4 ms·

> If we actually cared about child development we would still be much more serious about controlling the virus. We would still wear masks. “[Masks] had a signi

• MengerSponge 3y ago
  Did you read the study you linked? "face masks did not significantly impair basic language processing ability" is right there in the abstract. Besides, that's the best you can do? "We found that children have a harder time discerning happy masked faces from angry masked faces?" And that's the most concrete harm you could come up with? My dude. Children died. Hundreds of thousands have a lifetime disability now. I'm not talking about masking at home, or even in elementary schools. Those settings can be covered with air exchange and filtration. If American adults actually cared about children (and people with disabilities), they'd wear real masks in airports and on public transit and in crowds.
  • vGPU 3y ago
    “Not significantly” = they did, and we’re going to downplay by how much. “Children died”. No. They didn’t. Children had the lowest overall mortality. > That analysis, which included empirical data on mortality in 2020 from more than 110 countries and areas and from more than 80 countries and areas for 2021, found no evidence of widespread, significant excess mortality among those under age 25 or excess stillbirths for 2020 or 2021. - unicef Try again.
    • MengerSponge 3y ago
      Can you define significance for me? Because the way you're using it is not the same as the way your evidence uses it. You're either being ignorant or dishonest, and I'd hate to assume whichever one you find more objectionable.
      • vGPU 3y ago
        Both quotes are an example of the same principle. The differentiator is indeed, in what the writer’s definition of significance is.