I get the point about the Arizona study -- but I can't help having a "meh" response to the overall argument he's making. Which seems to go about like this: (1

I get the point about the Arizona study -- but I can't help having a "meh" response to the overall argument he's making. Which seems to go about like this: (1) At least one study that attempts to put a number on the risk factor of allowing children to go to school unmasked has been shown to be flawed (understandable, being as it's almost impossible to do controlled studies on this sort of thing). Further, the price risk differential it gives us (3.5) may be way too high. (2) So we don't know the precise risk differential. It could be anywhere between 1 and 3.5. (3) Therefore (shrug) just let them come to school unmasked. I just don't buy the logic he's bringing to the table here. Yes, there are other factors to consider -- the fact that up until a certain age, we don't know which precisely, children don't seem to be able to reliably wear masks at all; and potential negative affects on their psychological development. But by itself, considering the overall risk profile of the situation (children come home and infect their parents and perhaps their grandparents after all), the logic here just doesn't add up.