I think about the damage that mask wearing has done to infants in the past 2 years. What effect does it have on a child if it is unable to take a cue from people's faces?

I don't know what the long term effects will be, but I have a habit of smiling at babies in public and I have been pleasantly surprised to notice that even while wearing a mask babies and small children will recognize I'm smiling at them and smile back. I also remember hearing a story recently that people are better at detecting lies when the liar is wearing a mask, so the side-effects may not all be negative.

Presumably parents do not have their masks on when with their infants at home or in outdoor spaces without many folks around.

How is this extreme and irrational assumption about "unable" supported?

> How is this extreme and irrational assumption about "unable" supported?

How is my assumption 'extreme and irrational'?

I'm sure parents do not have their masks on at home either.

But most people outdoors were wearing masks. Relatives, grandparents etc were NOT encouraged to visit, but if they did they should take precautions - that would be wearing masks.

Young children develop by seeing people - they look to faces. A face with a mask on cannot be read by a child. It can't be anything but harmful. I don't see what's to debate about this, but if you want to explain how this is a good or neutral thing - please make an argument.

If I was to push further, preventing normal interactions is a form of child abuse. But then I also think that piercing a child's ears or damaging their body is also abuse - and this isn't a popular view either, albeit I think this too is self-evident.

That's also why people can't talk on telephones, nor can they communicate by written words.

Beware Poe's Law.