Forcing children to wear a mask is child abuse. The Left failed children.

It's actually really amusing that you think the stats you pulled out somehow support your argument.

"Significantly fewer deaths"?

249 vs. 231 out of 100,000 who died with (not necessarily of) Covid, you really think that is statistically significant?

18 out of 100,000, that's 0.018 % difference.

They are both middle of the pack.

There is a reason why so many Californians want to escape to Florida.

It's hilarious how the believers in big government actually think that a pandemic gives much of a **** about pseudo measures.

 

Their freedom day was weeks ago. Nobody wears masks in the entire country for the most part, certainly not in schools.

 

Neither of these three Scandinavian countries ever had a mask mandate for children under 12 years old. Much of the US did.

Neither of these three Scandinavian countries ever forced children to wear masks on planes. The US forced children from 2 years old, a rule which was introduced under the Biden administration.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535221001221


Public Health in Practice
Volume 2, November 2021, 100197

Commentary
Making pre-school children wear masks is bad public health
Author links open overlay panelRobert C.HughesaSunil S.BhopalabMarkTomlinsoncd
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100197Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
Open access

Abstract
Children are not small adults. This is a critical point that many pediatricians and other child health professionals get bored of saying, yet it does seem to need repeating. While children have the lowest risk from COVID-19 directly, they risk suffering the indirect impacts of policy decisions, many of which appear to have been made with next to no explicit consideration of their interests. Public health interventions should not only be about infectious disease control, they should consider a broad set of outcomes. In addition, they ought to consider vulnerability, including that in early childhood - a time when young children's brains are developing rapidly and are most susceptible to adversity. We believe that mandating masking of pre-school children is not in line with public health principles, and needs to be urgently re-considered.

• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Keywords
COVID-19
Child health and development
Early childhood development
Childcare
Last week, President Biden's Chief Medical Adviser Dr Fauci promoted the new US CDC Childcare Guidance, which states that “Masks should be worn indoors by all individuals (ages 2 and older) who are not fully vaccinated [1]. We feel that the CDC and Dr Fauci have, by focusing exclusively on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, got this wrong, and that this guidance is not good public health when the limited potential benefits of this policy are considered alongside the potential harms.

The importance of early childhood for the rest of a person's life is now well understood; what happens in those early moments really matters, and changing the beginning has the potential to change the whole story - including learning, earning and happiness [2]. In addition, the centrality of responsive caregiving and interaction - such as that between peers and with caregivers in the home and childcare settings - is increasingly well appreciated, affecting language and social-emotional development and IQ [3].

This interaction and engagement is much more than an optional ‘nice to have’ that can be deferred for a few years whilst the pandemic is controlled; the window of ensuring optimal early childhood development is short [4]. During this period moment by moment engagement, caregiver responsiveness, and learning of social cues (including by reading the faces of caregivers and others) are crucial for early socio-emotional development, for learning the ‘give and take’ of peer interaction and crucially for developing a ‘theory of mind’ [5]. It would be considered grossly unethical to attempt to assess the impact of covering the faces of young children and their caregivers on early childhood development. The potential for harm here is clear, especially when you consider the long hours that many children spend in childcare settings [6].

These risks to early childhood development are especially concerning when balanced against the potential benefits that mandating young children to wear masks might plausibly bring (even before considering likely levels of ‘compliance’ with mask wearing amongst toddlers). There are three potential benefits here that seem worthy of consideration; reduced risk of Covid-19 to the child and their peers, reduced risks to their caregivers, and wider benefits for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic control.

Considering the first of these, it is increasingly clear that SARS-CoV-2 - thankfully - represents an extremely low mortality risk to children [7]. In addition, current experimental estimates of the risks of prolonged symptoms also suggest that these are uncommon amongst young children [8] and likely similar to risks they face from other viruses.

Regarding the risk that unmasked toddlers represent to adults caring for them, in the US and other high-income countries, childcare staff have now been, or are being, offered highly effective vaccines which significantly reduce their risk of staff acquiring SARS-CoV-2, especially from young paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic young children.

Finally, while the wellbeing of the young children and their caregivers who are the subject of this policy ought to be central to decision making, it is worth noting that the contribution of pre-school settings to wider epidemic dynamics appears to be limited and less than that of secondary schools or universities [9]. This may be due to younger children having mostly asymptomatic infection, with associated lower secondary attack rates and onward transmission.

As the consensus builds that SARS-CoV-2 will become an endemic pathogen it is crucial that we focus our effort on interventions that are as harm-free and benefit-rich as possible. This may well include mask wearing amongst healthy adults becoming a collective cultural activity where it makes sense (for example in crowded places, especially indoors and where ventilation is poor). But we do not feel that extension of this intervention to pre-school children is to be advised, let alone mandated. It is noteworthy that the World Health Organization explicitly advises against masking young children under the age of six [10].

In summary, the benefits of masking pre-school children are unclear but are probably too small to make a major difference to individuals risks from SARS-CoV-2 or epidemic control (even before considering variable likely compliance amongst toddlers). In contrast, the harms of this policy are likely to be damaging, potentially considerably so. Given this, and the influence that the CDC and Dr Fauci have both in the US and globally, we believe an urgent re-consideration of this policy is needed.

Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Funding
None received for this work.

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

 

It's actually quite insane that Fauci, the 81 year old man who arguably had some ties to the gain-of-function experiments conducted in Wuhan, is the person who is one of the drivers of this mask mandate for 2 year olds.

Fauci also schemed to smear scientists who were against the China-style lockdowns.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-try-smear-experts-called-end-lockdowns.html

'There needs to be a quick and devastating take down': Emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts who penned the Great Barrington Declaration which called for an end to lockdowns

• The emails show Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a 'devastating takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD)
• AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the GBD, which largely abandons lockdowns in favor of herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal
• In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of 'three fringe epidemiologists' that 'seems to be getting a lot of attention'
• Collins adds that 'there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway?'
• Fauci later sends Collins multiple op-eds trashing the GBD in Wired and The Nation Magazine
• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya - one of the authors and a DailyMail.com contributor - tweeted that he was the subject of a propaganda attack by his own government

By STEPHEN M. LEPORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 00:16 GMT, 19 December 2021 | UPDATED: 13:16 GMT, 19 December 2021



Dr. Anthony Fauci and the head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) colluded on a way to discredit an alternative plan to deal with COVID from a group of experts, released emails reveal.

The emails, some of which were tweeted out on Saturday by Phil Magness, senior research faculty and interim research and education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), show Fauci and Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a 'devastating takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration.

AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the declaration, which largely abandons lockdowns in favor of a herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal.

In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of 'three fringe epidemiologists' that 'seems to be getting a lot of attention.'

Collins adds that 'there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway?'

Later in the day, Fauci sends Collins a Wired op-ed that refutes the notion of herd immunity stopping the pandemic.

Collins then sends Fauci an op-ed in The Nation also trashing the GBD.


An email from NIH Director Francis Collins telling Anthony Fauci that there needed to be a 'devastating published take down' of the Great Barrington Declaration


Later in the day, Fauci sends along a piece from wired that Fauci said 'debunks this theory,' which relies heavily on ending lockdowns and herd immunity


Fauci sends him along another op-ed from The Nation Magazine trashing the Great Barrington Declaration

A few days later, Collins emails Fauci a Washington Post op-ed he's quoted in headlined 'Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists.'

Collins - working under former President Donald Trump at the time - said 'my quotes are accurate but will not be appreciated in the [White House].'

Fauci responds: 'They are too busy with other things to worry about this. What you said was entirely correct.'

Later, Gregg Gonsalves - the writer of The Nation op-ed - sends Collins an email thanking him with a subject line that includes saying legendary AIDS activist Larry Kramer 'would be proud.'

Collins responds with a smiley face.


A few days later, Collins emails Fauci a Washington Post op-ed he's quoted in headlined 'Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists'


Collins is later thanked by Gregg Gonsalves, who wrote the op-ed trashing the GBD in The Nation

The GBD - authored by previous DailyMail.com contributor Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed 'to resume their normal lives.'

That would mean allowing people in low risk groups to go to offices, hang out in bars and restaurants and go to sporting and entertainment events.

The centerpiece of the declaration, according to Dr. Bhattacharya, is a call for increased focused protection of the vulnerable older population, who are more than a thousand times more likely to die from COVID infection than the young.

The declaration makes no mention of social distancing, masks, tracing, or long-term Covid cases but suggests that increased infection of those at lower risks would build herd immunity.

Bhattacharya tweeted in response to the emails: 'So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.'


Drs Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, the main authors of the Great Barrington Declaration


Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President


Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under both Presidents Trump and Biden Francis Collins


Phil Magness, Senior Research Faculty and Interim Research and Education Director at the American Institute for Economic Research





The emails - which happened while Fauci and Collins were working under President Trump - come as President Biden continues to struggle with the explosion of the Omicron variant across the country.

Biden will deliver a speech on Tuesday to announce new Covid measures to fight the rapidly-spreading Omicron variant.

It's anticipated that he will go beyond his already revealed 'Winter Plan' and address booster shots, lockdowns and mask mandates.

Earlier this month Biden announced a Covid plan to battle the virus throughout the colder months, which included booster shots for all adults, vaccinations for kids in efforts to keep schools open and expanding free at-home Covid testing.


As of Saturday morning, there were 830 cases of the Omicron Covid-19 variant confirmed by DNA sequencing across the country, a 97 percent increase from Friday morning's tally.

In reality, the true number of Omicron cases is much higher, as only 1 to 2 percent of all cases are sequenced for variant markers, but the testing data shows a disturbing national trend.

The CDC estimates that Omicron accounts for at least 13 percent of all new cases in New York, which on Saturday recorded its highest single-day tally of new Covid-19 cases ever at 29,908 - breaking its previous record of 21,027 set just one day earlier.




'The winter Covid-19 surge is here,' warned New York Governor Kathy Hochul, urging everyone to get vaccinated and boosted.

Though New York's hospitalizations, which tend to lag new cases, remain below their peaks, they have climbed 25 percent in the past two weeks, straining the state's healthcare system.

Testing has now confirmed the presence of Omicron in every US state except for Oklahoma, Montana, North and South Dakota, Indiana, and Vermont, though the eventual confirmation of the highly transmissible variant in every state now seems assured.