick once. Not a cold, flu, covid, strep, bronchitis, nothing, for two and a half years. You get sick from contact with sick people. Reducing your contact with all people reduces your contact with sick people, reducing your likelihood of getting sick, becoming a sick person, and making other people sick. You could, as many do, make the case that we don't need to reduce contact that much, and that closing schools costs more than it returns. You cannot make the case that closing schools does not reduce contact and spread of sickness and death.