I agree that kids need to be in school.

I'd add that it was pretty easy to see, at least for my then-six-year-old, almost immediately. It was clear to us by April 2020 at the latest (having shut down in March 2020). Remote learning was basically no learning for her.

Even in our very risk-averse house (e.g., never wiped down groceries, but did transition to only one of us ever shopping; wore masks pretty much any time indoors until vaccinated; stopped wearing masks outside pretty early; had a high-risk then-two-year-old who I still think might have been among the very first COVID patients in America [hospitalized in January 2020, shortly after I got back from Seattle, for three days and on oxygen for two]), it was clear our daughter needed to be in a school to make progress. The local public schools did not guarantee that option until 2021-22.

Even in April and May 2020, however, I wouldn't have said that our experience could have been used to "figure it out" for everyone. I didn't know, and don't know, whether remote learning was bad for every kid or just really horrible for her. But it was very clear, very early, that it was horrible for her.

Her private school reopened in August 2020 and had only a small handful of positive tests throughout 2020-21. They opened windows and masked and encouraged people to stay home if sick. It worked extremely well.

And I think when public officials saw that (1) remote learning was really bad for some, and (2) in-person learning wasn't causing the disaster some thought it would, they reopened schools. I think the first point was clear (particularly as to "for some") very early. I'm not sure the second point was all that clear until we were in the 2020-21 school year, at least, and maybe not even until we were through it.

I'm not sure shutting down in 2020-21 was objectively "wrong" without the benefit of hindsight about how well ventilation and masking would work. That you had no viral spread in school from May 2020 on kind of admits that it wasn't all that clear in May 2020 (i.e., the beginning of the period of no spread). And it wouldn't really have been all that clear even in month two or month three, I would think. I think it's fair to be reluctant to fault officials for wanting to let that situation percolate a bit before reaching sweeping conclusions that might have increased the death count.