6 ms·
Specifically, a mask obstructing a face limits the ability of people of all ages to infer emotions expressed by facial features, but the difficulties associated
Specifically, a mask obstructing a face limits the ability of people of all ages to infer emotions expressed by facial features, but the difficulties associated with the mask’s use are significantly pronounced in children aged between 3 and 5 years old.
IMO masks are severely harming social and interpersonal development of young children, but any suggestion of removing the masks creates shit storm of controversy. The solution seems to be online learning, but it’s worth noting that a major group pushing for masks in school (teachers) are the same pushing online teaching. IMO That’s a disingenuous conflict of interest, but since pediatricians are also pushing masks for children in school, what’s the solution here? Maybe the solution is to create little plastic enclosed boxes so no child gets within 3 feet or 4 feet of another child. Everyone is surrounded by plastic like they are Hannibal Lecter, but at least they can see the smile on each other’s face…
Maybe the solution is to accept that living is a risky proposition and we are OK with a minimal amount of risk in exchange for everything (normal) life has to offer.
The solution for now is outdoor schooling. Later: upgraded HVACs and mandatory vaccinations.
The solution is to not be utterly ridiculous about it.
You can take the masks off when you are at home with your own kids.
This is yet another "controversy" that I don't get. We're very strict about our children (and ourselves) wearing masks during public activities and around any people we know to be unvaccinated (i.e. other kids).
Our kids still see other people's faces all the time. They see our faces, they see other kid's faces during meals / snacks, they see adult faces from a slight distance when we're outside.
> IMO masks are severely harming social and interpersonal development of young children, but any suggestion of removing the masks creates shit storm of controversy.
That's because serious illnesses which are easily transmitted can severely harm social and interpersonal development.
Yes, kids do mostly OK with covid, but their parents and other close contacts may not. If wearing masks brings the risk level down enough to have school in person, that's probably better than online school without masks.
>Yes, kids do mostly OK with covid, but their parents and other close contacts may not.
Kids will do mostly OK, as well as their parents and other close contacts.
Yes some people will die, yes some will severely sick but that is a risk I'm willing to accept for normal life.
No, I wouldn't wear mask nor would I force my kids to wear one.
I'll do as much as I can to re-normalize no mask.
Teachers are the ones wanting masks (cause they don't want to die and don't want kids to die).
Teachers are the ones asking for online learning (cause they don't want to die and don't want kids to die).
Pediatricians are the ones asking for masks (cause they don't want teachers and students to die).
You say its a conflict for teachers to be asking for these things, but then go on to immediately say that DOCTORS are also asking for these things. Yes. Please. Listen to DOCTORS and not just try to be an armchair child developmental specialist ("IMO", "severely harming", "[insert hyperbolic statement about plastic boxes for kids]").
Instead of waxing on philosophically on what YOU think or YOUR opinions, why not check with large swathes of experts? Epidemiologists are saying to wear masks. Public health experts. Virologists. Biologists. Doctors. Nurses. And so many more are literally laying out their EDUCATED opinions on these things and yet are being ignored for opinions and anecdotes.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We're trying for curious conversation here—not cross-examination.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. (Note also the one about not using uppercase for emphasis—it may seem like a minor point but it affects the threads too.)
Some people will die?
What about long Covid?
What about 1 in 3 people in the Western World having high blood pressure, a co-morbidity often listed as one of concern for Covid infection?
Delta seems to be affecting kids far more than previously (likely due to how much more contagious it seems to be). Children's Hospitals in highly-unvaccinated areas are maxed out or getting there. ((In Florida for example)).
What is "normal life" to you and why is wearing a mask during a pandemic such an assault on that? Like dig down deep -- why do you think a mask mandate ends your life being normal?
Get vaxxed for it, IF YOU CAN.
Wear a mask to help stop the spread, IF YOU CAN.
But what your post really reads like is "I am very me-centered."
To me, that seems like a sad sort of "normal" to try and maintain.
We can get "back to normal" with minimal effort by wearing masks, getting vaxxed, encouraging others to do the same, killing bad info with good info, and listening to collective experts.
> Yes some people will die, yes some will severely sick but that is a risk I'm willing to accept for normal life.
This sentiment right here is probably the single most depressing thing for me, as an American. I’m not even mad anymore.
We had the opportunity to work together as a nation to overcome Covid. The virus doesn’t care about politics, culture, religion. But as we’ve seen, nothing can overcome American individualism.
No one is trying to take away freedom with a mask. There are much more effective techniques for undermining personal freedoms.
Wearing a mask during a global pandemic shows you care about your family, and your community. It shows that you care about health care workers, who have been living in the very worst of this the whole time. It shows that you care that there’s enough capacity in hospitals for emergencies besides covid, like car accidents.
To not wear masks, knowing the risks it imposes on the unvaccinated, is to not care. And that is the sad part, people not caring about the people around them.
My children under 12 have not been vaccinated, and kids are not immune to covid. Masks are simple, effective tool in the fight against covid.
I am relieved that our district is requiring masks. It’s the smart choice to keep our communities healthy and economically viable.
>This sentiment right here is probably the single most depressing thing for me, as an American. I’m not even mad anymore.
Likewise is depressing that people are so afraid of a little risk these days.
>We had the opportunity to work together as a nation to overcome Covid. The virus doesn’t care about politics, culture, religion. But as we’ve seen, nothing can overcome American individualism.
Its not only about me. Plenty of people do not like mask.
>No one is trying to take away freedom with a mask. There are much more effective techniques for undermining personal freedoms.
Trying to force people to wear mask is by definition taking away freedom.
>To not wear masks, knowing the risks it imposes on the unvaccinated, is to not care. And that is the sad part, people not caring about the people around them.
Likewise, do you care about people who do not want to wear mask ?
>My children under 12 have not been vaccinated, and kids are not immune to covid. Masks are simple, effective tool in the fight against covid.
Your children is likely to be OK regardless of vaccination.
>I am relieved that our district is requiring masks. It’s the smart choice to keep our communities healthy and economically viable.
I'm relieved that our district is not requiring masks. It’s the smart choice to keep our communities healthy and economically viable.
> Its not only about me. Plenty of people do not like mask.
Look, I don't like wearing masks either. They often hurt my ears, and my glasses fog up depending on conditions, and they're uncomfortable in many other ways. Some of these things could probably be fixed, but mostly I enjoy being a hermit, so I can deal with it.
But, I really don't like all of the negative consequences of uncontrolled community spread worse. If the ICUs are full and I get an injury or other illness that needs ICU treatment, that's not going to be good for me. If the funeral homes are overbooked and I die, my corpse may linger for months before it rests.
If it's too dangerous for my kid to go to school in person, I'm going to have to hear more of the most awful video conferences ever this year. I thought work VC was terrible when I had to do a couple hours a week, it's much worse when all of the participants are using home networking, and nobody has a decent connection and everyone has their volume at max and are yelling; I like that a whole hell of a lot less than wearing a mask.
What are the specific, quantitative criteria which determine whether it's too dangerous for children to go to school?
As I understand it, in my jurisdiction, the specific, quantitative criteria is a majority of the votes of the local school board, provided a quorum (3) is attending a meeting; assuming no other level of government has provided otherwise.
That's specific and quantitative, and not really subject to change if we ignore outside government actions; but of course, it doesn't really answer your question. I don't know what their criteria are, although they have discussed some at times, but the criteria have changed over time, and the measurements have all sorts of problems too.
How long would you wear a mask if the risk levels remained consistent, for the next century?
What's your personal threshold? Another year? 5 years? 10 years without seeing a stranger's smile/laugh? The rest of your life?
> Yes some people will die, yes some will severely sick but that is a risk I'm willing to accept for normal life.
Everyone who says this should include their estimate of their own personal risk.
It's easy to shrug off other people's risk.
The 80 year old who says I've only got a few years left probably, and I want to enjoy it, despite knowing they're higher risk? I've got a lot of respect for that viewpoint.
The 30 year old who thinks they have a minuscule chance of really being harmed, and just thinks masks are uncomfortable or awkward? When did we become so fragile about comfort? (Cloth masks are ineffective, you say? Great, let's push for N95 distribution and mandates. I'll sign your petition immediately for that.)
Thanks for the contribution to this discussion.
People don’t like masks, got it. People don’t like seatbelts either. In both cases, society pays the cost. But at the same time, these rugged freedom fighters crusading for a false sense of individualism have no issue with reaping the benefits of living in a well-funded society full of services, full of people that care about other’s well being.
I think there might be assumption made that everyone who wears masks likes it. I don’t like it. But it’s easy, and I like taking simple measures that help keep my family and community safe.
Like a seatbelt, a simple tool that is easy to use and saves lives. Also like a seatbelt, not using it places a potential burden on those around you.
Its all about upside vs downside.
Seatbelt: upside > downside
Mask: upside < downside
>But it’s easy, and I like taking simple measures that help keep my family and community safe.
It is a simple measure but it doesn't do much(if any) for covid
While seatbelt really do save lives.
Masks are far more annoying than seatbelts. I got vaccinated. I don’t mind wearing the mask in stores. But wearing it in a social environment does significantly alter the experience for the worse, in my opinion.
Why don’t we pay people to get vaccinated? And mandate that employers allow people to take days off if they are sick for a bit after the shot?