0. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
1. https://www.med.upenn.edu/CEP/assets/user-content/documents/...
2. https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/mandatory-masking-of-sc...
You have the problem of assuming that the studies in which you put all of your faith are even asking the right questions. The reality is that they are not interested in asking the right questions, they are interested in the approved questions.
If you want to adhere to the Thought Police guidelines be my guest.
Doctors' opinions. The opinions of professional, working doctors.
Know that many doctors are being threatened with censure over very reasonable adherence to the once normal standards of medicine.
We have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a valid piece of evidence.
What we don't have to agree on is whether children are at risk, because they aren't, categorically.
Any monies toward protecting children would be better directed in any number different ways, the ways that actually prevent children's deaths
This type of blanket disregard is exactly the thing that pushes people to oppose these sentiments.
There is evidence that covering up children's faces has significant impact psychologically and developmentally.
Making a claim such as this and in the typical weak-willed academic fashion "any documented harm", appealing to some unknown authority that will provide documentation to substantiate what parents are seeing in real time...
It's the type of offhand remark that, when I read it, places the credibility of the author immediately in question because the attitude is pervasive.