The kids weren't in danger, that appears to be changing very quickly with the new variant. Let's not be like George W. Bush standing on the aircraft carrier saying "mission accomplished", when we're still in the middle of this thing.
"Dangerous" and "fatal" are not the same word. The Delta variant is more contagious, meaning more children are being hospitalized. Even if the Delta variant isn't "more dangerous" per case the same level of danger is more prevalent because of the contagion.
There is more than death. We still don't know enough about Long Covid - depending on who you believe it is anything from normal things blamed on Covid to additional life long complications. Until science figures this out (I expect it to take years) I don't know if it is safe to risk my kids or not.
And we still don’t know the long term effects of kids breathing god knows what substances these cheap Chinese masks contain. We also have no clue what it will do to their language and social development. Yet people cheer on forcing them to wear one for an entire school day 5 days a week.
Like what? This is the first I've heard such a thing. It isn't hard to do a chemical analysis, so if there was any grounding in it I'd expect to have seen a better source then a random comment.
That said, my kids are wearing made in the USA masks.
There is no data to this effect. There are some anecdotes from hospital staff saying they're seeing more kids now, but you might expect that given that adults are vaccinated.
Until there is data that shows conclusively that Delta affects kids more than previous variants, you should not parrot lines like "that appears to be changing quickly". Substantiate your claim with data or at least say it's anecdotal. Alternatively, if you have data, please share it.
This "show me data" line works well in debates, but not in the real world. You often don't have the time or ability to wait for data to roll in, do a study, have it peer reviewed, and then make a decision. In real life you constantly have to make decisions under uncertain conditions with limited information of unknown quality. And that's the situation we're in right now.
We can send the kids back to school with no vaccines, no masks, no precautions, and say "We don't have any data that this thing is dangerous for children". The obvious problem there is that we don't have a ton of data in general with this variant. So, if we're wrong about the danger, we risk harming a lot of children while we dutifully wait for the data to roll in.
This is the same reason that most women (and many men for that matter) will cross the street late at night if they are on an empty street and see a large man approaching them. They have zero evidence suggesting that the person is a threat, but the cost of being wrong in such cases is very high. So, having limited data, they tend to take a very cautious and conservative approach and cross the street. In our case, just change, "Cross the street" to "Wear a mask".
This comparison is far from perfect, but you get the idea.
If you don’t have time to do those things, then the most reasonable thing to do is to assume that the results of those things still hold true.
In other words, whoever makes a claim that things have changed better provide a reason why it is reasonable to think things have changed. Typically that comes in data.
