This. One thing I also did not expect was the OMT's utilization of the innocence of children as a way to neutralize @C19RedTeam 's scientific arguments re: the impact of open schools on the rate of transmission. Much has already been said about this by Ginny and Amrish https://twitter.com/Ammer_B/status/1320469390110953472

but I would still like to point out the problematic dimension that undergirds the use of these kinds of discursive strategies by a body of experts (OMT) that supposedly prides itself on only assigning value to peer-reviewed and double checked, scientific proof.

Much has already been written on the use and weaponization of childhood innocence in cultural debates and projects of historical revisionism more widely (which I will not get into here). What concerns me is that children are being spoken for, instead of actually being listened to

Lockdowns are undoubtedly very taxing on children, mentally as well as physically. But I think it was Ginny Mooy who pointed out that there is a palpable and widespread fear of falling ill or infecting their parents among school-age children.

These very real and valid feelings should also be listened to, and serve as input for further policy decisions concerning schools etc, especially when you want to take measures that are in the best interest of children.

If infection inevitably spreads from the young to the elderly I don't think it's fair on Mr Illy's part to speculate as to the damage a potential total lockdown might have on children when a prolonged semi-lockdown will eventually cause an equal amount of damage, if not way more

Especially if children are at risk of losing (grand)parents or not seeing elderly relatives, (and family in general) for extended periods of time. Putting my ramble from a humanities perspective in plain English: the OMT should should start putting its money where its mouth is.