Kids desperately need normal life back. To support everyone trying to understand the overall best for them right now, we've created this Advocacy Toolkit. It boils down the data on vaccines, Omicron, and mental health to advocate for kids as whole people. urgencyofnormal.com
The toolkit is an independent collaboration of diverse voices from the medical community. Its origins came from partnering with our own children's schools to help them make sense of the data and make wise choices.
Although there are many articles written about COVID, there wasn't one simple place that integrates and balances all the critical data needed for parents, students, teachers, and mentors to make the decisions they're facing right now. This toolkit was created to meet that need.
Who is this for? Everyone with a role to play in caring for our kids and schools. Please use it with compassion and understanding. We've all been through a lot.
We CAN give our children normal life back while also protecting the vulnerable, and letting go of policies that are not supported by data. In fact, we must- because the impacts on our children's overall health from two years of disruption are too grave to continue.
First, calibrate the actual risk level for kids. It's not zero, but it isn't extraordinary either. We never disrupted our children's lives like this for the flu, because we knew the unintended consequences would be too many and too damaging.
With vaccination, that low risk is driven much further down, to far below flu-like levels.
Thankfully, Omicron does not change the severe disease risk for kids. It spreads faster, but vaccines continue to prevent severe disease with amazing effectiveness.
We understand that many adults are nervous about their own health too. Boosters are remarkably effective for keeping high-risk groups protected, again reducing risk to flu-like levels or below.
Meanwhile, our children's mental health is in crisis. The data are staggering, with many millions of children affected. The consequences can be severe, even fatal. The path we are on is too dangerous to continue.
School closures need to end and never be repeated. "The toll of school closures and social isolation on children's mental health cannot be overstated." -JAMA Pediatrics Editorial
Giving normalcy back to children doesn't mean abandoning those vulnerable to COVID. Focused protection measures can keep them safe. We've used them our whole lives to protect immunocompromised people from the flu, and they're MORE effective than "my mask protects you."
The data lead us to this: re-establishing fully normal life for children is urgent. De-escalate fear and tell children how safe they are. Use boosters to protect the elderly and high-risk, and focused protection measures for those for whom vaccination is not enough.
We're calling for a change in mindset. If we stop viewing COVID as the only thing that kids need protection from, we'll see them as whole people and make balanced choices to support them and help them thrive.
Appendix: Student masking is the most visible and controversial ongoing school COVID mitigation, so it's important to empower people with the real-world data on mask effectiveness.
What matters is effectiveness in the real world. There are 5 well-controlled real world studies that evaluate student masking. All find the same result: any benefit, if it exists, is too small to confidently detect. This includes studies from the CDC and the UK government.
Academic studies find the same result.
In contrast to the well-designed studies above, studies often cited to support student masking lack appropriate control groups. Some of the most prominent are cited here, with quotes and links to critiques from other scientists.
This is why Focused Protection is so important: it actually works. It is dangerous to send vulnerable children, or children with vulnerable family members, out with the belief that other people's masks protect them, when the data shows little or no effectiveness.
Student masking: when an intervention's real-world benefits are too small to measure, we should feel comfortable ending its use. Acknowledging that dropping masks is a big shift for many, we call for a change to mask-optional everywhere no later than Feb 15th.
Our goal is to empower you with the data, so we've included links to all of the data sources throughout the toolkit. Suspicious of our interpretation? Go double-check us, we've made it easy.
As scientists and physicians, our goal is to provide accurate data and nuanced guidance—to help people frame decisions and balance risk—not to make decisions for you. We hope this toolkit is a benefit to you, your community, and your children. urgencyofnormal.com
Update 1/26: Thanks to constructive feedback, we made refinements to our toolkit that differ from some of the images shown above. Please download the latest version to get the most accurate information. urgencyofnormal.com
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great new guidance from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's Policy lab. "Our recommendations encourage a less stringent approach to school-based COVID-19 mitigation..." policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/…
Isolation protocol for COVID cases: when you're sick, stay home. No pre-specified number of days or need for a negative test to return. "Individuals should remain home until fever-free for at least 24 hours, and until symptoms are improving."
End contact quarantines. "Schools and early childhood programs in regions in which quarantine is no longer required by health departments should allow exposed individuals to remain in school and to participate in activities."
The science doesn't support LA mandate. Here we show why. LA isn't actually in the CDC "High" tier + high-quality data shows mask mandates are ineffective. Using data everyone knows are inaccurate to justify a useless mandate is terrible public health.🧵 dailynews.com/2022/07/22/bri…
Co-authored with @drklausner, former CDC medical officer and USC Professor of Public Health, LA physician @houmanhemmati, and Neeraj Sood, professor of health policy at Price School of Public Policy and Director of COVID Initiative at Schaeffer Center
Mandate is based on hospitalization numbers that everyone agrees are inaccurate. LA Public Health's own data say that COVID is actually the cause of hospitalization in only 40% of cases. Irrelevant bystander in 60%. But even that's an overestimate. publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/coronavi…
This article is a litany of totally-not-okay reasons to recommend additional boosters. Topping the list is
"because we have vaccines we want to sell before they go bad." 1/ washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07…
Totally-not-okay reason #2: someone has a "leaning."
Totally-not-okay reason #3: Some experts are "worried" and "concerned" that a new strain "might" be "a little worse."
New data updates today in the #UrgencyOfNormal toolkit! I'll go into detail here on the updates to (1) better quantify how vaccines address COVID risk for older adults, and (2) delve into what vaccination rates in children really mean (and don't mean). 🧵urgencyofnormal.com
The slide on vaccine protection for those >65 yrs now shows absolute risk levels, rather than just % vaccine efficacy, and compares COVID risk levels to the flu for this age group.
From CDC data, peak flu hospitalization rates in the >65 year old age group range from ~10-50 per 100k per week. The six most recent pre-pandemic years are shown here. gis.cdc.gov/GRASP/Fluview/…
CDC reports another study that fails to control for vaccination rate differences between mask-wearers (higher vax rate) and non-mask wearers (lower). Vaccines were highly protective vs infection (pre-Omicron), so of course the mask group has lower rates. The vaccines work.🧵
Using proper control groups is critical, and the most basic principle of good study design. If you don't control for obvious confounding variables (vaccination rate) that will impact the result, you can't assign the effect to the variable you're testing (masks).
Like many other studies, this one lacks a well-matched control group and instead "adjusts" the raw data after the fact, for multiple uncontrolled variables, to generate the numbers reported as the take-home message. These adjustments inject researcher assumptions into the data
The truth about masking children is starting to hit the front page: we never had evidence that it's helpful, and the harms are obvious. 🧵bbc.com/news/health-59…
There are clear negative educational impacts of masking, with the main benefit being making students "feel safe." Alternatively, we could make them feel safe by telling them that the children have always been low-risk and the vaccines work.