> The pandemic is largely over culturally and mentally for pretty much all of the country - I'm in the middle of San Francisco and the only real remaining enforced anti-COVID measures are flashing your vaccine card before going into bars, masks inside of gyms, and masking and demasking when you enter restaurants - although I remember a friend with kids telling me there's still some strangeness at schools.

That's a real understatement. Here in Maryland, my 8 year old is still in a mask at school both inside and outside. She's been a trooper with all the precautions over the last year and a half, but started crying when she heard her school was going to do masking again in the fall, because it means probably another year of social distancing in schools (not being able to play with all your friends, etc). The masks really interfere with her gymnastics class, because of O2 restrictions as well as difficulty hearing/understanding what instructors are saying.

My 3 year old is masked all day in preschool, as well as at his extracurriculars. He does a "toddler crossfit" type class where all the kids and instructors are masked, and it's a disaster. At this age their ability to comprehend instructions is marginal to begin with. Add the muffled speech and inability to see facial expressions and it means the kids have a lot of trouble understanding what's going on. I've done A/B testing helping my kid with the activities. With a mask on, he has a much harder time understanding me, and also mistakes my mood--e.g. he can't see me smiling so he interprets my giving him directions as yelling (it's loud in the gym obviously).

Wearing a mask, as we did for 4-5 hours on a flight recently, weirds out my 2 month old since he can't see my face. We are not going to even try to send him to daycare with masked caregivers. I hate to sound like a nutter--I'm a STEM major, I know how to "science"--but I don't trust that they actually have considered the developmental effects on infants not being able to see faces for 8 hours a day at daycare.

> I hate to sound like a nutter--I'm a STEM major, I know how to "science"--but I don't trust that they actually have considered the developmental effects on infants not being able to see faces for 8 hours a day at daycare.

It's a shame that you have to defend not being crazy to say that a child not seeing faces won't have some kind of psychological impact when for all of human history (the biological perspective) we have seen the faces of our elders, peers and parents.

yes, this opinion sounds probably correct:( baby learning everything from environment...please do not do experiment

If you think a few months of mask wearing at school is bad for a child's psychology, just wait until you find out about social media!

We’re going on two years. My three year old has never experienced normal school (or a real birthday party) and my eight year old doesn’t remember much about life before masks in schools.

I’m not going to experiment on my youngest to see what happens when an infant spends all day surrounded by masked people at daycare. I’m just not. If things don’t normalize here in Maryland by the time my wife’s done with maternity leave I’m moving to Florida or Texas.

This comment really hit me hard, Rayiner. I'm sending good thoughts and prayers to you and your family and every family with small children.

Reading another massive thread on HN about covid and vaccines. We are all drawn to it like a moth to the flame, trying to hash all of these differences out. I hope some good can come out of all of this.

Thank you!

I have a son in first grade and he's been really down about masking since last year. We've been kind of sad about it it too and worry about him, but honestly this makes me feel a little better. I'm not being sarcastic.

Aw, thank you. Best wishes for you and your son.

Absent any scientific evidence, it's a rather extraordinary claim. There had been no human flight throughout human history until ~100 years ago, yet GP did not have any fear about flying with his family.

I suspect we will never run this through a controlled scientific experiment and thus will never 'know' what could be the long-term effects of partially hiding human faces from children, because very few people would sign up their children for such an experiment.

(And I would urge any intellectually curious people who are also laser-focused on empiricism as the only valid way to acquire knowledge, to instead apply rational thought to the question. Why don't we have any scientific evidence on the matter?)

> Why don't we have any scientific evidence on the matter?

Because it would be too cruel of an experiment to run.

But is it not too cruel to impose it on population by force, without even any experiment?

We also have no good scientific evidence on whether parachutes are effective. You can't knowingly run an experiment that could cause harm to the participants.

You can’t, in the “not allowed to” sense of the word. However, you sure are able to run such experiments, and for many of them, you will find plenty of volunteers too. However, the modern science establishment still won’t allow you to run such experiment, because it is “””unethical”””. Of course, governments are not bound by any of that stuff, and will mandate all kinds of shit that would be unethical to do in the course of experimental science. As a result, because scientists are not allowed to experiment on fully informed and consenting volunteers, governments run their own experiments on their subjects that they never asked for opinion or offered right to refuse.

RCTs, by definition, can cause harm to either arm of the trial (depending on whether the intervention is harmful or beneficial). We routinely accept that as the cost of advancing knowledge and avoiding interventions that would do more harm than good.

> apply rational thought to the question.

Okay, I'll give that a try: the benefits of wearing masks in public during a pandemic are known, whereas any harm that might be caused by occasionally exposing children to the sight of partially covered human faces is unknown. Therefore, to minimize harm, we should favour masking.

This does not follow - your previous statements do not provide any evidence that masking is the choice that minimizes harm, unknown harm definitely does not mean no harm, it may be smaller or larger than the benefit. In order to make any statement whatsoever about whether the benefit outweighs the (unknown) harm, there needs to be at least some attempt to make a reasonable estimation on how large (or small) that harm is.

Ignoring it essentially means making a strong assumption that the harm is absolutely insignificant, but is that really the best informed guess specialists can make?

We are fairly certain that the real-world use of cloth masks and face coverings can only supply limited benefit, so the threshold for harm to make them not worth it may not be that high [0]. You can support wearing masks for adults in motor vehicle agencies (limited harm, limited benefit) and still realize that young children in daycare should not be required to be masked all day (potentially high developmental harm, limited benefit).

"In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people."

[0] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...

My original comment suggested simply that the claim that wearing masks around children would harm them requires evidence. But the comment I was responding to here made the claim that the harm caused by masking in front of children is unknowable. I submit that if a harm is truly unknowable then we may as well treat it as no harm, since in this case common sense tells us that children are adaptable and resilient. But please, if you have a reasonable estimation, do share.

Yeah, I don't have kids so I'm sort of out of the loop on what's still in place at schools, like I said. Stuff like "social distancing" when they already have the kids sitting in rooms for hours at a time seems silly, just like masking and unmasking only to enter and leave bars.

> Wearing a mask, as we did for 4-5 hours on a flight recently, weirds out my 2 month old since he can't see my face.

I never quite understood why clear face masks haven't caught on more, especially in these kinds of environments. Some of the air may escape, since it certainly won't be like an N95, but if we can increase ventilation, keep distance a little bit, and wear see-through masks to convey emotions and meaning better, that seems like a pretty reasonable tradeoff.

It looks weird but my doctor's office gives out masks with large clear centers to help some of the hard of hearing staff lip read, and they seems to work just as well for the duration of my visits.

a) they don’t work for their intended purpose and b) they fog up so quickly that they may as well not be clear.

N95 have a warning they aren't meant for asbestos which is fifty times larger than corona virus. Cloth masks? As effective as stopping flies with a chain link fence. The studies that purport masks work use mannequins with sealed surgical masks. It doesn't work irl that way unfortunately.

The "95" in "N95" refers to their 95% efficiency at filtering particles of the size they are least efficient at (.3 microns IIRC). They are more effective at sizes larger and smaller. The smaller particles get stuck to the mask via static electricity.

Which doesn't work as soon as they become moist.

The point of the masks isn't that they're 100% effective, but that they reduce the probability of spreading a virus-laden droplet to someone else. The difference between having a pandemic and not having a pandemic is the question of whether the average infected person infects more than one other person or less than one. N95s or basic cloth masks are a relatively straightforward way to get a population on the other side of that threshold, even if some people wear them incorrectly were just unlucky.

If there are better masks than N95s for dealing with carcinogens like asbestos, you should use those for that application. Maybe they would work better for Covid too, but providing super high-quality fancy masks to hundreds of millions of people in a pandemic isn't really practical, though. You use the tools you have on hand. Even distributing N95s was challenging.

> N95s or basic cloth masks are a relatively straightforward way to get a population on the other side of that threshold, even if some people wear them incorrectly were just unlucky.

Controlled tests (with correct fitting) show cloth masks at around 10% efficiency and surgical masks at around 12% efficiency, vs up to 60% for correctly fitted R95/KN95 masks. The difference is huge. The measures that most people are taking with their loosely-fitting cloth masks are having negligible impact on coronavirus transmission.

[0] https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100

The infection is aerosol not droplet.

The worry is much bigger exhaled droplets that carry the virus, not individual virus particles.

The droplet narrative is a year expired. Sure it happens but recent studies with infected chimps and masks shows full room dispersion after a relative short time.

"A study from the National Academy of Sciences Press establish that most of the COVID-19 particles emitted from those infected are aerosols, or consisting of 0.3 to 0.5 microns. “Droplets” consist of particles much greater in size than aerosols. The science shows however, that most COVID-19 particles are aerosols, not droplets. As such, they are less than 1 micron in size."

See Edwards 2/23/21

And this for a thorough analysis: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/04/06/masks-do-nothing...

> Wearing a mask, as we did for 4-5 hours on a flight recently, weirds out my 2 month old since he can't see my face.

At the risk of adding some global diversity to this conversation:

In a bunch of countries with a significant Muslim population, many women cover their face/head far more than your face is covered by a mask when they go out. Their kids grow up fine.

Isn't it general practice in Muslim communities that face coverings are only in public, and that the kids' environments, both at family and at schooling (often gender segregated) would be free of face coverings?

The kids obviously grow up fine, but IMHO they do see the faces of their peers and parents pretty much always.

Yeah, my understanding is that they are in public places. And even then not in segregated that is where there are only women present. Or homes.

Fair enough.

My overall point, though, is that it is easy to imagine a horrible, negative effect on a child's psyche, but it is more likely not a problem. Humans, and kids in particular, are fairly robust and adaptable creatures.

In my experience, for most fears about X people have, X alone usually is not damaging. However, being surrounded by people who are convinced X is bad will make it more likely that the person will believe it. This tends to cause more issues than X does.

If a kid has parents and other close people around him/her who believe wearing a mask and not seeing people's faces often is bad for the kid - then it will be.

I feel like the better takeaway from your example is that even in cultures that go to extremes with face coverings, they don’t have masked people caring for young children. :-/

I’m from a Muslim country. Even in the most conservative Muslim countries, women do not wear face coverings around children they’re carrying for. Most children grow up around female family members who are not wearing face coverings at home. In school education is gender segregated, and in a single gender setting face coverings are not required.

> Wearing a mask, as we did for 4-5 hours on a flight recently, weirds out my 2 month old since he can't see my face.

How can a two month old possibly express that he's "weirded out" by a mask. As you said, you were on a plane, which was surely a novel situation for him, so even if he was behaving strangely you can't know that it was because of the mask. I think it's much more likely you're projecting your own fears onto him.

It seems you don't have children, or I hope if you do that you learn more emotional intelligence

Do you claim that a two month old can unambiguously express being distressed by the sight of a parent wearing a mask? We're talking about a child who is too young to even smile. Their only way of expressing themselves is by crying, and they cry for many, many reasons. Parents are not mind readers.

I mean, just by your comment here you are continuing to show a lack of understanding of child development.

Do explain.

Edit: I've been clear about my reasoning; you have just resorted to ad hominem attacks on my understanding or emotional intelligence. If you don't have any actual counterargument, I'll consider the debate to be over.

It's not an "ad hominem attack" to point out someone's apparent lack of experience with the subject of their comment.

On the merits--human babies are hard-wired to recognize faces from birth: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/infants-process....

How does a baby express being upset? They can smile on purpose at 2 months: https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/ue5463. So the lack of a smile is a detectable sign. After just a few weeks, they have a range of reactions short of crying. They change their facial expressions based on what they're feeling. They make grunting noises to express minor discomfort. You can even tell when they're bored.

> It's not an "ad hominem attack" to point out someone's apparent lack of experience with the subject of their comment.

It is if, as the other comment did, you just claim I don't know what I'm talking about without providing evidence of that.

But congratulations to you on using sources and arguments. I still think you're projecting. In my experience babies have no trouble recognizing human faces with masks on because they are drawn to eyes. In fact, they even recognize and will respond to a smile behind a mask, again because the muscles around the eyes contract. Probably masks are harder for slightly older children who are learning language, because they can't associate mouth movements with sounds.

You are a STEM major.

Then you know that a mask is the least we can ask of parents.

Children are germ factories. What compounds the problem is they can't be vaccinated.

In CA, we opened the schools.

In two weeks, I have a feeling we will be in trouble.

Kids get virus. Some people show no symptoms, but are little viruse spreaders.

It's a pretty simple equation. Kids spread viruses very easily.

So put a mask on it.

Not for your kids sake, but for grandma's sake, and others.

(Personally, I would have kept the kids out of school for another year. Every kid would be able to stay in school two extra years, if needed. So instead of graduating at 18, some kids would be applying to college, or Amazon, at 20.)

Grandma should get vaccinated. As should you, if you’re worried about catching the virus from kids. The kids themselves will be fine.

It is not even remotely close to being over in the US. After visiting SF for a week this month, I don't even know how someone in that bubble could think that, since it's clearly not over there either. It's much different and less problematic in SF than many other parts of the country, but absolutely not over there or anywhere else.

What's the most onerous restriction you saw in SF while you were here, I'm curious - maybe I'm biased from living here, but like I said for me it's been limited to masking and flashing my vaccine card at bars. Unless you consider indoor masking a big deal, in which case sure, it's nowhere near over in SF.

Clearly a large part of the country finds masking indoors onerous, ridiculous as that may seem.

Edit: look no further than the fact that this comment is downvoted for confirmation that some people feel this way.

It's being downvoted because it's silly to equate the pandemic with wearing a mask indoors. There's so much more to it than that and if nothing in your life reminds you of that, you're incredibly lucky.

But that, along with vaccine mandates, was cited by OP as the only visible reminders of the pandemic in SF. Where on earth did I equate the two?

Papers please hardly sounds like it's over.

I am not in Bay Area, but a coworker who is just told me today his ~4 year old in day care has to be masked all day.

> masking and demasking when you enter restaurants

I've seen it, but this just seems silly. I think the way bars work is you walk in with a mask, take it off, and put it on when you go to the restroom?

California is ahead of the rest of the country on Delta. Rates have fallen considerably there. They are only just starting to fall elsewhere; in some places they are still rising.