5 ms·

I've been pro-masking-in-schools for other reasons (including the practical reality that many schools would have had to shut down without it, since many teacher

I've been pro-masking-in-schools for other reasons (including the practical reality that many schools would have had to shut down without it, since many teachers would have just quit—I know a lot of teachers, and whether you think it's right or wrong, that was going to happen, last school year especially, if precautions like masking, distancing, and long quarantine periods hadn't been enforced) but the risk specifically to kids under ~12 has been low enough not to trigger my "this is significantly-enough riskier than the average time a kid spends being driven around in a car in a given year, that I should worry about it" alarm pretty much throughout the pandemic. I looked into it when the first semi-reliable mortality numbers started to come in (I have some young kids, so of course I did) and it seemed well below nearly anyone's freak-out threshold, except for kids with other risk factors, some of whom probably shouldn't have been in school at all for any of this.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Right, but you aren't really someone who should have much of a say over this, and neither are any parents. The people most knowledgable about this topic are (though not universally) arriving at the conclusion that children should continue to wear masks. Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly. It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation. Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.
- brimble 5y ago
  > Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly. Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere. I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash. OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation. Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own. That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
    - brimble 5y ago
      I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message. I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
        brimble 5y ago
        It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic. But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right? > Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you? I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> except for kids with other risk factors, some of whom probably shouldn't have been in school at all for any of this You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide.
- brimble 5y ago
  > You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide. I agree it is a reasonable accommodation, but also cannot imagine sending my own kid to in-person school if they were one of the rare high-risk kids, especially before vaccination was an option. Masking helps over a population, absolutely, but if you're a particular person who's prone to and weak against infection, the way it's been spreading in school even with masking—yikes. Masks and the (mostly lame and questionable, for the simple reason that doing better would have meant building new schools—I saw some hilariously pointless and even alarmingly counterproductive guidelines forwarded from teachers I'm friends with) distancing practices aren't anywhere near sufficient for that case, IMO. OTOH, lots of people don't have the option to stay home and watch a high-risk kid. So masking it is (again, I am mostly very in favor of it!) but man, that sucks for those kids and their parents.

TameAntelope 5y ago

Right, but you aren't really someone who should have much of a say over this, and neither are any parents. The people most knowledgable about this topic are (though not universally) arriving at the conclusion that children should continue to wear masks. Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly. It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation. Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.

brimble 5y ago
> Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly. Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere. I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash. OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation. Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own. That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
  - brimble 5y ago
    I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message. I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
      - brimble 5y ago
        It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic. But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right? > Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you? I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> except for kids with other risk factors, some of whom probably shouldn't have been in school at all for any of this You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide.

brimble 5y ago
> You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide. I agree it is a reasonable accommodation, but also cannot imagine sending my own kid to in-person school if they were one of the rare high-risk kids, especially before vaccination was an option. Masking helps over a population, absolutely, but if you're a particular person who's prone to and weak against infection, the way it's been spreading in school even with masking—yikes. Masks and the (mostly lame and questionable, for the simple reason that doing better would have meant building new schools—I saw some hilariously pointless and even alarmingly counterproductive guidelines forwarded from teachers I'm friends with) distancing practices aren't anywhere near sufficient for that case, IMO. OTOH, lots of people don't have the option to stay home and watch a high-risk kid. So masking it is (again, I am mostly very in favor of it!) but man, that sucks for those kids and their parents.