"The educational cost of face coverings is far better established than the benefits of mandates."
Then he proceeds to spend the whole article on the minimizing the latter without showing the former in and way shape or form.
I agree with him in principle, but he doesn't do a good job of 'establishing' much beyond svara.
There's not much to establish, given that there is no hard data on the costs of masking children. One of his qualms is that we're 18 months in and no one has bothered to get this data.
I think he laid out his case about as well as he could, given the data we actually have. He points to the established benefits of face time, as signed off on by the CDC and AAP, to show wha we are losing by masking. He then shows how masking little children under 5, and possibly even under 12, isn't recommended outside of this country and likely has minimal benefit to begin with.
Until we have hard data on the actual costs of masking kids, I don't see how anyone can make a stronger argument, either for or against.
