In November, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that more than 1 million children in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Politicians are calling for closures and lockdowns in response to this crisis, but often they are focusing on shutting down sporting events and schools for our nation’s children.

What’s wrong with this approach? Data strongly suggest that indoor restaurants and bars, along with private indoor social gatherings, are the primary driver of the increase in infections. Importantly, studies tell us that COVID-19 is not spread easily outdoors and that children are not spreaders.

It is understandable that leaders making health decisions need to do so quickly. But there are details about the spread of this virus that need to be made clear.

First, COVID-19 is not spread by larger droplets, but by tiny aerosols, according to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and others. Numerous studies have shown that COVID-19 infection occurs through these airborne aerosols, with most particles around 5 microns in size, just larger than your typical bacterial cell. Again, this is why masks should be focused on and are so critical for COVID-19 and, likely, influenza (the flu).

It is difficult to find documented cases of people catching COVID-19 outside. Protests this summer appear to have had no effect on transmission, and it has been the large indoor political gatherings that have led to outbreaks. CDC guidance suggests at least 15 minutes of exposure to become infected, which is based on being indoors. However, the CDC guidelines should be clearer because an aerosol can travel long distances within a room, you may be further than 6 feet from someone indoors and still become infected.

Given our understanding of transmission, focus should be on stopping the spread indoors in restaurants, bars and social gatherings. People need to support our restaurants, but do it through outdoor seating or ordering carryout.

The data is telling us that preadolescents are not infectious. If children aren’t infectious and hardly ever show symptoms, then maybe we shouldn’t be preventing them from attending school or indoor winter sports.

We would expect to be able to find examples where a preadolescent child brought the virus home and spread it to other household members. There just aren’t examples of this, suggesting it rarely happens. This means teachers should not be afraid of preadolescent children infecting them.

Lastly, several studies this month show that children and adolescents have very different immune responses to COVID-19, which likely contributes to them being resistant to infection, and if infected, being less ill and eliminating the virus quickly. This may also lower their chance of being infectious and needs to be determined, as it also has implications for immunizations. We may find that children won’t benefit from vaccinations, unless belonging to a group that is high risk.

These decisions are taking a tremendous toll on kids and their families and it is not good for the country. As a scientist, parent, coach, I would like to see further reasonable and data driven debate on outdoor activities and locking down our children.

Chris Janetopoulos is an associate professor of biological sciences and co-director of the BioImaging Core Facility at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia.