This study has the same methodology, and suffers from the same massive source of bias

Children (particularly young children) do not travel alone, especially during lock down in a pandemic

They are getting exposed at the same time as their close contacts (usually family)

6/10

The infected close contacts around same age are likely to be siblings who would be going wherever the index case is going, being exposed to the same sources of infection

It is impossible to tease out who the index case infected and who got infected at the same time as them

7/10

We can see from the graph that the older the children (and more mobile/independent) the lower the rate of associated positive close contacts were around the same age

Reduced "infectiousness" seems unlikely to be the cause

8/10

Now it may be the case that infected children are just as infectious; it has been difficult to determine

Indirect evidence from schools/family clusters with known direction of transmission has suggested not, but we can't be certain

This study doesn't get us closer

9/10

What we should have learnt by now is;

-These studies have massive bias for children which cannot be overlooked
-Single studies (no matter how big) should not influence policy without context of previous evidence
-In contact tracing, small and detailed beats big and dirty

10/10