Right, but you aren't really someone who should have much of a say over this, and neither are any parents. The people most knowledgable about this topic are (though not universally) arriving at the conclusion that children should continue to wear masks.
Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation.
Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.
> Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere.
I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash.
OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.
There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation.
Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own.
That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message.
I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
>If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message.
This just isn't true. Just the other day Sweden decided that they will not be recommending the vax for kids under 11 [1], and the UK has ended their mask mandates all together. The US is part of a select club that is actively ignoring what the data says about how effective these intrusive measures really are. There's other examples from all over the world and their covid outcomes are better that the US, largely because so many in the US were simply unhealthy, out of shape, and fat which weakens your immune system.
Taking your strategy will do much to weaken the general populous' trust in these institutions.
The CDC does. [0]. So does the Mayo Clinic [1]. So does the Cleveland Clinic [2]. So does Johns Hopkins [3]. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics [4].
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
I'm making a point that the US is unique in this regard, and few other countries are being this draconian about masking kids. TFA notes that the CDC's own data don't lead to the conclusion that these measures do much of anything, and the measures actively ignore the other potential developmental effects on e.g. language processing. Those clinic articles (they're articles, written by what looks like some random communications staffer, not official guidance or studies) just reference CDC guidance. If you look at what the WHO is actually recommending - ignoring how piss poor their guidance has been thus far - it's way more nuanced than you are implying.
I don't really care to reiterate the CDC's own studies cited in TFA, as you and many others seem convinced that we should be masking indefinitely, even after the pandemic "ends".
>If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
Okay then cast me out? What a weird sentiment. Blind faith in institutions seems unwise.
Firstly, who said anything about faith, let alone blind faith? These institutions are constantly on the forefront of public health policy, and have an overwhelming number of credentials and positive track records that justify trusting them to speak accurately. There is no faith here, only earned trust.
Secondly, you yourself said the US is uniquely vulnerable. Are you now saying it’s not?
You can try to strawman all you like, the unavoidable fact is that the institutions with the most credibility in the world are speaking with one voice: mask your children before sending them back to school, and that schools should enforce mask wearing to reduce covid transmission rates.
It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic.
But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right?
> Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've talked about the effects that aren't directly related to the children? They're carriers too, and that matters, on top of everything else.
And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.
> Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've talked about the effects that aren't directly related to the children? They're carriers too, and that matters, on top of everything else.
How is posting that exact thing—so, agreeing with you—more explicitly ("to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection") than you have until this very post (it's at best implied in all your other posts, from what I can tell, and I just re-read them to be sure—but maybe you had that on your mind and it just didn't come across strongly?) ignoring that point? It's far and away the strongest argument for masking in schools.
> And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.
We better be, because I'm pretty sure they're going away before long no matter what either of us want (again, barring a large change in course for the pandemic). Shit, around here they already did drop them for a couple weeks right before the Omicron surge and schools had to scramble to bring them back to avoid having to shut down completely (again: man, I hate the insistence on removing safety measures ASAP, it's been proven a stupid idea every single time it's happened so far in my city, yet people, including e.g. school administrators, keep going "OK looks better this week, we should start removing our safety measures"). Our city-wide mandates are currently gone and were being largely ignored for about a month before they were removed. It borders on miraculous that schools have been successful at keeping mandates in place as long and consistently as they have—and if not for the fact that they'd have ended up horrendously under-staffed and had to shut down without them, I absolutely don't think they'd have worked as hard at it as they have. Admin hates pissing off parents, even if it's only a few of them, and the anti-maskers have been the angriest and most-active participants in these goings-on. From what I can see the (very credible) threat of mass teacher resignations and walk-outs (plus, you know, just the risk of too many of them being sick at once) are the only reason mask mandates in schools persisted for any amount of time at all (and, again, I'm glad they have!) outside maybe the "bluest" of "blue" strongholds, but I don't think that pressure's gonna keep up much longer.
The high school in my conservative county has reinstated mask mandates, and it hasn't really been very dramatic at all. Most parents generally get it, but I live in a flyover state so nobody cares that it's working fine here.
Yeah, they all kinda had to with Omicron because it's so damn contagious that even with the reduced 5-day quarantine guidelines and drastic reductions in the circumstances under which one must quarantine (which changes I'm about 90% sure are BS from a pure public health perspective, and just a practical-minded compromise aimed at preventing a de facto shutdown from having half the damn country in quarantine at once in the Omicron surge) some local districts were seeing days when they were short hundreds of subs to cover for all the teachers who were out.
[EDIT] BTW, no hard feelings, I genuinely wasn't trying to piss you off. Communication is hard. Sorry if it sucked this time. [EDIT EDIT] LOL, and that phrasing was too wishy-washy. Sorry if I sucked at it, this time.
The CDC does. [0]. So does the Mayo Clinic [1]. So does the Cleveland Clinic [2]. So does Johns Hopkins [3]. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics [4].
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation.
Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.