Last I heard, the UK had very aggressive mass testing amongst school-age kids regardless of whether they showed symptoms, and it didn't seem to be spreading much aside from a brief spike when schools first reopened for in-person learning.
It looks like in November/December the rate among grades 7-11 was almost 3x the rate of those ages 35-39.
https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1347544994941431808?s=2...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Also, most schools were closed from the beginning of January to March.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/world/europe/uk-lockdown.... https://www.bbc.com/news/education-51643556
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/08/covid-uk-coron...
The data I shared is calculated from random population surveillance testing, and is the gold standard on measure of true spread.
The data you linked to is reported cases. Children often have very mild or asymptomatic cases so they are not tested nearly as much and thus many more cases are undetected in children compared to other age groups.
That's rubbish. My kids are stuff swabs up their nose twice a week - and they are lateral flow tests, so we sit there waiting to see whether the double line appears.
Also, the false negative rate isn't a big problem IMO. The PCR 'false negative' rate is far far higher because we are only doing a few hundred thousand a day, so 90% of people are getting missed entirely. I'd rather a 50% false negative rate than a 89% false negative rate from PCR.
There is also the problem that PCR takes at least a day to turn around as well - which will result in more spread.
I'm not saying we should get rid of PCR testing and just do LFD but doing both is probably the best option.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rapid-lateral-flow-testing-for-h...
It may well be they're telling the truth about their school, but that still makes a blanket claim, like the one made above, misinformation when it's presented with no qualification to indicate it's based purely on an anecdote (I'll note the comment has since been edited to water down the original claim)