The most effective public-health communication should embody the qualities that primary-care pediatricians like me strive to emphasize daily: empathy and nuance. We start by trying to understand families’ priorities about their children’s health and well-being. We then acknowledge ways in which the treatment may fall short, or aspects that we cannot predict. From there we lay out any potential risks and benefits with complete transparency, establish clear goals for any intervention, and support the family’s decision making with compassion…

Central to this approach are honesty and humility—not overstating benefits or understating risks of an intervention, and being direct about uncertainties and limitations in our knowledge. In November, the CDC made an appeal stating that wearing a mask could decrease the risk of COVID-19 infection by 80 percent, though a much more modest benefit is likely conferred, with the degree of benefit being related to masks’ type and fit. In some local contexts—depending on, for example, vaccination and hospitalization rates—masking, along with other interventions, may be more or less helpful. However, dramatically overstating their incremental benefit risks diminishing trust in this guidance, and potentially raises skepticism about other public-health recommendations, including those with greater benefits, such as vaccinations. Similarly, masking of children age 2 and older has been a strong recommendation in the U.S. but masking under the age of 5 has not been adopted in many other countries, based on considerations related to developmental ability and the balance of potential risks and benefits for this age group. If public-health advocates would acknowledge this difference, and explain why we have come to our own conclusion, we would instill greater public trust.