OK, where to start with this piece on masking children, which National Geographic published just as several Democrat-led states announced plans to drop mask mandates in schools. First, to benefit children in more ways than one, masks would have to benefit children in one way, and we think National Geographic is making a big assumption there despite claiming it’s focused on the science. Second, we read the whole piece to find out other ways masking benefits children, but we found only one: Schools with mask mandates are more likely to stay open (really?) and therefore kids won’t miss out on in-person learning.
Experts say most evidence suggests that masking doesn’t harm children—and that it benefits them in more ways than one https://t.co/zkNr0Sqe0b
— National Geographic (@NatGeo) February 18, 2022
In short, masks don’t affect breathing, they don’t affect language development, they don’t affect social development, and they don’t contribute to mental health issues. Keep in mind, states have mandated that kids as young as 2 years old wear a mask all day in daycare.
How about these mental health issues?
[Walter] Gilliam says blaming masks for the depression and anxiety in kids stems from a natural desire to protect them. But he suspects it’s not the masking that causes stress in classrooms. “It’s the trauma of COVID that the masks were intended to prevent,” he says. “When you have an ache and a pain, it’s the cut on your arm not the Band-Aid that went over it that’s causing the problem. The purpose of the mask is to reduce all the other traumas—traumas that we know for an absolute fact harm children.”
Yeah, OK buddy.
https://twitter.com/TheStreetJesus/status/1494754425037996032
This is the perfect example of why I did not renew my subscription. My wife teaches 1st grade and the impacts of masks on speech development is devestating. These kids will be educationally challenged for years if not always.
— Kevin Marquette (@kgmqt) February 18, 2022
As a pediatric speech pathologists, I couldn’t agree more with your wife. I also imagine she has the tough job of catching kids up because of significant learning loss including social/pragmatic language. I’m seeing language delays & a huge increase of 2-3 yr olds in my practice
— teaandtennis (@tvinsweats) February 19, 2022
Well as a parent who saw the harms in my very own children, this is gaslighting. Stop diminishing parents lived experiences with their own damn children.
— Kristen White (@kwhite0221) February 19, 2022
“The Science” (TM). That cute little phrase has become quite the red flag.
— Christopher Kratovil (@chris_kratovil) February 19, 2022
Et tu, National Geographic.
— Kjetil Svenheim (@kjsve) February 19, 2022
Next up, the benefits of muzzles.
— Tirion (@cmtirion) February 19, 2022
A masterclass in science journalism sophistry.
— Phillip Williams (@philwillnyc) February 19, 2022
Experts!
— Will (@MisterB3) February 19, 2022
They’re wrong.
— A. McN (@annmcnam) February 19, 2022
@ZubyMusic I used to think National Geographic was a reliable magazine…
— amit kumar (@kumar_amit) February 19, 2022
https://twitter.com/ulrikagg/status/1495163682535485445
“mask mandates may need to carve out exemptions for children who are deaf and need to read lips or for children with autism who struggle to interpret facial expressions”
Why might this be, if masks have no unwanted effects? 1/3— Dr. Tannahill Glen (@tannahillglen) February 19, 2022
2/3 not once does this article acknowledge that some states opened and kept open schools with no mask mandates, 10 day quarantines or testing mandates. And it was fine.
— Dr. Tannahill Glen (@tannahillglen) February 19, 2022
3/3 the glaring problem with all the reassuring studies cited (aside from fact that less reassuring studies ignored) is that not one, not one—looks at the obvious: effects of long term full time daily forced masking of healthy children across settings.
— Dr. Tannahill Glen (@tannahillglen) February 19, 2022
Nobody believes this
— Kyle (@kczar18) February 19, 2022
Detroying your credibility, one article at a time
— phoenixx (@treehousehill) February 19, 2022
This entire article is predicated on an acceptance that the “evidence” is anecdotal, that there are no first-line studies and that there are various detriments which require significant steps by way of mitigation. Conclusions are scientifically worthless.
— David Locke (@DAVID_F_LOCKE) February 19, 2022
So it’s propaganda.
— Edward Key (@edwardkeyjf) February 19, 2022
As they admit, there are no studies because it would be unethical to put children in masks to see if there really are no negative effects.
Sure! Ignoring contradictory data is easy!
— Nathanael Schulte (@thanie2001) February 19, 2022
https://twitter.com/brintosh/status/1495154986552115203
https://twitter.com/angrybklynmom/status/1495143908925480967
If masks benefit children in more ways than one and cause no harm, they should have been wearing masks before the pandemic.
Related:
‘Amazing’: Politifact twists into a pretzel to debunk comparisons of unmasked Super Bowl fans to kids in school https://t.co/RLqyOOBRO9
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) February 19, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member