The problem I'm having with the "children don't spread it" is that I am sceptical on the research. It seems too convenient to me to be able to say "oh we don't need to worry about the children spreading it" when they want schools to go back.
Now the research given may be correct, but I'm not sure about it. We all know how easily things spread in schools on a normal day to day basis. What is different about Covid-19? I've not seen anything that really answers that properly. There haven't been that many children back in schools in the UK. Where there have been children back in schools, then it's been in smaller bubbles, so less potential for spreading, plus children who are more at risk will typically not have been attending. I'm not sure from that you can conclude that children don't spread it-even if one child tested positive, then others would only get tested with symptoms, which if most children are asymptomatic in a bubble of 6-10 there's a reasonable chance none of them will be.
Do children typically not get it as much, or is it more that children are less likely to have been somewhere they might catch it over lockdown? eg shops were asking you not to take children in, so people will have tended to leave them at home.
In the families I've known that have had it and tested, the children have pretty much all had it-and sometimes have been far ill-er than the adults.
Statistics are easy enough to manipulate to show what you want.
I hope they are correct, because otherwise we have a situation ready to erupt in schools. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything that makes me confident it has been looked at properly.