While the title might be correct, I feel this is a misleading article. First, about the conclusions of the JAMA paper, the Forbes article says: The authors con

While the title might be correct, I feel this is a misleading article. First, about the conclusions of the JAMA paper, the Forbes article says: The authors conclude it is likely that young children, while not as prone to suffering from Covid-19 infection, still drive its spread—just as they do with several other respiratory diseases. Note the use of "likely". But the JAMA article itself actually says: Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit. Unless the JAMA authors say elsewhere that young children are "likely" to be driving the spread of Covid-19, the switch from "potentially" to "likely" is misleading. Next, regarding the Trento preprint, the Forbes article says: The researchers found that although young children had a somewhat lower risk of infection than adults and were less likely to become ill, children age 14 and younger transmit the virus more efficiently to other children and adults than adults themselves. The implication of "somewhat lower risk" implies that the likelihood of transmission is sufficiently greater to offset the lower risk that young children are to become symptomatically infected. But Table 2 of the preprint shows that while the transmission risk of children less than 14 was indeed double that of other groups, only 1% of the tracked subjects were children less than 14. While it's not clear that the sampling is entirely random, unless children are extremely systematically underrepresented, it seems likely that percentage of contagious young children (no breakdown was given for "young children") must be very small, and that "somewhat less likely" is an egregious understatement. I applaud the Forbes article for including clear links to the underlying papers, though! And I'd hope that these are honest errors that the author might try to address, rather than any intentional attempts to mislead.