The problem with just referring to scientific data gathered during a lockdown where workplaces and schools have been closed (hence no data) and ignoring scientific knowledge of viral spread, viral load etc means that 'data' (gathered during lockdown within households) shows that spread is primarily within households. In this context, how could it be otherwise?
So all we know from data is that when most people are not mixing outside the home, but where some people are and are infected outside the home, transmission is primarily within the home. No shit Sherlock. The virus has to be brought into the home initially so we know that even minimal contact is risky given transmission - hence social distancing and mask wearing when outside the home.
To take this data, collected in one context, as factual regarding the nature of transmission and the effect of viral load in a different context is profoundly unscientific.
The notion that an asymptomatic or presymptomatic person is less likely to infect another vulnerable host that they have prolonged contact with, with no social distancing or no mask wearing than a fleeting contact makes no scientific sense whatsoever.
Unless of course you accept (for the sake of the economy) that fleeting contacts can be protected whilst work colleagues, fellow pupils, household members (ie those sharing an environment with close or prolonged contact) can do little or nothing and that contact will inevitably lead to infection. And if that is your priority at least have the balls to say so - some of you might die but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make - so that we can freely decide whether that is a sacrifice we are willing to make.
This is blatant use of cherry picked data for political/economic reasons to influence behaviour and is why scientists and epidemiologists feel honour bound to say it is wrong because of the cost to human health, wellbeing and life. Scientific knowledge of known facts and dynamics can pretty well predict the outcome. Like discharging patients without testing into care homes. The result was predictable. The UK had not collected data but we could see what was happening in other countries.
The result of forcing all D.C. including secondary age into school is predictable. The UK has not openly shared even limited data collected data but we can see what is happening in other countries where schools have reopened.
Even in the UK when schools weren't fully open, outbreaks were occurring, second only to care homes. But this is not reported. We dont get the recent data here because the government has decided that all schools must open to all pupils regardless of current data.
So if you repeat Hancock nonsense about why masks won't be effective or even counterproductive in the workplace or schools, ask yourself why. Perform a bullshit test. Does this make sense? Is it logical? Does it fit scientific understanding?
Cases and clusters are found in households, hospitals and care homes during lockdown, when relaxation occurs they are found in workplaces and then schools. And then they all tie up together and we are back to community spread with mystery cases and exponential growth.