We don't understand the long-term effects because we haven't gotten there in time, yet. Pretending to know these things is dangerous for children.
I think your point ignores the fact that none of this is up to the children, regardless of risk, and they are also an infection vector which allows the virus to continue spreading and evolving. The virus is less dangerous for children, so it makes sense to let them get it and spread it? Is this the point you're trying to make?
The virus is less dangerous for children, so it's not fair to say that schools were opened just so parents could work. Schools were opened, in part, because policy makers know that in person contact poses unequal danger to children and adults.
Oh. Ok. Noted. Fairness achieved and that changes nothing about my points.
The decisions are economically driven, instead of wellbeing/needs based. This is the point. Even if I noted all things weighed and considered, the issue would be that we effectively went back to the same ways of life. Policy makers are carrying on with persisting adultist systems and making decisions without deep consideration of human needs or direct input from the youngest among us.
We don't understand the long-term effects because we haven't gotten there in time, yet. Pretending to know these things is dangerous for children.
I think your point ignores the fact that none of this is up to the children, regardless of risk, and they are also an infection vector which allows the virus to continue spreading and evolving. The virus is less dangerous for children, so it makes sense to let them get it and spread it? Is this the point you're trying to make?