Replied "Why? Because 1) the virus is not significantly dangerous to kids at all. 2) there is no scientific study or statistics that show unmasked kids in schools lead to higher community infection rates. 3) masks, for many, trigger migraines, staph infections, acne, etc. 4) masks obliterate socializing"
Commented "We have known since last year children are of effectively zero risk. They are also not effective at spreading the virus. Plenty of examples of schools without masks not increasing general rates of community spread. None are providing statistics/scientific studies supporting mask demands for kids."
Replied "So, do you still oppose the reduction now that the CDC has come out concluding that 3' is adequate?"
Replied "Judi, how big of a problem is that? The science is saying that it is not a statistically relevant issue? Because the most infinitesimally small risk may be possible, you would hurt kids?
The kids are not at even remotely significant risk. Teachers are immunized. Concerned? Stay home."
Replied "Comments on other side are comical. Claims they are relying on "experts", but they lack critical thinking... never asking for the science used for 6' distancing, and ignore the Oxford/Harvard experts saying 3' is all that is necessary for school. They ignore real world examples. Ignore the harm."
Replied "And with masks, people are allowed to cram into airplanes with 6", rather than 6' distancing, with different "cohorts" every time... but kids can't be allowed 3' apart?
More science for those that care about it.... Harvard suggesting 3':
Commented "The science is clear - 6' distancing in schools is not necessary, which is why Europe goes by 1m (3.2'). 6' prevents schools from having more than 1/3rd capacity/instruction, & kids from even remotely normal social interaction.
READ THE SCIENCE: