> But the lack of absolute proof isn't an argument against masks in school. That's dumb.
How so? It seems more ignorant to assume that masks would help more when the data we do have doesn’t show that.
> Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
You call the authors ideas dumb, but then yourself make unfounded inferences as an argument for continuing to require masks in schools.
Come on. The problem is the studies aren't conclusive, not that they show nothing.
Jesus.
Sorry, but yes, arguing that away is dumb. Not just dumb, but it gets people dead. So... good for you?
Look at the way the article hand-waves away the Bangladesh study... that only makes sense if children transmit covid in a substantially different way than adults. What's the justification for that? Our model for covid transmission is by droplets, particularly from the mouth, such as when exclaiming, shouting, etc. and that masks inhibit such transmission by catching the droplets. Without some evidence it's hard to conceive of how children would be less prone to this, making mask-wearing more important for them to reduce transmission.
> unfounded inferences
What's your argument? That children probably cannot be educated to do anything whatsoever? Hey, schools are pointless in their entirety, so we can cancel all that and the mask issue goes away naturally. Dumb.
How so? It seems more ignorant to assume that masks would help more when the data we do have doesn’t show that.
> Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
You call the authors ideas dumb, but then yourself make unfounded inferences as an argument for continuing to require masks in schools.