WaPo on the mental health crisis students are experiencing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously advocate for teacher vaccinations. Now. That’s the conversation we should be having.

Then we can all go back properly.

Teachers and staff who are returning in Term 3 are prioritized for vaccinations (which is as it should be, although they do tell you to avoid exposure in between the two doses and there impossible!) but there are other teachers and staff who want to go back but can’t get the vaccine in order to do so but can’t get the vaccine because they’re NOT going back. An endless crazy feedback loop! Meanwhile elderly people in Ward 3 are complaining the vaccine slots fill up in 10-15 minutes and there’s only one distribution in Ward 3 and it’s basically a total shit-show.

[Anonymous]

OK, but the "pay for care" argument is a straw man. Do people want school so they can work? Some do. But even people who have childcare or don't need it want school to reopen so their children can learn.

I have three kids. One in upper elementary, one in middle school and one in K. The older two are doing fine enough in terms of learning. The kindergartener is learning NOTHING from online school. Anything she's picked up is because I have been teaching her, and various educational apps have assisted.

I do not need childcare. I can do childcare portion of it just fine myself and have been doing it. I need school to reopen for at least the youngest one at least part-time because she is not learning via distance learning and neither is a lot of her friends, from talking to those kids' parents. Because I do not need school for childcare, I'd be fine with hybrid (part of the week, part of the day, whatever.) But no in-person school is not working for my youngest who is simply too young to learn through a screen.

Yes, yes, sure, I am teaching my kid myself and hopefully she won't be too far behind where she is supposed to be. But then the question becomes is if I am teaching my child by myself, why is the teacher collecting a paycheck for a job she is not doing in any effective way for my child (or the bulk of the children in that age group.) Some jobs cannot be effectively done from home and teaching very young children is one of them. I am fine for providing the child care component for all my children - the teachers are supposed to be providing effective teaching however. They are doing it for my two oldest because they are at the age where online learning is at least feasible if not ideal. They are not doing it for my youngest.

If people think it's OK for children, especially younger children, to fall behind (and let's face it, in a lot of families that are not as well off as the usual DCUM poster, fall behind irretrievably) so that teachers would feel safer, that's a position that can be argued. But at least don't be a hypocrite who claims that people only want childcare and that distance learning is just wonderful when for a lot of people that is not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are struggling for a variety of reasons but they need adult support. Kids will struggle if they don't have someone to monitor and support them when they have questions and make sure assignments is done. Likewise, if your kid is struggling at home you need to look at what is going on and change your home structure to make it work for your child. You cannot expect schools to be everything to everyone, especially in terms of mental health. If your child is struggling, use your insurance and get your child and you support.

But it's reasonable to expect parenrs to be able to fulfill 100% of their kids' social, emotional, academic, and physical and mental health needs, without ever interacting in person with another human? I just don't think that's realistic. Parents aren't all amazing at everything and other relationships outside the nuclear family do play important roles in child development too. This is so so much pressure and it's not realistic.

No. But it's reasonable for parents to understand that school buildings are not the only way for their kids to have social contact and to arrange that if their kids need it, not to repeatedly demand that schools open in enclosed prolonged indoor contact during a pandemic. If your kids need socialixation, or their needs met, step up and arrange it. You don't need schools to parent for you. That's not their job. Education is their job and yes, is being provided, whether you like it or not, approve or not or agree or not.

THIS!

If you really think 6.5 hours in a classroom with 12 other kids is safe, then you are good to host a 2 hour play date for one kid at your house.

That said, a friend has tried this repeatedly and is finding that other parents don’t want to do the play dates. I think that’s a good signal that either they don’t think it’s safe or their kids are not having meltdowns like her son is.

DP, but a huge part of the problem is that parents are having to do it all with zero childcare. I mean, when are they supposed to work in between supervising remote learning and making sure their kids get their social/emotional needs met?

It’s not a personal criticism of teachers to note that schools provided care for children, which allowed parents to work. When that care was no longer provided, parents are left in the lurch of having to do it all and then accused of being lazy and awful if they’re struggling. It’s one of the practical reasons remote learning doesn’t work for the younger set.

Can I just say after nearly a year -- if you don't get this, let me spell it out for you.

Your kid's social engagement schedule is not the country's or the state's problem during a pandemic. Their job is to protect the community's public health and with nearly half a million Americans dead -- get ready for more stringent lockdowns, not less.

OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

[Anonymous]

OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are struggling for a variety of reasons but they need adult support. Kids will struggle if they don't have someone to monitor and support them when they have questions and make sure assignments is done. Likewise, if your kid is struggling at home you need to look at what is going on and change your home structure to make it work for your child. You cannot expect schools to be everything to everyone, especially in terms of mental health. If your child is struggling, use your insurance and get your child and you support.

But it's reasonable to expect parenrs to be able to fulfill 100% of their kids' social, emotional, academic, and physical and mental health needs, without ever interacting in person with another human? I just don't think that's realistic. Parents aren't all amazing at everything and other relationships outside the nuclear family do play important roles in child development too. This is so so much pressure and it's not realistic.

No. But it's reasonable for parents to understand that school buildings are not the only way for their kids to have social contact and to arrange that if their kids need it, not to repeatedly demand that schools open in enclosed prolonged indoor contact during a pandemic. If your kids need socialixation, or their needs met, step up and arrange it. You don't need schools to parent for you. That's not their job. Education is their job and yes, is being provided, whether you like it or not, approve or not or agree or not.

THIS!

If you really think 6.5 hours in a classroom with 12 other kids is safe, then you are good to host a 2 hour play date for one kid at your house.

That said, a friend has tried this repeatedly and is finding that other parents don’t want to do the play dates. I think that’s a good signal that either they don’t think it’s safe or their kids are not having meltdowns like her son is.

DP, but a huge part of the problem is that parents are having to do it all with zero childcare. I mean, when are they supposed to work in between supervising remote learning and making sure their kids get their social/emotional needs met?

It’s not a personal criticism of teachers to note that schools provided care for children, which allowed parents to work. When that care was no longer provided, parents are left in the lurch of having to do it all and then accused of being lazy and awful if they’re struggling. It’s one of the practical reasons remote learning doesn’t work for the younger set.

Can I just say after nearly a year -- if you don't get this, let me spell it out for you.

Your kid's social engagement schedule is not the country's or the state's problem during a pandemic. Their job is to protect the community's public health and with nearly half a million Americans dead -- get ready for more stringent lockdowns, not less.

OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

I acknowledge it. It’s called national security protocol kicking in in the event of a systemic threat. I’d say this qualifies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, but the "pay for care" argument is a straw man. Do people want school so they can work? Some do. But even people who have childcare or don't need it want school to reopen so their children can learn.

I have three kids. One in upper elementary, one in middle school and one in K. The older two are doing fine enough in terms of learning. The kindergartener is learning NOTHING from online school. Anything she's picked up is because I have been teaching her, and various educational apps have assisted.

I do not need childcare. I can do childcare portion of it just fine myself and have been doing it. I need school to reopen for at least the youngest one at least part-time because she is not learning via distance learning and neither is a lot of her friends, from talking to those kids' parents. Because I do not need school for childcare, I'd be fine with hybrid (part of the week, part of the day, whatever.) But no in-person school is not working for my youngest who is simply too young to learn through a screen.

Yes, yes, sure, I am teaching my kid myself and hopefully she won't be too far behind where she is supposed to be. But then the question becomes is if I am teaching my child by myself, why is the teacher collecting a paycheck for a job she is not doing in any effective way for my child (or the bulk of the children in that age group.) Some jobs cannot be effectively done from home and teaching very young children is one of them. I am fine for providing the child care component for all my children - the teachers are supposed to be providing effective teaching however. They are doing it for my two oldest because they are at the age where online learning is at least feasible if not ideal. They are not doing it for my youngest.

If people think it's OK for children, especially younger children, to fall behind (and let's face it, in a lot of families that are not as well off as the usual DCUM poster, fall behind irretrievably) so that teachers would feel safer, that's a position that can be argued. But at least don't be a hypocrite who claims that people only want childcare and that distance learning is just wonderful when for a lot of people that is not the case.

You are being really dramatic. You are teaching her yourself. She needs to know how to read, write and basic math. You get a few workbooks and apps and done. Regardless of school, you should do this anyway. She'll be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are struggling for a variety of reasons but they need adult support. Kids will struggle if they don't have someone to monitor and support them when they have questions and make sure assignments is done. Likewise, if your kid is struggling at home you need to look at what is going on and change your home structure to make it work for your child. You cannot expect schools to be everything to everyone, especially in terms of mental health. If your child is struggling, use your insurance and get your child and you support.

But it's reasonable to expect parenrs to be able to fulfill 100% of their kids' social, emotional, academic, and physical and mental health needs, without ever interacting in person with another human? I just don't think that's realistic. Parents aren't all amazing at everything and other relationships outside the nuclear family do play important roles in child development too. This is so so much pressure and it's not realistic.

No. But it's reasonable for parents to understand that school buildings are not the only way for their kids to have social contact and to arrange that if their kids need it, not to repeatedly demand that schools open in enclosed prolonged indoor contact during a pandemic. If your kids need socialixation, or their needs met, step up and arrange it. You don't need schools to parent for you. That's not their job. Education is their job and yes, is being provided, whether you like it or not, approve or not or agree or not.

THIS!

If you really think 6.5 hours in a classroom with 12 other kids is safe, then you are good to host a 2 hour play date for one kid at your house.

That said, a friend has tried this repeatedly and is finding that other parents don’t want to do the play dates. I think that’s a good signal that either they don’t think it’s safe or their kids are not having meltdowns like her son is.

DP, but a huge part of the problem is that parents are having to do it all with zero childcare. I mean, when are they supposed to work in between supervising remote learning and making sure their kids get their social/emotional needs met?

It’s not a personal criticism of teachers to note that schools provided care for children, which allowed parents to work. When that care was no longer provided, parents are left in the lurch of having to do it all and then accused of being lazy and awful if they’re struggling. It’s one of the practical reasons remote learning doesn’t work for the younger set.

Can I just say after nearly a year -- if you don't get this, let me spell it out for you.

Your kid's social engagement schedule is not the country's or the state's problem during a pandemic. Their job is to protect the community's public health and with nearly half a million Americans dead -- get ready for more stringent lockdowns, not less.

OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

Maybe we could get back to school if individuals took responsibility for their behavior and choose to help stop the spread. Its more important for people to carry on as normal and therefore, we cannot reopen schools. Sally "needs" her vacation. John needs his guys night out. Larla needs her shopping spree, hair cut and manicure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, but the "pay for care" argument is a straw man. Do people want school so they can work? Some do. But even people who have childcare or don't need it want school to reopen so their children can learn.

I have three kids. One in upper elementary, one in middle school and one in K. The older two are doing fine enough in terms of learning. The kindergartener is learning NOTHING from online school. Anything she's picked up is because I have been teaching her, and various educational apps have assisted.

I do not need childcare. I can do childcare portion of it just fine myself and have been doing it. I need school to reopen for at least the youngest one at least part-time because she is not learning via distance learning and neither is a lot of her friends, from talking to those kids' parents. Because I do not need school for childcare, I'd be fine with hybrid (part of the week, part of the day, whatever.) But no in-person school is not working for my youngest who is simply too young to learn through a screen.

Yes, yes, sure, I am teaching my kid myself and hopefully she won't be too far behind where she is supposed to be. But then the question becomes is if I am teaching my child by myself, why is the teacher collecting a paycheck for a job she is not doing in any effective way for my child (or the bulk of the children in that age group.) Some jobs cannot be effectively done from home and teaching very young children is one of them. I am fine for providing the child care component for all my children - the teachers are supposed to be providing effective teaching however. They are doing it for my two oldest because they are at the age where online learning is at least feasible if not ideal. They are not doing it for my youngest.

If people think it's OK for children, especially younger children, to fall behind (and let's face it, in a lot of families that are not as well off as the usual DCUM poster, fall behind irretrievably) so that teachers would feel safer, that's a position that can be argued. But at least don't be a hypocrite who claims that people only want childcare and that distance learning is just wonderful when for a lot of people that is not the case.

You are being really dramatic. You are teaching her yourself. She needs to know how to read, write and basic math. You get a few workbooks and apps and done. Regardless of school, you should do this anyway. She'll be fine.

This. I don't know what the Pre-K, K, even 1st grade parents are complaining about. Shapes? Letters? Basic addition? Kids don't even get to cursive until the 3rd grade. The fact that you're acting like you're being made to assist them with nuclear physics is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1. As a European, it's really interesting to watch American liberals make this "you are on your own, fend for yourselves" argument when it comes to kids and families during the pandemic, while on the other hand calling for a "we are all in this together" approach when it comes to virus containment. European societies take a much more holistic approach to public health and community solidarity, one that balances the well-being and education of kids and the ability of families to maintain jobs with the need to contain the spread to protect those vulnerable to the virus, and most importantly, keep hospitals from getting overwhelmed. That's why they are STILL keeping schools at least partially open in many places (misleading headlines notwithstanding), and will certainly not keep them closed for the rest of the year.

Thank you for this. I am an American but it is disturbing to me how much I hear liberal Americans espousing a view on the pandemic that is so focused on "personal responsibility" which is the same argument conservatives use to deny welfare benefits to single mothers or refuse asylum to immigrants.

The best possible response to a pandemic is communal. I think it can be hard to remember that in the US, where we have such an individualistic culture. Combine it with all the misinformation circulating (yes, I'm talking to you, PP who keeps posting links to a bunch of headlines in tweets to make your argument instead of engaging with what people are actually saying in the thread) and it's a recipe for disaster. If we leave families to just figure all of this out on their own, we will leave behind the vast majority of families.

It amuses me how parents here think they can just wish away data and scientific analysis. All spring and summer you were screaming for schools to open because 'kids aren't affected'. Now Europe/UK are reeling from a surge in viral cases and a mutation linked from their 'open no matter what' policies. It also turns out kids are carriers who are highly efficient at spreading the virus. Now you just want to ignore all that and still open schools because little Susie needs companionship.

Sorry. Gates closed. Figure it out.

You don’t have science on your side if you are arguing that open schools caused the surge in Europe. Please stop pretending you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, but the "pay for care" argument is a straw man. Do people want school so they can work? Some do. But even people who have childcare or don't need it want school to reopen so their children can learn.

I have three kids. One in upper elementary, one in middle school and one in K. The older two are doing fine enough in terms of learning. The kindergartener is learning NOTHING from online school. Anything she's picked up is because I have been teaching her, and various educational apps have assisted.

I do not need childcare. I can do childcare portion of it just fine myself and have been doing it. I need school to reopen for at least the youngest one at least part-time because she is not learning via distance learning and neither is a lot of her friends, from talking to those kids' parents. Because I do not need school for childcare, I'd be fine with hybrid (part of the week, part of the day, whatever.) But no in-person school is not working for my youngest who is simply too young to learn through a screen.

Yes, yes, sure, I am teaching my kid myself and hopefully she won't be too far behind where she is supposed to be. But then the question becomes is if I am teaching my child by myself, why is the teacher collecting a paycheck for a job she is not doing in any effective way for my child (or the bulk of the children in that age group.) Some jobs cannot be effectively done from home and teaching very young children is one of them. I am fine for providing the child care component for all my children - the teachers are supposed to be providing effective teaching however. They are doing it for my two oldest because they are at the age where online learning is at least feasible if not ideal. They are not doing it for my youngest.

If people think it's OK for children, especially younger children, to fall behind (and let's face it, in a lot of families that are not as well off as the usual DCUM poster, fall behind irretrievably) so that teachers would feel safer, that's a position that can be argued. But at least don't be a hypocrite who claims that people only want childcare and that distance learning is just wonderful when for a lot of people that is not the case.

You are being really dramatic. You are teaching her yourself. She needs to know how to read, write and basic math. You get a few workbooks and apps and done. Regardless of school, you should do this anyway. She'll be fine.

DP. Yes, she will be fine. I am hardly saying she will live in a cardboard box as an adult as a result of this. My point was that (a) plenty of people who do not need childcare want schools to reopen for educational reasons and (b) it is hypocritical to make "you only need childcare" argument which implies that online education is effective enough and people just want their kids out of the house.

There is also the fact that not every child has caregivers who can help them make up for deficiencies of online not-education. Luckily, that is not the case for my family, but it's burying your head in the sand to assume that the same is the case for all the children in the same situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

This is not exactly some kind of hidden agenda. And kids have a huge interest in the preservation of adult life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The entire dialogue around Covid is insane.

Year to year - according to CDC - more folks die of heart disease and of cancer - not combined but in each of those categories.

It is unclear why children are being sacrificed. Yes - they can spread it but can we do an intelligent cost/benefit analysis on this?

In the DMV during this whole almost year now, nobody has focused on children or their needs. Its all about the teachers and their rights, darn it!

But great news, obese folks are priority for vaccines.

It's absurd.

410,000 Americans have died in a year of COVID19 and tens of thousands more have long-lasting severe medical conditions (including heart disease) as a result of having had this highly transmissible disease (which makes it quite unlike cancer or heart disease) and you’re still going with this absurd take? My uncle died of COVID19 last week, having believed exactly what you are saying, and we are almost certain he got it from one of his kids who is a high school teacher in a part of the country that’s open for school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1. As a European, it's really interesting to watch American liberals make this "you are on your own, fend for yourselves" argument when it comes to kids and families during the pandemic, while on the other hand calling for a "we are all in this together" approach when it comes to virus containment. European societies take a much more holistic approach to public health and community solidarity, one that balances the well-being and education of kids and the ability of families to maintain jobs with the need to contain the spread to protect those vulnerable to the virus, and most importantly, keep hospitals from getting overwhelmed. That's why they are STILL keeping schools at least partially open in many places (misleading headlines notwithstanding), and will certainly not keep them closed for the rest of the year.

Thank you for this. I am an American but it is disturbing to me how much I hear liberal Americans espousing a view on the pandemic that is so focused on "personal responsibility" which is the same argument conservatives use to deny welfare benefits to single mothers or refuse asylum to immigrants.

The best possible response to a pandemic is communal. I think it can be hard to remember that in the US, where we have such an individualistic culture. Combine it with all the misinformation circulating (yes, I'm talking to you, PP who keeps posting links to a bunch of headlines in tweets to make your argument instead of engaging with what people are actually saying in the thread) and it's a recipe for disaster. If we leave families to just figure all of this out on their own, we will leave behind the vast majority of families.

It amuses me how parents here think they can just wish away data and scientific analysis. All spring and summer you were screaming for schools to open because 'kids aren't affected'. Now Europe/UK are reeling from a surge in viral cases and a mutation linked from their 'open no matter what' policies. It also turns out kids are carriers who are highly efficient at spreading the virus. Now you just want to ignore all that and still open schools because little Susie needs companionship.

Sorry. Gates closed. Figure it out.

You don’t have science on your side if you are arguing that open schools caused the surge in Europe. Please stop pretending you do.

Wow. Wrong again.

Reopening schools following coronavirus lockdowns is linked to a surge in transmissions within a month, according to the first study to look at the impact of lifting restrictions on the R rate.

Children’s return to classrooms was followed by an average 24-per-cent rise in the R transmission number, University of Edinburgh researchers found after analysing data from 131 countries.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rate-school-closures-lockdown-lancet-study-b1251617.html?amp

Peer-reviewed study = https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30785-4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, then can we at least admit that the country and state have decided that the education and civic development of children are no longer public priorities, and acknowledge that kids are missing out on important experiences because of a conscious decision that the preservation of adult life is more important? The idea that education is completely separable from interpersonal interaction and that any problems with a year of isolation are due to bad parenting is wishful thinking so nobody has to feel bad, we can just blame individuals for being lazy moral failures who brought it on themselves, because that's the American way.

This is not exactly some kind of hidden agenda. And kids have a huge interest in the preservation of adult life.

Yeah, imagine that. We want their parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles to live. So those kids don't end up in Oliver Twist orphanage houses. Crazy stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1. As a European, it's really interesting to watch American liberals make this "you are on your own, fend for yourselves" argument when it comes to kids and families during the pandemic, while on the other hand calling for a "we are all in this together" approach when it comes to virus containment. European societies take a much more holistic approach to public health and community solidarity, one that balances the well-being and education of kids and the ability of families to maintain jobs with the need to contain the spread to protect those vulnerable to the virus, and most importantly, keep hospitals from getting overwhelmed. That's why they are STILL keeping schools at least partially open in many places (misleading headlines notwithstanding), and will certainly not keep them closed for the rest of the year.

Thank you for this. I am an American but it is disturbing to me how much I hear liberal Americans espousing a view on the pandemic that is so focused on "personal responsibility" which is the same argument conservatives use to deny welfare benefits to single mothers or refuse asylum to immigrants.

The best possible response to a pandemic is communal. I think it can be hard to remember that in the US, where we have such an individualistic culture. Combine it with all the misinformation circulating (yes, I'm talking to you, PP who keeps posting links to a bunch of headlines in tweets to make your argument instead of engaging with what people are actually saying in the thread) and it's a recipe for disaster. If we leave families to just figure all of this out on their own, we will leave behind the vast majority of families.

It amuses me how parents here think they can just wish away data and scientific analysis. All spring and summer you were screaming for schools to open because 'kids aren't affected'. Now Europe/UK are reeling from a surge in viral cases and a mutation linked from their 'open no matter what' policies. It also turns out kids are carriers who are highly efficient at spreading the virus. Now you just want to ignore all that and still open schools because little Susie needs companionship.

Sorry. Gates closed. Figure it out.

Wait - now the open schools didn't only cause the surge (for which you have no evidence), they are also responsible for the mutation?

Also, it is still expert consensus that kids under the age of ten - and that is about whom we are talking here - are not "highly effective" spreaders of the virus. Nobody says they cannot spread it, but they spread it much less than older kids and adults.

You are one to talk about data and scientific analysis.