The article starts by considering risks and dismissing them because they are so low they don’t justify “the remaining restrictions [kids] face” by which they seem to mean masks.
Maybe it’s just me but freeing kids from the minor inconvenience of a mask so they can face the risk of Covid barefaced is like arguing the restrictions of seatbelts aren’t worth it because that’s outweighed by the joys of going through the windshield. 😱
Any-who, how low are these risks? Hospitalization risk is usually estimated at around 1% but the authors point to recent articles claiming that’s an “overestimate” ...
....while also ignoring articles saying pediatric deaths have been underestimated ...
... or just about right.
Noting the chance of MIS-C is “only” 1 in 1,000,
the authors gloss over that the risk is much higher for non-white kids ...
and that, the “effective treatments” they point to aren’t so effective that kids don’t die.
Moving on to retrofitting facts to fit the narrative that Covid isn’t as dangerous as the flu, the authors ignore that there’s been 1 pediatric flu death this year but at least 400 Covid deaths.
The authors add that if you compare *reported* Covid deaths with *estimated* flu deaths, there are fewer Covid deaths. Of course, this leaves out that if you *estimate* Covid deaths and compare that to *estimated* flu deaths, Covid is very likely more deadly than flu.
If you are wondering if the authors are aware of the herculean extent of their Gerry-rigging, well, I am too. 🤷
Moving on to the miracle of vaccination, the authors write about how cases are plummeting in Israel and Britain which is weird since they don’t also write about their lockdowns.
But hey, if you ignore that most infections are passed along in the pre-symptomatic phase and give statistics for asymptomatic transmission instead, hardly anyone ever gets Covid, amiright?
“Given these numbers” the authors write both unironically and heroically, kids have to return to school.
By "return to school" the authors mean kids have to return *without mitigation* because @ProfEmilyOster
has a pre-print showing that low classroom density is associated with higher case rates in the community
which the authors don’t take to be like saying school buildings are unoccupied when buildings are on fire or, in other words, that when case rates are high in the community, parents kept their kids home.🤔
Likewise, the authors say, again using @ProfEmilyOster's study, mask mandates don’t lower cases.
I’ve written about that in this thread. If you haven’t had enough of bad data yet, be sure to read it.
For those reasons, the authors say, ignoring that they actually haven’t given any, kids shouldn’t be wearing masks.
Apparently believing they've established what they wanted (that mitigation doesn’t work & isn’t worth it), the authors decide to tell us a few things that are actually true like plexiglass barriers aren’t a good idea but exercise is.
Ironically for people who laugh in the face of risk, the actually infinitesimally small risk of myocarditis that may or may not be associated with vaccination is, for the authors, a bridge too far.
In true anti-mitigation fashion, the authors tell us “Pandemic restrictions.... caused a surge in mental health-related emergency room visits” which, if you squint just right so that the pandemic itself is obscured from your vision, does appear to be the only thing left to blame.
Summing up, the authors tell us it’s time to put kids needs first and also, if they need an ICU bed, we should make sure they are available by which I guess they mean that, as they say in airplanes before take-off, “In the unlikely event of an emergency, put on your mask”.
Apologies to those who have seen this thread before. There was a broken link that I fixed. 😉
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@ShiraDoronMD et al argue against universal masking in healthcare based on 2 claims: 1) transmission risk from HCWs w/out symptoms is low 2) vaccination is sufficienly protective against hospital-acquired infection.
These claims are both knowably, provably wrong.
@AnnalsofIM
🧵
To establish their first claim, that the risk of transmission from HCWs without symptoms is low, the authors cite two sources: a) Killingley and b) Tayyar.
But a) Killingley does NOT show presymptomatic transmission risk is small. What Killingley actually shows is that, what the authors pass off as "minimal presymptomatic shedding," is consistent with **44% of transmission occuring presymptomatically**.
In honor of @TracyBethHoeg’s new anti-mask propaganda/preprint, I compiled her Tweets on mask studies into a textbook I’m calling, “Confounders: A Matter of Convenience.” It’s an expose of Hoeg’s bad faith hypocrisy. 🧵
Here’s the title page with a table of contents.
CHAPTER I:
HOW TO PROTEST PRO-MASK STUDIES
It's easy! Just complain the conclusion doesn’t hold because the data is confounded! 1. Eg. The Boston Mask Study
The moral panic over school closures has left us with problems more intractable than they were pre-pandemic because now, to solve those problems, we first have to dispel lies. That school is a preventative to suicide is a reprehensible distortion, but it is not the only one. 🧵
There is the hysteria over how closures hurt minorities the most which obscures that, for minorities, school is the source of a problem: the school-to-prison pipeline. nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opi…
There is the hysteria that closures are causing obesity which obscures the problem of fatty, nutritionally bankrupt cafeteria food. nypost.com/2019/11/16/the…
Following a lead in @mehdirhasan's receipt-riddled expose, I looked into FL's deadly summers but in terms of excess deaths (Hasan uses C0VID deaths) in the 10 US states with the highest percentage of seniors. Tl;dr: DeSantis won't be using these stats on the campaign trail. 🧵
The long list of concerns downplayers coopted for the sake of opening schools and then quickly abandoned: learning loss that didn't carry over to C0VID related cognitive declines, newsinfo.inquirer.net/1639956/omicro…
Shenoy et al urge abandoning universal masking on the grounds masks have little benefit & some harm. Yesterday I showed they're wrong about benefits. Today I show they're wrong about harms. Their strongest evidence favors masks. The rest has little relation to their ambitions. 🧵
In making the case that masks harm, the authors use three sources.
In Cormier et al patients & providers rate their masked & unmasked encounters in terms of communication difficulties. Using scales from 1-5 (patients) or from 1-6 (providers) participants are asked about eg. listening effort, ability to connect, understand & recall.