search
top

A Dad, A School Board And Masks.

Jeff Perrine, a parent out in Lincoln, CA., took time from his holiday preparations and on December 21, 2021 to address the local school board.

Here is the text of his comments:

When I see the members of the board in the schools who are in control of our children and the way they think, I’m disgusted. This is exactly why my children are at home, homeschooled, staying away from people like you. You want to poison their minds and think there’s something they should fear. You guys are like the bogeyman. You’re creating hysteria and you’re creating a generation of children with social anxiety. You’re going to create an entire generation of pill-popping junkies.

And this is going to be your doing because they have no idea what other people’s faces and smiles look like. They’re going to grow up in a world of angry bitter people, pissed-off citizens, people who have no idea that this mouth plays a major role in non-verbal communications. I’ve taken psychology classes. I went through the indoctrination camps. I got my Bachelor’s degree from Sac State. I went to Sierra College, I made it through, and you know what? I learned that there are people who will stand up for the kids and there’s people like you people who pretend to stand up for kids because you want the paycheck and you want the cool name. You’re president, well I’m president too, bro. We’re both presidents of a group, congratulations!

But I stand up for the kids, that’s the difference. I stand up for the kids in the community. I put my life on the line for these kids. I stand up for everybody’s kids in all the communities. I do it on a 9 to 5 basis, Monday through Sunday 12 to 12. These women right here, it’s sad you beta males let these women lead by example. Let me tell you right now you sad little betas, you are seen as weak minuscule men. And I tell my [unintelligible] men like you, those aren’t men. You will be weak, minuscule men the rest of your lives, and I’m not going to let you influence the boys in this community to be little cucks. You understand? This is a city of men, not betas, not gender-identified people. There are men and there are women and there are betas and there are alphas and this omicron crap is a joke.

Take the mask off, take a deep breath, go do some yoga … this is psychological damage. And I know you’re looking at me bro cause you know what I’m saying is truth. You know it, and you’re going to go home and sleep on this and it’s going to bother you. And I’ll be back in two weeks, bro. I’ll be back every two weeks cause I own my own business, I homeschool my kids, and I can do that because no one else signs my checks. We sign their checks and you best bet that I’m going to run a boatload of people against you guys. There ain’t gonna be no easy peasy election next time. … you guys are toast. I don’t care what you did in your community because this is enough. You can go do all the good you want but when you poison my kids’ mind, it’s done. You’ve crossed the line. So I’m letting you know, we’re pissed and it’s enough.

We aren’t sure how effective the speech was given that fact that most people don’t like being called “sad little betas,” and “weak minuscule men.”

We have always said and maintained that the moment you start insulting people on a board that is voting on positions and policies, you have lost. The people on that board, council or commission are going to turn their ears off and not worry about what you say.

Yet part of his comments seem to be ringing true:

You’re creating hysteria and you’re creating a generation of children with social anxiety.

[….]

….people who have no idea that this mouth plays a major role in non-verbal communications.

According to the Daily Mail,

COVID rules are blamed for 23% dive in young children’s development: Disturbing study shows scores in three key cognitive tests slumped between 2018 and 2021, with face mask rules among possible culprits

  • Face masks and other social distancing measures may in fact impede on children’s development, a new study executed by Brown University has found
  • The probe analyzed the cognitive development of the youngsters through infancy, childhood and adolescence
  • In the study, researchers first analyzed 1,070 assessments administered on 605 kids prior to March 2020, when COVID lockdowns and masking began
  • A further 154 assessments from 118 kids administered between March 2020 and June 2021, during the height of the pandemic, were then carried out
  • Thirty-nine children born in 2018 and 2019 were analyzed over the course of the pandemic, into 2021.
  • The report found that there was a 23 per cent drop in scores measuring kids’ intelligence quotients since the start of the pandemic
  • The study also found similar dips in the same span in regards to developing children’s ability to communicate, both verbally and though subtle facial cues

Social distancing measures including face masks are suspected of causing young children’s development to have drop by up to 23 per cent during the COVID pandemic, according to a new study.

Brown University scientists Sean CL Deoni, Jennifer Beauchemin, Alexandra Volpe, and Viren D’Sa, penned the review, in conjunction with the global consulting firm Resonance, collecting data from 1,600 children – and their caregivers – who have been enrolled in the study between the ages of 0 and 5 on a rolling basis.

The probe analyzed the cognitive development of the youngsters through infancy, childhood and adolescence, and looked at how average development scores in three key areas had been affected during the COVID era – with shocking results.

That’s scary if you are a parent.

The study is echoed by another study reported in The Spectator out of the United Kingdom:

The problems face masks pose for children

The Evidence Summary from the Department for Education (DfE) accepts the harm inflicted by face masks in class. It cites research showing that:

  • ‘80 per cent of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and more than half (55 per cent) felt wearing one made learning more difficult’
  • ‘Face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner.’
  • ‘Almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94 per cent) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59 per cent saying it has made it a lot more difficult.’

All pretty bleak. The question is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. You’d expect any study of this kind to be high-quality and able to demonstrate a sizable net effect on children’s wellbeing. But the evidence published falls very short of this.

The article goes on to cite the governments own findings and the problems with the research:

Zahawi says the study ‘saw that [masks] made a difference’. In fact, the DfE states that this analysis is preliminary and experimental. It needs a robust external peer review on a longer timescale (we’d like to offer ourselves up for that). But the DfE does not seek to conceal the flaws in its study. In fact, it lists several:

  • The analysis does not differentiate between the classroom and other areas (including outdoors).
  • It doesn’t say what the Covid rates were in the area these schools were in.
  • We don’t have any other data — like regional stats and differential uses of face coverings — that might suggest an increase in school absences.
  • We don’t know the characteristics of these schools, like age and class sizes, which might account for higher absences.

It should be noted that the author of The Spectator article is not against masks in the abstract. (Neither are we for that matter.)

His position is a little more grounded:

Over the last two decades, 15 studies have been carried out testing masks against transmission of flu-like illnesses and two against Covid. One was done during the 2009 ‘swine flu’ pandemic. Even during the Covid pandemic, an RCT has been done in Bangladesh. You’d think that the UK has the wherewithal to pull of a study on these shores. In the face of such uncertainty — and the known harms of masks in classrooms — any reluctance to do them is hard to justify. Surely if we are to ask millions of children to comply, we can fund a proper study to see if this policy works.

Without such evidence, ministers are in the dark — as the DfE acknowledges. Due to a lack of randomised control trials, it says ‘it should be noted that we cannot assess causality, i.e. whether the use of face coverings resulted in X% absence rate.’ In layman’s terms: we can’t really tell how well they work, and over what period of time. But you should still mask up.

However, there will be people who will say “but the CDC says masks are necessary and they are following the science.”

Back on September 26, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky appeared on Face the Nation and cited a study of 1000 Arizona schools that show that masking is effective to the point where unmasked students are 3.5 times more likely to be infected than masked students.

Walensky tweeted the same thing:

The Arizona study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, looked at school-associated outbreaks in Maricopa and Pima Counties, comparing rates across schools with and without mask mandates for students and staff. “The school year starts very early in Arizona, in mid-July, so we had the advantage of being able to get an early look at data,” one of the lead authors, J. Mac McCullough, told The New York Times. The early look revealed that just 16 outbreaks had occurred among the 210 schools that had a mask mandate in place from the start of classes, versus 113 among the 480 schools that had no mandates at all. According to McCullough and his colleagues, this amounted to a 3.5-fold increase in incidence of outbreaks for the no-mandate schools.

Yet the study’s methodology and data set appear to have significant flaws. The trouble begins with the opening lines of the paper, where the authors say they evaluated the association between school mask policies and school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks “during July 15–August 31, 2021.” After reviewing school calendars and speaking with several school administrators in Maricopa and Pima Counties, I found that only a small proportion of the schools in the study were open at any point during July. Some didn’t begin class until August 10; others were open from July 19 or July 21. That means students in the latter group of schools had twice as much time—six weeks instead of three weeks—in which to develop a COVID outbreak. (emphasis ours)

In addition….

Even basic elements of the data set inspire some concerns. According to the paper, 782 of the 999 public, non-charter schools included in the study were in Maricopa County. In response to a public-records request, the Arizona Department of Education sent me what it said was the same list of schools that had been provided to the researchers, with 891 relevant entries for Maricopa. But closer inspection revealed that about 40 of them were virtual learning academies, about 20 were preschools, and about 90 were vocational programs associated with otherwise-listed schools. That left at most roughly 740 schools for inclusion in the study, not 782. If dozens of entries were inappropriately included in the final data set, were “outbreaks” counted for them too? (emphasis ours)

In other words, the study upon which the CDC is relying is flawed. Deeply flawed.

After two plus years of COVID, you’d think that we’d have data upon which to make informed decisions.

Sadly, we do not.

It almost appears that we have papers that are designed to fit an agenda. Whether that agenda is pro-mask or anti-mask is anyone’s guess.

However, where the rubber meets the road, the net effect is that parents are caught between a rock and hard place.

Do they support masks which may result in social and cognitive abilities?

Do they support no masks which may increase the risk of infection?

Without honest science, they don’t know. They cannot make informed decisions for the well being of their children.

That lack of information and solid reasoning may be the worst thing to come out of COVID.

If we cannot make good decisions for our children based on true science, we are risking this generation’s health and well being.



Comments are closed.

top