[ImPostingOnHN]

these objections have been raised and shot down plenty of times. for example, the framing "there are hardly any children getting sick from covid" disregards the utility of reducing children as a transmission vector, and "The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections" disregards the protection they afford by arbitrarily labeling it as "marginal"

>No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading

I don't know from where you draw this conclusion, considering his track record of doing it previously in Ukraine in 2014, and Georgia before that, and given his moving of an entire army to the border, and subsequently issuing threatening ultimatums to the world they knew the world would never subjugate themselves to

[rustybelt]

A lot these these conflicts that appear to be about science are really about values. Many of the people making arguments about COVID's relatively low danger to children are doing so because they believe the mitigations (lockdowns, remote schooling, masking) are harmful and not worth the benefit of reducing transmission. While those arguing in favor, believe the costs to children are worth it.