There is more nuance in this. It is possible that kids were important infection vector from the beginning but it was under tested. It can also be that the first

There is more nuance in this. It is possible that kids were important infection vector from the beginning but it was under tested. It can also be that the first variant of the virus really affected them less. During the delta wave the school children were very important infection vector and controlling infection in schools (by rapid antigen tests) has played important role in controlling the epidemic. It is also possible that containment of viral load was relatively sufficient before also with cloth masks but is not anymore with omicron because of even higher viral load it creates. Vaccines still limit spread but by smaller degree and it has been possible to increase (no, especially increase, not restore) the control to higher level but even here we have limitations. We could not expect one vaccine to perfectly control the virus that has evolved too far. And so on. I trust science or more precisely the scientific process. I think it is the best tool that we have to finally come to closest to the truth. But it does not mean that I take every preprint or even print as truth. Far from it and I believe all of us should stay sharp and critical. It does not mean that I believe only published things that confirm my prejudice. No, I read what the study has actually done. How much can we conclude from it? What are its limitations? I think too few popularizers of the science help people to understand the limitations of the science. It should be done more. I think it is the cornerstone of the science.