A Critical Assessment of Some Recent Work on COVID-19

I tentatively re-analyze data from two well-publicized studies on COVID-19, namely the Charit\'{e} "viral load in children" and the Bonn "seroprevalence in Heinsberg/Gangelt" study, from information available in the preprints. The studies have the following in common: - They received worldwide attention and arguably had policy impact. - The thrusts of their findings align with the respective lead authors' (different) public stances on appropriate response to COVID-19. - Tentatively, my reading of the Gangelt study neutralizes its thrust, and my reading of the Charit\'{e} study reverses it. The exercise may aid in placing these studies in the literature. With all caveats that apply to $n=2$ quickfire analyses based off preprints, one also wonders whether it illustrates inadvertent effects of "researcher degrees of freedom."