Misleading title. Some schools in South Korea were closed again, when they found themselves in the middle of new hot spots (either some student/teacher got infected or the area had too many patients). The nation, as a whole, is still "on schedule" for gradually reopening schools. Of course that's not without controversy, but we can't just postpone everything indefinitely...
Those reactions of officials are not very scientific all over. They don't read the current papers, reports, studies. They've only learned that flu is distributed by kids, and apply this logic to the latest flu outbreak. Well, they are as confused as the press, which knows even less. And the press is hysterizing the parents, which does have a significant impact on common health.
Current evidence points that children and young kids are the least susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, as outlined in this editorial[1]. But the governments and the press still treat it like it's the flu on that regard.
Surely this can't be the right targeting, though. If their strategy is so sensitive that a cluster of less than 100 cases forces schools to close, it seems less disruptive to just not open the schools in the first place.
I disagree. Drugs (given the number being tested, perhaps one or two candidates can emerge) can make the disease manageable and buy enough time for a vaccine without causing any more lockdowns.
Besides, closing schools in light of available evidence is... questionable, or moved not by science, but by the precautionary principle.
Honestly those drugs would have to have a pretty high efficacy to change the pandemic course by themselves. If they had, it would probably already be pretty clear even in preliminary studies.
The time of administration matters as well. A lot of the early studies were made in high-severity, hospitalized cases. At that point, the results were mediocre if not totally ineffective (lopinavir/ritonavir, for example).
It might be better early on, but there is yet a lack of trials for early administration of drugs. Stuff like the RECOVERY trial in the UK will be pivotal in telling which treatments work and which don't.
Also I don't mean only repurposed drugs (aside the very debated HCQ, there's ivermectin that is worth at least looking at), but also new molecules made specifically to fight the disease (there are quite a few slated to start clinical testing this summer).
Then "underdogs", like favipiravir, which apparently cuts the hospital stay time in half, but the few studies published aren't that great (no placebo, control is standard of care which means everything and nothing).
I would also add that the lack of standardized protocols hurts a bit the interpretation of the studies. Take heparin for example, which is believed to drastically cut mortality (although the lone study published is full of confounding factors): different hospitals in different countries have different protocols of administration, further complicating things and making difficult to understand proper dosage, etc.
Constant vigilance and restrictions work if a vaccine's coming, it will slow down the process if we are waiting until "enough people have achieve immunity by getting sick". Overall, I agree with you though, partly because I'm moderately optimistic about the prospect of finding a vaccine.
Moreover, thinking about this a little more, I think one other thing we are waiting for is effective protocols to minimize the mortality rate (not sure if I'm using that term right). I'm not necessarily talking about a cure, but also things like when to use a ventilator vs not use a ventilator, etc. I think we're still in the learning phase on that, and even if the end solution is letting the disease run through the population, I'd be more comfortable if the patient care science of covid patients was further along before we ease restrictions.
