If I were to remove a patient’s Appendix to treat Diverticulitis of the left abdominal colon, am I wrong? There is no randomized controlled peer-reviewed study to disprove this. So am I incorrect by saying the available evidence is not present? By previous knowledge, we know the answer to the removal of the appendix is NO. Why did all previous knowledge about respiratory infections cease to be pertinent? There was available data and science. Do not trust advocates who mask kids! Science, even for masking, can change, but public policy should change when adequate science masks the choice obvious. When that is present, policy makers should not have to talk a patient into following said policy.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is actively advocating for the masking of children. The AAP states,
Remote learning highlighted inequities in education, was detrimental to the educational attainment of students of all ages, and exacerbated the mental health crisis among children and adolescents.
Families rely on schools to provide a safe, stimulating, and enriching space for children to learn; appropriate supervision of children; opportunities for socialization; and access to school-based mental, physical, and nutritional health services.
On UpToDate, a medical information website, used mostly by physicians, the AAP states directing socialization,
Should play dates and playgrounds be avoided? — Given the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic individuals (or presymptomatic individuals within the incubation period)
Children remain ≥6 feet from people from other households
In-person play time with children from other households be limited; connect virtually if possible
Caregivers take measures to protect their children when they play with children from other households (eg, playing outside, wearing cloth face coverings)
As above shows, the AAP has counteracted any benefit of socialization. The doublespeak of medical associations shows the dystopian messaging coming from institutions that favor government, top-down, policies. Do not trust advocates who mask kids!
AAP Supporting Medical Literature Does Not Hold Up.
The earliest medical literature to send chills into the epidemiologist’s Covid war room was that asymptomatic spread is possible. Multiple medical articles are listed in support of the above AAP guidelines on UpToDate. I review the seven listed.
On March 5, 2020, the New England Journal of Medicine published a letter to the editor. This was not a study. This was not some interesting finding directing toward more research. This is an anecdotal finding which set off the lockdowns and mandates we have today. But nothing proving children and distances.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician, and economist is a professor at Stanford Medical School, writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 2021, pointed to another letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting data from Sweden.
The Letter notes;
In mid-March 2020, many countries decided to close schools in an attempt to limit the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Sweden was one of the few countries that decided to keep preschools (generally caring for children 1 to 6 years of age) and schools (with children 7 to 16 years of age) open.
As Dr Bhattacharya writes about the findings,
Of more than 1.8 million children in school in spring 2020 ages 1 through 15, not one died from Covid-19. This study also showed that teachers were at low risk for Covid; they contracted the disease at rates lower than the average of other Swedish essential workers.
The second medical article from the Journal of Infectious Disease from February 2020, discussed 4 patients in China with 2 visiting and infecting the others. The concern was transmission during the incubation time ( asymptomatic or Presymptomatic time period). But the original family member did have symptoms. The youngest member of the familiar unit is 65 years old. So using this to extrapolate recommendations for children is stretching it for 2021.
The third is again a letter to JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) from Feb. 2020. Again from China, a familiar unit of 6 patients, with suspected infection from an asymptomatic person in the family. All 6 went to a hospital for a visitation. No obvious children spread and nothing to direct playtime prevention recommendations. There could be a number of ways these persons were infected. To direct public policy from a letter is irresponsible.
The fourth is again from china, a family group. This is a medical article from Science China Life Sciences. Again the problem is that the authors’ contact tracing from the patient’s memory and the resulting infection has to come from where they say it does and not from an unknown acquaintance. Therefore, no direction can be given for social distancing.
The fifth is from the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases from March 2020. This is a “brief report” about a family unit with suspected asymptomatic spread. There is no entertainment that infections could have been obtained from the community. They were living a short time in the same home and 2 went to a Chinese festival. Nothing to direct school policy. There have been no recommendations for persons under quarantine or lockdown to distance themselves from other members of the family. Therefore, no guidance can be gained for social distancing in schools.
The sixth paper is from Lancet Infectious Disease from May 2020. This is an interesting review of the ability to investigate and contact trace an infection. Though no social distancing or any other recommendations of policy should be able to be obtained for children in school.
The last is a review of Chinese patients, again finding possible asymptomatic spread. This is in November 2020 from Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The reason I document this list is that none of the articles discuss social distancing or masks. Many early articles are listed by the CDC and others for supporting science but poor medical evidence for policy. Public policy should not be directed from this data and much of this was the preliminary reason for lockdowns. Lockdowns now have been shown to be much more harmful to society than helpful. Then why do them?
From the AAP website
Hospitalizations (24 states and NYC reported)*
- Among states reporting, children ranged from 1.6%-3.6% of their total cumulated hospitalizations, and 0.1%-1.9% of all their child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization
Mortality (45 states, NYC, PR and GU reported)*
- Among states reporting, children were 0.00%-0.24% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 7 states reported zero child deaths
- ​In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death
The AAP admit the low likelihood of hospitalizations and death. Do not trust advocates who mask kids!
Asymptomatic Spread
The asymptomatic spread theory is the anchor behind masking in public, though currently you can go into most restaurants, munch, chew and laugh without masking. Vaccine mandates maybe, but no masks while enjoying company at the table. Aerosols everywhere in these small businesses, but not in schools? There are no closing of businesses secondary to new COVID ventilation policies.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of 54 studies and published on the JAMA Network: Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. This showed: Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% overall, higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. But the household secondary attack rate for asymptomatic index cases was 0.7%. This does not warrant public policy to stop the asymptomatic spread.
Remember what Dr. Fauci originally told us,
Any Real Evidence For Masking Children?
NO. Many European countries have students in schools with no masking as was discussed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. A recent study, Minimal transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from paediatric COVID-19 cases in primary schools, Norway, August to November 2020, showed:
Systematic tracing and testing of school contacts of paediatric COVID-19 cases showed minimal child-to-child and child-to-adult transmission in primary schools with implemented (prevention and control (IPC) measures) measures.
From Forbes:
I discussed this in an Everything Is Medical video.
Not Just ME
Vinay Prasad MD MPH, a hematologist/oncologist, and associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UC San Francisco is a big proponent on Twitter for better data on masking children. He understands the harms have already been well described in the Medical Literature through the Covid era. His recent article in The Atlantic discussed this.
In mid-March 2020, few could argue against erring on the side of caution. But nearly 18 months later, we owe it to children and their parents to answer the question properly: Do the benefits of masking kids in school outweigh the downsides? The honest answer in 2021 remains that we don’t know for sure.
Another article from David Zweig about the uncertain science of masking kids in New York Magazine,
Several of the experts I spoke with said that given the lack of evidence of a substantial benefit from a student-masking requirement, it’s not at all clear this measure will be effective against a more transmissible variant.
Natural Immunity
The Blaze documents even the CDC showing natural immunity is prevalent and many studies showing better than vaccination.
Of note, a recent study out of Israel found that unvaccinated individuals with prior infection were 13 times less likely to contract the Delta variant than vaccinated individuals without prior infection.
So with minimal hospitalizations, kids should be and have been our herd immunity builders naturally. Do not trust advocates who mask kids!
The importance of faces in infant learning
In the Editorial by Dr. Bhattacharya, he points to the World Health Organization’s current Advice on the use of masks for children in the community in the context of COVID-19.
…which says that up to age 5 masking children may harm the achievement of childhood developmental milestones. For children between 6 and 11, the same document says that mask guidance should consider the “potential impact of mask-wearing on learning and psychosocial development.” The WHO explicitly recommends against masks during exercise because masks make breathing more difficult.
From The Atlantic article showing
… the importance of babies seeing caregivers’ faces, and prior to the arrival of COVID-19, many American professional organizations, including the AAP, strongly agreed.
Do Masks Work In General
A nice review of science showing the answer is NO. I must mention the most recent mask article from rural Bangladesh and Innovation for Poverty Action. But this is slowly showing many holes and will eventually be forgotten. India real-world evidence has already shown masks do not pork as public policy as I have documented in a prior article. There have been many medical articles trying to end the debate and show masks work for the general public. None have been the magic masking bullet. You notice, the media never try to go back to a particular medical research article that ends the debate. Masks did not work before covid on Respiratory illnesses…why would they now? Do not trust advocates who mask kids!
If No Definitive Science Then The Answer Is NO
The CDC, WHO, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have placed a burden on our children. Politically motivated school boards, media, along Teacher Unions push a mandate which has no true scientific basis for using. People including Vinay Prasad MD MPH are calling for randomized controlled trials for definitive evidence for direction. I can agree with this. But until such time, the answer if masking works in the school is not that science is unknown. There is no scientific evidence saying yes. Therefore they do not work.
Science has always shown, outside of direct contact with a known infected patient, masks will not stop an airborne disease.