That's either false or intentionally vague.

That's either false or intentionally vague.
by tdiddy07 (2021-08-02 18:43:16)

In reply to: The only people pushing COVID isn't a risk for kids are posted by CUBluejays

Pediatric associations have long supported return to in-person school on the low risk to kids and developmental harm to cutting out socialized learning.

Yes, anyone with a very low risk of harm can be among the very few outliers. That's the case for anything.

That doesn't mean all child physicians want to avoid all safeguards. But the risk is low enough that they adamantly want in-person school, and they have before widespread vaccine distribution.

Sure, while we have big outbreaks, mask up the kids. No issue here. But if we return to levels we had a month ago, I'm open to removing masks. They still pose social developmental challenges that should be balanced to some degree with estimated risk.

My issue isn’t with kids going to school.

I have no issue with in person schools. My kids went to school all year last year in masks. My son went to speech therapy last year in a mask. He no longer needs speech therapy. My kids won’t go to school without a mask until they are vaccinated and the cases have dropped.

COVID is a risk for kids that is my issue.

Source/citation for your

last sentence?

If people are going to be militant about "proving" that masks work, it stands to reason that the risks of masks shouldn't be intentionally overstated. The only data I've seen is related to (potential) speech development in babies. Which doesn't apply if we're talking about school-age children. Admittedly I don't keep up with child development research, so I'm asking honestly because I certainly could have missed it.