A second possible argument in favor of a kids-last policy is that COVID mitigations work better in child settings than in others. The data don’t support this argument, either. Evidence from test-to-stay programs, for example, suggests that more than 97 percent of kids who are exposed to the coronavirus at school and are then required to stay home never end up testing positive. Keeping these kids out of school, then, isn’t meaningfully halting community spread. As for masking, others have made the point that, after two years, we still have paltry proof that face coverings significantly lower case counts at school. Even if you are skeptical of these arguments, masking in school (as practiced) is certainly not more effective than masking in other settings. The largest masking randomized trial, in Bangladesh, found the highest efficacy among older individuals.
A final argument is that, because vaccination rates among children are low, and children under 5 are still not eligible for vaccines, they may have higher case rates, and lowering case rates in this group is important to protect the vulnerable, especially the unvaccinated. Over the past several weeks, however, case rates have been fairly similar across all age groups. Moreover, and I think this is perhaps the more important point, this argument is geographically mismatched. Areas with a high proportion of unvaccinated individuals tend to have limited restrictions on children; areas with high vaccination rates tend to have strict rules. Three-year-old kids in the Northeast wearing KN95 masks outdoors at recess (yes, there are places where this is still required) do not protect unvaccinated adults in the South.
Given the above, I’m back to asking why.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member