You do realize that the author of your source is the author of my citation, Anna Eva Hallin? Once again, you didn't refute my claim.
The KI article doesn't contradict my citation. It addresses a different time period and different question.
My study (authored by YOUR SOURCE!) examined whether keeping schools open during COVID caused learning loss compared to pre-pandemic baselines.
Results showed that word decoding and reading comprehension scores were not lower during the pandemic compared to before & students from low socioeconomic backgrounds were not especially affected, like they were in Canada over the same period.
The KI article was published years later in 2025 about a broader, longer-term decline in reading ability driven by smartphones, social media, reduced reading time, and demographic changes, not school closures.
Factors cited in YOUR SOURCE include children spending less time reading, increased smartphone & social media use & demographic changes including increased immigration.
These are completely separate from pandemic school closure policy.
The KI article argues vulnerable students are harmed by the reading gap, which is precisely the argument for keeping schools open.
School closures would have worsened outcomes for exactly the low-SES & non-native-speaking students Hallin is concerned about, and my study showed Sweden avoided that direct harm by staying open.
You've essentially cited evidence that agrees with me to argue against me.