Anonymous wrote:Sorry, the children most at risk from covid are ages 0-4. I would take a minor speech delay over this any day.

My child had a speech delay 15 years ago. He didn't speak till he was 2.5. Not only did he "survive," he thrived. He is on the debate team and Model UN now.

People acting like speech delays are worse than illness remind me of the folks who don't vaccinate because they are afraid of autism. Nonsensical and offensive.

Anonymous wrote:Of course it affects speech! More than that, it affects a deeper connection because they cannot see your facial expressions. You are masked up.-daycare worker

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

School and daycare closures make this more possible.

I think anyone faced with this decision needs to factor in that if you're not sending your child to daycare and you're not socializing in person much, is your child only interacting with their parents or nanny? That's not normal. A daycare with masked caregivers is probably better than no socialization at all. If the nanny can do playgroups that's different.

We aren't socializing that much and my child has a language disorder. I can tell you masking and lack of socializing didn't cause it as it started long before covid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

School and daycare closures make this more possible.

I think anyone faced with this decision needs to factor in that if you're not sending your child to daycare and you're not socializing in person much, is your child only interacting with their parents or nanny? That's not normal. A daycare with masked caregivers is probably better than no socialization at all. If the nanny can do playgroups that's different.

It's actually pretty normal. Playgrounds are a recent phenomenon.

The amount of spam this Melanie person has been doing on different listerves is raising a lot of alarm bells for me. There's a petition she's circulating to *demand* that various jurisdictions take away the rights of daycare workers to be masked at work. Obviously, such a demand is completely unenforceable as well as being absurd... But it's the scope of her extremism that makes me suspect there's no Melanie behind this at all. Just another bot argument, meant to sow division.

I don't know, I think there is a real need for advocacy on behalf of daycare/preschool parents, and I appreciate the effort. I completely disagree with changing masking requirements for caregivers - those should be at the discretion of the individual or the daycare center, if not required by public health agencies. But making masks on the under 5 crowd optional (maybe after this surge dies down) seems like something of a no-brainer. using Test to Stay also seems sensible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

School and daycare closures make this more possible.

I think anyone faced with this decision needs to factor in that if you're not sending your child to daycare and you're not socializing in person much, is your child only interacting with their parents or nanny? That's not normal. A daycare with masked caregivers is probably better than no socialization at all. If the nanny can do playgroups that's different.

It's actually pretty normal. Playgrounds are a recent phenomenon.

The amount of spam this Melanie person has been doing on different listerves is raising a lot of alarm bells for me. There's a petition she's circulating to *demand* that various jurisdictions take away the rights of daycare workers to be masked at work. Obviously, such a demand is completely unenforceable as well as being absurd... But it's the scope of her extremism that makes me suspect there's no Melanie behind this at all. Just another bot argument, meant to sow division.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

School and daycare closures make this more possible.

I think anyone faced with this decision needs to factor in that if you're not sending your child to daycare and you're not socializing in person much, is your child only interacting with their parents or nanny? That's not normal. A daycare with masked caregivers is probably better than no socialization at all. If the nanny can do playgroups that's different.

Anonymous wrote:Hi all, a group of us is working to advocate for updating COVID-19 daycare policies to enable optional masking for children and decrease the crushing burden on families. Please see below for our advocacy guides and petition.

DC daycare advocacy guide: https://tinyurl.com/57sapzjy

Montgomery County daycare advocacy guide: https://tinyurl.com/yd2jr5pu

Petition: https://chng.it/vTzRTQKGHf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

School and daycare closures make this more possible.

I think anyone faced with this decision needs to factor in that if you're not sending your child to daycare and you're not socializing in person much, is your child only interacting with their parents or nanny? That's not normal. A daycare with masked caregivers is probably better than no socialization at all. If the nanny can do playgroups that's different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Parents may just have more time to deal with it. I know many families that just ignored it to hope their kids caught up. Others even delayed school a year vs getting them help.

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why people are jumping to dismiss this possibility. You are masking two year olds without any clear data that it is reducing cases in daycares, so why are you so quick to dismiss other concerns without concrete data.

It makes me really sad that if you even raise the topic of masking two year olds, you’re jumped all over as a dramatic, terrible parent. Parents seeking assistance for speech- delayed toddlers has risen during the pandemic. That is a fact. Jury is still out on what is causing it (masks, isolation, attachment parenting, whatever). Why are you dismissing masks in daycare as one possible cause for some children? Because it’s easy to dismiss these kids when its not you kid?

Stepping back: the concerns here stem from the observation that the bottom half of the face is important for reading emotions, learning to speak, and learning to read. The theory behind this is compelling.

In the study of socioemotional development, the idea of facial expressions conveying emotions goes back to Charles Darwin (in one of his lesser-known books, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals). As adults, it should be obvious from our own experience that we use facial expressions to understand the emotions of others.

This is a skill that develops over childhood (see, e.g., this paper on how kids get better at reading emotions from faces between the ages of 3 and 11). Kids differ in the speed at which they develop this ability; there is literature on how children’s reading of facial expressions correlates with their social skills. This starts early: Infants respond to faces, rapidly learning to distinguish between happy, sad, and other emotions, and can distinguish their mom’s face from others within a short period.

There is also a potential role for facial expressions in language development. Watching how mouths move is part of learning to speak (see, e.g., this paper). And when kids need help with speech issues, being able to observe the movement of their mouth and the mouths of others in pronouncing letters is crucial.

A final argument relates to hearing. There is direct evidence that masks make it difficult to hear the speaker, and that this may be exacerbated for kids in loud classrooms. It stands to some logic that if you are trying to teach a young child to read — or, really, do anything — it is valuable for them to be able to hear you. And social interactions are better if kids can hear each other and be heard by teachers.

Putting all this together, it is reasonable to think that some aspects of learning or social skills may be impacted by masks, and indeed others have argued this. But this isn’t quite the same as direct evidence that masking matters, and it doesn’t tell us about magnitudes. Maybe seeing half a face is almost as good as a whole face. The impacts of hearing on learning may be small.

Large-scale evidence on the particular question of masking in schools and development is lacking and is unlikely to ever appear. One could imagine exploiting differences across schools in mask policies to look at differences in learning outcomes, but you would rapidly realize in doing so that too many other things vary across these schools. There will never be anything convincingly causal.

What we can see is a bit of lab-based evidence on masks directly, especially on emotion-reading. There is, for example, this paper showing that children performed worse on a face-perception test when masks were involved versus without. There’s also this paper — co-authored by a researcher and a 9-year-old — which showed that children had trouble reading emotions from masked faces. Or this one, which showed that masks reduced kids’ ability to read emotions from pictures (though notably, not more than sunglasses).

This type of in-lab analysis for studying language development or learning evolution is less feasible, and there is therefore little we can say directly.

In the end, what we arrive at is a lot of theoretical reasons to think that masking could be somewhat detrimental to social learning and intellectual progress, with the evidence for the former being somewhat stronger. It is nearly impossible to be precise about magnitudes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, I’ve commented on this topic elsewhere and have been concerned about this for months but have heard no concrete data either way. It will 100% not surprise me if data comes out later confirming an uptick I’m speech issues or issues recognizing emotions. I also worry about abnormal immune development, increase in allergies, etc. heck, we may even see more asthma due to having dirty masks on constantly and inhaling whatever yuck accumulates on them. I know my toddlers masks are filthy at the end of the day. All of these are reasons I want to see masking off ramps announced: not because I have proof that any of these are real problems, but because the longer we subject kids to something that is not part of the course of normal development, the more likely it is we start to see some kind of effect.

I really don’t want to incite panic with my examples. I just want people to think about the potential for negative effects and think critically about whether they can tolerate some extremely small known risks of Covid instead.

You sound terribly dramatic. We aren't seeing proof of this. Send your toddler with multiple masks a day so they can be swapped out. Simple.

We are r seeing proof that masks on toddlers in daycare settings is making any difference in community transmission rates. So why bother?