Masks

[Lurker]

So if I run a red light that means I can't be trusted to obey the law?

If you run red lights on purpose, I'm not gonna trust you when you start lecturing me about speed limits.

[CountValentine]

Could it be that they believe masks are of greater benefit right now than the developmental benefits? Sure. The honest way of dealing with the temporary shift would be to say exactly that: the benefits of masks outweigh the benefits of "face time" for XYZ reasons. The way to make everyone distrust you is to pretend you never gave the "face time" advice in the first place by deleting it from your website.

We are talking about the the article @Jeremiah posted, correct?
Where does masks come into play? They are not now recommending parents should wear masks with their infants, are they?

[Euclid]

It may be well grounded in science, but their actions seem heavily influenced by politics. When a non-political medical association makes decisions that are influenced by anything other than science, they lose credibility.

I fully agree that their tactics are sowing distrust, but what do you mean by "heavily influenced by politics"? Where do you see that from here?

[CountValentine]

If you run red lights on purpose, I'm not gonna trust you when you start lecturing me about speed limits.

I agree 100%. What if I ran the light by not paying attention or was taking my dog to the emergency room (did happen)?

[biobook]

In short, they used to promote face-to-face interaction between infants and caregivers, saying it was crucial to the development of children. They didn't change their minds. They didn't come out with a study saying why they were previously wrong. They just removed the literature promoting it, because it contradicted their current mask push.

I also didn't understand the twitter conversation, but now that you explain it - You (and Allen) are drawing conclusions that go way beyond the facts. 

The fact here is that Allen had once found a particular webpage, and was not able to find it with google.  Websites are OFTEN reorganized, with stuff added, deleted, rearranged.  There's no evidence given that the page was removed because of the need for masks today. 

The page that was removed had been part of a project produced in 2012-2013.  All parts of that project had been removed, maybe because it duplicates what AAP has elsewhere, or perhaps because it just seems outdated, or perhaps because it never belonged to AAP in the first place and shouldn't have been placed on their site.  It was created by the Ohio branch of AAP, and is still available on their site:
http://ohioaap.org/projects/building-mental-wellness/
Go down to Building Piece of Mind handouts, and it's the first in that list.

Before concluding that AAP removed this due to mask policies, you really need to examine the entire publication that was removed.  One could as easily draw the conclusion that AAP no longer believes in the importance of mental wellness during the first 36 months of life.

[Lurker]

I fully agree that their tactics are sowing distrust, but what do you mean by "heavily influenced by politics"? Where do you see that from here?

You're right; that was poorly phrased. I shouldn't have said it so definitively.

When they issue guidance that is contradictory to established practice without explaining the science behind it, and that guidance happens to be aligned with political ideology, as well as fitting the MO of that ideology of issuing medical guidance with no explanation, it appears that their decisions are " heavily influenced by politics."

[Lurker]

I agree 100%. What if I ran the light by not paying attention or was taking my dog to the emergency room (did happen)?

They deleted the PDF by accident? Sorry man, I ain't buyin.

[CountValentine]

They deleted the PDF by accident? Sorry man, I ain't buyin.

I gave two examples out of many. Still I am not understanding the mask part.

We are talking about the the article @Jeremiah posted, correct?
Where does masks come into play? They are not now recommending parents should wear masks with their infants, are they?

[Lurker]

I also didn't understand the twitter conversation, but now that you explain it - You (and Allen) are drawing conclusions that go way beyond the facts. 

The fact here is that Allen had once found a particular webpage, and was not able to find it with google.  Websites are OFTEN reorganized, with stuff added, deleted, rearranged.  There's no evidence given that the page was removed because of the need for masks today. 

The page that was removed had been part of a project produced in 2012-2013.  All parts of that project had been removed, maybe because it duplicates what AAP has elsewhere, or perhaps because it just seems outdated, or perhaps because it never belonged to AAP in the first place and shouldn't have been placed on their site.  It was created by the Ohio branch of AAP, and is still available on their site:
http://ohioaap.org/projects/building-mental-wellness/
Go down to Building Piece of Mind handouts, and it's the first in that list.

Before concluding that AAP removed this due to mask policies, you really need to examine the entire publication that was removed.  One could as easily draw the conclusion that AAP no longer believes in the importance of mental wellness during the first 36 months of life.

Without getting into the nitty gritty of website management, can we agree that current guidance contradicts previous guidance we have all heard for a very long time, and that no explanation has been given for the contradiction? It looks bad, and is basis for distrust. We keep hearing the medical establishment bemoaning the lack of trust the public has in them because of politics. You want more trust? Earn it. Things like this don't help.

[biobook]

Without getting into the nitty gritty of website management, can we agree that current guidance contradicts previous guidance we have all heard for a very long time, and that no explanation has been given for the contradiction? It looks bad, and is basis for distrust. We keep hearing the medical establishment bemoaning the lack of trust the public has in them because of politics. You want more trust? Earn it. Things like this don't help.

No, if you're building an entire conspiracy theory based on a deleted web page, then you do need to get into the nitty gritty of website management. 

[Yehuda57]

It is entirely possible that the missing pages are due to website redesigns or the like, they could just come out and say that and link to the new pages.

But even if this particular "deletion" does not turn out to be purposeful, their recently released statements about face masks being entirely harmless are counter to their previously released materials which do mention the importance of understanding and reacting to facial expressions and movements.

As Lurker said, they could just as easily have said, "Seeing faces is important, but right now masks are more important."

[Yehuda57]

Also, they should be able to back up why their recommendations for masking kids are so much more stringent than virtually every other developed country.

[Lurker]

No, if you're building an entire conspiracy theory based on a deleted web page, then you do need to get into the nitty gritty of website management.

The problem doesn't originate with a deleted page. Guidance was issued that contradicts established practice. No explanation was given. THAT is the problem. When someone went to double check the literature on the previous standards, they found it had been recently deleted. THAT looks really, really bad, whether it was intentional or not.

When you have a global trust issue in the medical community, you need to go above and beyond to earn that trust back. The initial action of issuing unexplained contradictory guidance was the exact opposite of what they needed to do. The (accidentally?) deleted page just made a smelly fish smell worse.

[CountValentine]

The problem doesn't originate with a deleted page. Guidance was issued that contradicts established practice. No explanation was given. THAT is the problem. When someone went to double check the literature on the previous standards, they found it had been recently deleted. THAT looks really, really bad, whether it was intentional or not.

When you have a global trust issue in the medical community, you need to go above and beyond to earn that trust back. The initial action of issuing unexplained contradictory guidance was the exact opposite of what they needed to do. The (accidentally?) deleted page just made a smelly fish smell worse.

What guidance was given that contradicts the page that was deleted?

[biobook]

can we agree that current guidance contradicts previous guidance we have all heard for a very long time, and that no explanation has been given for the contradiction?

These really look like two different things to me.  The Face Time handout is geared to new parents, many of whom have never really interacted with a newborn (less common in our large families, but common in American small families).  They take perfectly good care of the baby's physical needs, but are simply unaware of how to talk to a human that doesn't respond the way the other humans in their world do.  This handout teaches them the value of face-to-face interactions, and encourages them to continue that for weeks until they're rewarded with the first smile.

I'm certain that the AAP would not contradict that guidance today. 

It is entirely possible that the missing pages are due to website redesigns or the like, they could just come out and say that and link to the new pages.

I was once responsible for a large website and I routinely deleted pages that no longer seemed relevant to our site.  I felt no obligation to explain to the public why I had deleted any particular page, although I could have explained if asked.  Ask the AAP if you really want to know.

But even if this particular "deletion" does not turn out to be purposeful, their recently released statements about face masks being entirely harmless are counter to their previously released materials which do mention the importance of understanding and reacting to facial expressions and movements.

The importance of masks in certain situations is something that they address elsewhere, on their site for parents (AAP is for pediatricians), such as here:  https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/COVID-19/Pages/Do-face-masks-interfere-with-language-development.aspx

Also, they should be able to back up why their recommendations for masking kids are so much more stringent than virtually every other developed country.

I don't buy the comparison to other developed countries any more than you'd accept your child's argument that "every other parent lets their kids do this."

[biobook]

The problem doesn't originate with a deleted page.

But this particular conspiracy theory originated with a deleted page, and it's alarming to see it unfolding it real time.  Allen based her rant on her inability to find a remembered page, and made no apparent effort to ask the website owner where it was or to contact DDF for assistance with the search. 

When someone went to double check the literature on the previous standards, they found it had been recently deleted. THAT looks really, really bad, whether it was intentional or not.

No, it looks like a really, really superficial search of the literature.

[aygart]

No, if you're building an entire conspiracy theory based on a deleted web page, then you do need to get into the nitty gritty of website management. 

It is not called building a theory, it is called confirmation bias.

[CountValentine]

It is not called building a theory, it is called confirmation bias.

I think at this point we can call it "debunked". 

[aygart]

I think at this point we can call it "debunked". 

how was it debunked?

[CountValentine]

how was it debunked?

There is nothing about the page that has anything to do with masks or some new policy. If it was deleted on purpose I would look for some other reason.