As WHO data clearly shows that over 90% of people who contract SARS-COV2 remain totally asymptomatic, and that under 0.2% of the population is at risk of mortality, I don't understand why anyone would focus on infection rates, especially as the greater the percentage of people with antibodies the faster we move toward the now-maligned but still highly relevant herd immunity (which is, let's remember, the principle behind all vaccination programs). You seem to be saying that children, who are essentially at near-zero risk of mishap from covid-19, should have their lives significantly impaired because of the risk of their elders catching a virus that will leave at least 99.8% of them unharmed. This seems very peculiar reasoning indeed. As one's lifetime risk of death or severe injury from automobile accidents is far greater, presumably we should close schools forever in order to spare parents the risk of being involved in a road traffic accident during the daily school run? Or do we overlook this tangible risk simply because the media isn't constantly sensationalizing it, whereas SARS-COV2 is the media's best way of generating revenues for the time being? Do we really think it is rational to base our beliefs and actions on media-generated sensationalism rather than on an assessment of not merely a sub-set but rather all relevant data?