Read on Twitter
These studies are heavily flawed, and are don't include any of the larger, and less biased studies that contradict this view. There are ample studies with larger sample sizes, including from the ONS, that show primary school children play an important role in transmission. https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1355288448920399879
And completely misses the direct impact on children from Long COVID. 12% of primary school children have symptoms lasting > 5 wks. We need to look at this based on the breadth of evidence, and the design of these studies- which unfortunately even many scientists haven't done.
The ECDC paper is extremely flawed, and quotes largely studies from symptom based testing designs, which we know hugely underestimate the impact of children on transmission. And from periods when either community tranmission was low, or school attendance was low in many regions.
If you look at the less biased literature- the findings are far more consistent. Primary school children transmit- and in some cases transmit more than adults. And due to higher contacts in school, children are more likely to be index cases, and contribute to transmission.
And the first study you quote is a study with 13 index cases- we know that like adults, the majority of children don't transmit. There are ample studies with large sample sizes, including from the ONS, that show high secondary attack rates from index cases who are children.
Why are these never quoted? Why is the evidence around schools so cherry picked to ignore the majority of studies that are less biased - and consistently show the opposite. Why do people consistently only present studies that are so heavily flawed, to reach flawed conclusions?
If you want to look at the breadth of evidence, including studies that have less flawed designs - please look at this: https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1346362159446577154?s=20
