UsForThem - “opaque lobbyists” with links to the far right?

[LacyEdge]

Prof Alice Roberts started an interesting Twitter thread discussing this, linking to Nafeez Ahmed’s article about U4T in Byline Times. Replies suggest UsForThem aren’t a concerned parents’ group at all and are linked with a far right funded group.

Well I never.

twitter.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1352993581414424576

@MrsHerculePoirot

Wow! I thought *@Temptashun*’s first post was a piss take parody with the now well refuted comment about it not being worse than flu. Cannot believe the ridiculousness of those subsequent posts either. Batshit.

It's less deadly for children than the flu. This has been undisputed from the start. If you're worried about long term effects, keep your child out of school. Do not send them in thinking that masks and social distancing will protect them. They won't.

@Temptashun

This virus is airborne. Viruses are tiny. Most of the air you breath out just goes up and around the sides of a mask. The viruses can also go straight though a cloth mask. Relying on them is dangerous.

If you want to call for safer schools (bearing in mind that they're as safe as they were in 2019 for most people under 60 with no-comorbidities), then call for stuff that actually works, like high quality filter air con, or windows that open if your classroom's don't.

Let the kids for whom it is safe to return now back in until what you want is done.

Viruses are tiny. But the droplets in which they are transported when you speak/cough/sneeze are larger and do not go “straight through” a cloth mask, unless your cloth mask is crap.

Noble

To be fair, maybe the reason the U4T wonks always assume you saying “safer schools” actually means “closed schools” is because they know deep down that the only safe school is a closed school.

Yes I read the studies. It seems you didn't, as you cherry picked a comment. It is not enough to simply scan a paper and pick out any bits that agree with your stance. A good paper looks at all angles and then concludes.

Do not send them in thinking that masks and social distancing will protect them.
They won't

Interesting.

Can those who aren’t sure of the agenda of Us4Them see now that it’s not about kids but a platform to undermine covid mitigations? As demonstrated on this thread.

Not just ‘kids can’t social distance’ but social distancing doesn’t work

Not ‘kids can’t be expected to wear masks’ but masks don’t work

So basically there’s no point in them. Let’s just let covid run riot (which this poster admits was happening in schools but doesn’t care because they’re pretending that while the kids absolutely spread it in the classroom, they rarely bring it home).

Countries like Singapore, only handful of Covid deaths, are use to wearing masks. Schools have been back for months with all children wearing masks. They still manage to have one of the highest educational systems in the world.

From the literature review paper I linked to earlier:
"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. "

@TaxTheRatFarms

If you think that masks are worth the speech and language and other problems, tell me why, with evidence. Perhaps, again, I'm wrong!

What absolute chuntering bollocks is this now? I lived in Japan for years. My kids grew up there. Way before covid was even a glint in its mother’s eye, people have been wearing masks in cold and flu season, in hay fever season and whenever they had sniffles.

Speech and language issues caused by masks do not exist. The 2 or 3 hours I’m out with my toddler in a mask, with others in masks, does not negate all the hours at home where they see my face. Ridiculous to even try that argument when there are plenty of countries that have used masks for years and yet have no higher incidence of speech and language issues than the U.K.

“Diseases” caused by masks, like the fabled lung mould or whatever nonsense that was are also not a concern over there, because it doesn’t happen .

Then why did SAGE (who I've been told are mainstream and therefore the only people who matter) saying otherwise?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/26/school-masks-potential-damage-speech-development-far-greater/

'On the specific use of facemasks for children, this is likely to be unfeasible for younger children and among older children there are still risks that this will increase face touching and risk substitution, but
these may be mitigated through education. The risks of affecting damage to general speech and language development is far greater than any risks of children transmitting. Viewing of faces is
essential for brain development in both younger and older children, and in learning to speak/phonics, much of which is based on phonemic awareness. This is particularly important for children from less language rich environments, or bi-lingual children, or children from English as an additional language (EAL) backgrounds.
Wearing a facemask could also negatively impact deaf or hearing-impaired children, children with other sensory needs, and children who struggle with emotional recognition and emotional regulation.
Facemasks could also negatively impact children’s ability for play and interaction.'

@noblegiraffe

Can those who aren’t sure of the agenda of Us4Them see now that it’s not about kids but a platform to undermine covid mitigations? As demonstrated on this thread.

Not just ‘kids can’t social distance’ but social distancing doesn’t work

Not ‘kids can’t be expected to wear masks’ but masks don’t work

So basically there’s no point in them. Let’s just let covid run riot (which this poster admits was happening in schools but doesn’t care because they’re pretending that while the kids absolutely spread it in the classroom, they rarely bring it home).

Social distancing helps for short periods. In a classroom setting that may be poorly ventilated, where pupils sit next to one another for and hour or more, not so much.

Masks might help a tiny bit, but it's just not enough to justify the harms, nor for people who really need to not catch covid to rely on to protect them.

It's not Usfor Them saying this by the way, it's just me, based on all the masses of scientific evidence I've read and the interpretations by scientists that I've used to help me understand them, including things from SAGE, The WHO, and Independent SAGE, which you've said are all your preferred sources.

chuntering bollox

Think that's the most sensible thing I've read on this thread

Yup some scientists did advise sage that. Some scientists also thought herd immunity was viable and that the peak had passed. This was also back when they thought asymptomatic transmission wasn't a thing, and that kids didn't transmit it either.
They also had scientists saying the opposite to sage.
Also important to note - this was when cases were low.

Because even if children/teachers wear masks in school, they don’t wear masks at home, around their family. And yes it’s not ideal, but temporary use during a pandemic is not going to cause long lasting problems. Unless you (and Sage?) think all children in Japan are poorly educated and have speech and language issues? Because if not, why not?

Again - it's about viewing all angles and coming to a conclusion.
I think our infection rates in school children by the end of last term shows how wrong they were.

@EnemyOfEducationNo1

From the literature review paper I linked to earlier: "The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. "

Key word being 'indicates'.

And yet, the authors themselves state that, from all the studies they've reviewed for this meta study, that the evidence is inconclusive.

It's often difficult for non scientists to interpret studies - but in this case they've kindly done it for you, you just need to read the words that they've written in the conclusion!

@EnemyOfEducationNo1

Yup some scientists did advise sage that. Some scientists also thought herd immunity was viable and that the peak had passed. This was also back when they thought asymptomatic transmission wasn't a thing, and that kids didn't transmit it either. They also had scientists saying the opposite to sage. Also important to note - this was when cases were low.

Ah, but I've been told (not by you, admittedly) that I must trust SAGE and The WHO implicitly, because they are mainstream!

Funny how children in other countries can successfully wear a mask in school and playtime, have low Covid deaths, a near normal life and a good education but British children couldn’t wear a mask.

"Conclusion
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission."

Nope, does not say what you say it does.

@TaxTheRatFarms

Because even if children/teachers wear masks in school, they don’t wear masks at home, around their family. And yes it’s not ideal, but temporary use during a pandemic is not going to cause long lasting problems. Unless you (and Sage?) think all children in Japan are poorly educated and have speech and language issues? Because if not, why not?

I did once find an article with an interview with a psychologist talking about the problems that are arising in Japan from mask usage, but I just can't find it right now.

I do have this one, which goes a little into the problems that it's causing Japanese teenagers.

japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/more-japanese-youth-wearing-surgical-masks-to-hide-their-face

If you take the time to scroll through the comments you'll note teachers saying that some students have panic attacks when asked to take them off, now (this is from 2012 so way pre-covid).

Temptashun

Do you honestly believe that in countries like Japan, where mask wearing has been commonplace for years, all children have speech and language issues?

Young kids there have periods of wearing masks all day at school, see their parents in masks and yet have generally good educational outcomes and not a high prevalence of speech and language issues.

I’m absolutely with Sage on the complications for EAL students and students with hearing impairments, but schools can and do have ways of mitigating for this.

Long term, Sage may have a point. But as a temporary measure during a pandemic, they’re not going to cause the kind of widespread issues that you’re trying to push they do.

"Ah, but I've been told (not by you, admittedly) that I must trust SAGE and The WHO implicitly, because they are mainstream!"

You misunderstood. Sage had been advised what you said by scientists. They then reviewed all the evidence put before them - then sage as a group make recommendations. It's all.done on available evidence. Your quote above even admits they didn't think kids transmit. We now know they do. Also - full to.e mask wearing may well have the effects stated - so small children in long hours in nursery care may suffer. But older children and teenagers. Nope. They offered no evidence, it was an opinion by one scientists that was politically convenient with their "schools are safe" message - which even you have admitted that they are not.
Anyway, thanks for the debate,great fun etc other stuff to do now.

Viruses are tiny. But the droplets in which they are transported when you speak/cough/sneeze are larger and do not go “straight through” a cloth mask, unless your cloth mask is crap.

The virus is airborne, not just droplet-born. Which means it can and does pass through the mask.
There is actually evidence that masks can aerosolise the droplets, thus actually spreading more virus than without masks, since virus suspended in droplets is more likely to sink to the ground rather than remaining in the air.
Those studies aren't very good though, so it's not confirmed.

Did you.. even read that article?

And did you notice that the “teacher” making that comment calls themselves “right wing conspirator” and spouts anti-mask conspiracy theories? And isn’t Japanese?

I taught in Japan for 10 years. None of my students ever shook and cried when they took their masks off. The article you’ve linked to actually comments on stress in society and nothing to do with masks in a pandemic.

@EnemyOfEducationNo1

"Ah, but I've been told (not by you, admittedly) that I must trust SAGE and The WHO implicitly, because they are mainstream!"

You misunderstood. Sage had been advised what you said by scientists. They then reviewed all the evidence put before them - then sage as a group make recommendations. It's all.done on available evidence. Your quote above even admits they didn't think kids transmit. We now know they do. Also - full to.e mask wearing may well have the effects stated - so small children in long hours in nursery care may suffer. But older children and teenagers. Nope. They offered no evidence, it was an opinion by one scientists that was politically convenient with their "schools are safe" message - which even you have admitted that they are not.
Anyway, thanks for the debate,great fun etc other stuff to do now.

No, they didn't say that children don't transmit. I have also never said that.

What they said is 'The risks of affecting damage to general speech and language development is far greater than any risks of children transmitting'.

Which is what I'm trying to tell you all.

On the day where deaths pass 100,000 it must take some arrogance to peddle the idea that we had it right when we sent kids back to school with no mitigation measures leading to soaring infection rates.

Maybe stop cherry picking studies and look at what happened when schools went back without masks and social distancing. You know, a real life full scale trial.

Do you think what happened was a good outcome?