The slanging match on here is bizarre. Many many things matter and are very important, including the following:
Children's physical health
Children's mental health
Safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children
Access to education
Access to childcare for younger children
Preventing the entrenchment of future inequality
Teachers' physical health
Teachers' mental health
Parents' physical health (especially the clinically vulnerable)
Parents' mental health
Parents' ability to work and secure the economic wellbeing of their children
Preventing further damage to the economy and increases in the social security bill.
Reducing the spread of the virus
Just because a working parent prioritises their child's access to education and their ability to keep a roof over their family's heads doesn't mean they don't care about any of the other things listed above, including teachers' health. Likewise, those focusing primarily on the risks to teachers and wider viral spread are not wrong... they are just prioritising the matters which affect them the most, probably because they're not the ones who face losing jobs and homes if school closures leave them unable to work. But that doesn't mean they're indifferent to child poverty and other harmful effects of school closures... just that they're not prioritising them. We are all motivated by self-interest, whether we admit it or not.
Where the matters listed above conflict, it is the government's job to work out how to balance the conflicting interests. So if schools close to protect teachers and the wider population, we need to have a discussion about how to mitigate the effects on families - for example, laptops/devices provides to all families who need them, a grant of up to £2,000 to all families with younger children to cover alternative childcare/unpaid leave for parents and much better mental health provision for children of all ages.