Neven, I gave you this example of blatant disinformation, presenting as medical fact something which is clearly the opposite of a fact.
Yes, but you obviously have trouble reading it correctly because of bias.
You said: 'Why would anyone think or claim there is no transmission in children?'
Whereas it clearly says in the text you quoted: 'the risk of disease and transmission in children is extremely low'.
The reason someone would claim the risk of transmission in children is extremely low, is because there are scientific studies showing this (such as this one). Of course, you can brush this aside with more anecdotal evidence from Israel (no links), and if you'd make more of an effort, you'd find scientific studies that show the opposite. That's because it's far from clear.
Neven, I will take it upon myself to research the issue of transmission by children in more depth.
Bear in mind one of the main studies cited by all, the one in Geneva, took place when schools were closed. A study is needed for locations where schools were open, preferably with no limitation, to prove the point claimed by SPR that there is no medical reason to close schools, to limit class size or to wear masks. I will look for such studies.
"In this issue of Pediatrics, Posfay-Barbe et al6 report on the dynamics of COVID-19 within families of children with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Geneva, Switzerland. From March 10 to April 10, 2020, all children <16 years of age diagnosed at Geneva University Hospital (N = 40) underwent contact tracing to identify infected household contacts (HHCs). Of 39 evaluable households, in only 3 (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult HHCs. In all other households, the child developed symptoms after or concurrent with adult HHCs, suggesting that the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them."
So this study does not help. No wonder that with schools closed transmission by children was lower. However, one other issue with the study is that it decided on chain of transmission based on onset of symptoms, whereas many children do not show symptoms or have less symptoms and could have been the source of the infection unknowingly. Chain of transmission should normally be decided by epidemiological inquiry - who got it from whom and when.
In any case, I promise to research this further.
My problem with your argument is that you latch onto something, call it an 'example of blatant disinformation', and then simply brush everything aside. That's just too easy, and shows you have already decided what reality is, simply based on media narratives that people have been bombarded with for more than 100 days straight.
And then you arrogantly state that you 'shudder to think this is someone's primary source'. Well, show me a perfect primary source then! You can't, because it doesn't exist. The easiest thing to do in the world, is to find one sentence, declare it 'blatant disinformation' (true or not) and dismiss the whole thing.
Debunking is a hard problem. When I give my strong impression that the whole thing is clearly biased, I am blamed of generalities, and bias. When I take a specific point down to show the underlying bias, I am blamed of latching onto one thing, and bias. I doubt I can get out of this loop.
Assuming I decided what reality is simply based on media narratives I have been bombarded with, is conspiratorial and wrong. This whole thing of media and narratives is way overblown, IMHO. For two months the media downplayed the Coronavirus, while powerful governments denied its risk, and very loud denier voices on the media got a load of attention. But in any case, I barely watch TV, I read newspapers with very critical eyes, and I use the scientific method to collect and discard information and make predictions, as much as I can. I have read countless scientific papers on the subject, something which I dislike doing as it is time-consuming and boring and very far from my limited base of scientific knowledge, but often the summarizing articles were not good enough. Of course, I can't prove any of it, I could be severely biased unknowingly - maybe it's the narrative that has taken hold of me. So I doubt I can get out of this loop as well.
If I spoke arrogantly I apologize. and I agree there is no single primary source that is good enough. The only method is to gather your own data, while using critical thinking and scientific approach, and not latch onto a single source just because it fits with your point of view.
To be honest, this thread has been a good source of information, and the debates in it helped me by pointing me towards different sources and different points of view.
But enough about me, my opinions don't matter much. I admit I am concerned about you Neven, but we have already discussed this and there's no point in sparring over it. I respect you too greatly anyway, let's leave it at that.