Barbarian suggests:
Take a look and let me know where, if anywhere, you think it's wrong. Then we'll go on to how the models are actually fitted to real cases.
(Turns out, 57 can't do the math)
Plug in the numbers for school age children....
So if you don't even understand the science, how do you expect to decide if it's right or not?
The rates of actual infection for children doesn't seem to be significantly different than it is for adults. But the difference in severe or critical illness is different:
rates of severe or critical illness were about 7% for children ages 1 to 5, 4% for those 6 to 10, 4% for those 11 to 15 and 3% for those 16 and older.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...ronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405
So, given the math (which has been consistent with data from states that "opened up") and states like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, or California, one might expect that in a school with 500 kids, you would see about 23 kids being hospitalized in serious condition.
But that's not the whole story, of course. They will take the virus home with them, and infect their parents and anyone else in the household.
Infants are at a much higher risk than toddlers and school-age kids. The rate of severe or critical illness for them is about 11%.
ibid
There's another issue, too. Each teacher who become positive for the virus, would be removed from the school and quarantined for two weeks. How many subs do you think would be willing to risk their lives for $60-$95 a day?
Not enough. Most districts don't have enough subs to handle things on a normal basis.
And I get why we're having this push. Trump is frantic to somehow salvage his standing with the public, and getting schools back to "normal" would be one good way to do that. The increase in illnesses and deaths among children and their families, seems to him to be a reasonable price to pay for saving his political career and keeping him out of prison.