In the public and scientific discourse, there seems to be establishing a consensus that -contrary to flu epidemics- the role of children and schools in the covid-19 epidemic is small. On what research does this consensus rely?
I found a reference to a study on the 2003 SARS outbreak (also a coronavirus) which couldn't find an impact of school closures on the evolution of that epidemic.
There are anecdotal stories about children who are infected and do not transmit the disease very easily.
Children do not feature heavily in the age-breakdown of people having tested positive for covid-19 or who tested positive for antibodies.
I can imagine researchers are mostly emboldened from that age-breakdown that I just mentioned, but what about the countering hypotheses that...
"many children who are positive for either covid-19 or its antibodies test negative because their bodies so easily overcome the disease (yielding both low virus concentrations throughout all stages of the disease and yielding low antibody concentration afterwards -> low concentrations are difficult to detect in a test)"
"Children may overcome the disease relatively quickly and unharmed, but in a society where the schools are not closed they interact so intensely with a large number of people that -despite their fast recovery- they still contribute a great deal to the overall R0 of that epidemic."