Here's the thing: They can't be shut down.
Delegates get ten full minutes provided they don't override any human rights codes or name names when they, for instance, insist that any trustee wearing a mask in their bio necessarily indicates they are unable to be open-minded. A nameless trustee was also claimed to have said that parents suck, and, at the end of the meeting, that same trustee was called disgusting.
They mean me!!
Everyone likes to start with a classic ad hominem argument to indicate that since the person advocating for masks is bad, therefore masks must be bad.
On that profile photo (one of these things is not like the other): It happened so quickly that it actually didn't occur to me to take off my mask. I had just walked into the board room for the first time ever, trying to orient myself, and was immediately ushered into another room for a photo, then ushered back. My necklace is askew and the clasp is showing, which wouldn't have happened if I was thinking about how I looked! That being said, I wouldn't have taken my mask off anyway, had I the wherewithal to have considered it, because I know the risks of having a mask off even for a few minutes in a room indoors, especially in such a small room with others unmasked. After the fact, when that photo was mentioned repeatedly in tweets, DMs, and emails about what a monster I am for creating fear in the hearts of children, I owned it, tweeting out that I stand in solidarity with any students who are worried about feeling weird for keeping their mask on for a photo.
The ironic part of this is that this same group of people openly insulting me for wearing a mask has assured me that we don't need to encourage kids to wear masks in class because no students are bullied or harassed for wearing masks. Nobody would harass anyone for wearing a mask! I must be imagining things or fabricating the parents who contacted me about their kids being made to feel so comfortable about their mask that they take them off at school despite their family's decision to continue masking.
On that "sucks" comment, it was a retweet of a comment made by someone else, and my retweets aren't necessarily endorsements. I connected with the beginning part of a message, a feeling of frustration with the lack of safety in schools, but I'll accept that I shouldn't have amplified the sentiment in the post's final line, however, and I'll get to that another day. But it definitely wasn't something I said as the accusation suggested.
As a former teacher, I find this whole process frustrating. I really like that the public has an opportunity to voice their opinions almost weekly, but our only response can be specific requests for clarification. We have to leave the ideas out there completely unquestioned and unchallenged, which can lead some to think they're true or that we agree. I appreciate that the format prevents any arguments, but, as filmed public meetings, they might inadvertently promote misinformation.
ON REPUTABLE SCIENCE:
In my classroom, when a student wanted to present information countering the curriculum, I'd stop the lesson for the opportunity to look at how to tell which information is more accurate. I posted a full exercise of this once when a student insisted that candy is as good for us as vegetables, misconstruing the no food is junk food claim, but I've lost that doc when I retired. In a nutshell, we dig deep for the original studies of each of the opposing ideas, then look at the study methodology (falsifiability criterion of the hypothesis, sample size, data confidence levels, verifiable, repeatable, etc.), the journal rankings, primary author affiliations, etc. We also look at how the media often subtly misrepresents the conclusion of studies, which can lead to people walking away from reading an article believing the opposite of what the study actually found. But the take-home message: It is possible to get to the bottom of competing claims.
But, not in a board meeting.
Now that I don't have a classroom, this little blog is the only place where I can try to clear things up. In school, the lesson would be paused to teach this vitally important skill of evaluating articles in media and journals before the bell rang, and we could come to agreement on the most accurate information. That captive audience is long gone. It was exciting because I openly accepted the possibility that the studies I was presenting could be mistaken - like when I discussed Zimbardo's prison experiment for the nth time and was taught about some underhanded shenanigans in his methods. I love to learn new things, and I've learn a lot from students over the years, refining my lessons as necessary.
Education isn't the goal of most board meetings, though.
When delegates speak and let us know where their information is from, I spend the following day looking into it, completely open to the possibility that I'm wrong and have something to learn. I did that with CRT delegates, and I did it with last Monday's meeting on masks.
One delegate acknowledge that they're "not an expert on evaluating science, but neither is anyone else in this room," suggesting that, therefore, we can't make any claims on one side or the other, and both sides must be given equal time. But that's just not the case, and it's a dangerous presumption. They think that, since there are some papers written on the dangers of masks and some in favour of them, that there is no scientific consensus on this. But there is - right here in one of the top ranked science journals out there! It's similar to the scientific consensus on climate change in that, yes, there are still some climate scientists who argue that human actions don't affect the climate, but the IPCC makes it clear that there is sufficient evidence that we do, so we don't give equal time in class to the idea that climate change is happening randomly, unaffected by our emissions.
How many more parents on the fence heard the delegates and stopped their kids from wearing masks?
For what it's worth, the motion to encourage staff and students to wear a mask and to educate about Covid passed in an 8:3 vote (full meeting here). After listening to the delegates, all of whom vehemently opposed the motion, I realized my Pascal's wager approach wouldn't have worked. I bunched their claims together here to just discuss specific arguments since some were repeated by one another.
COUNTERARGUMENTS:
It's not, as I had assumed from prior emails, that concerned citizens are worried about masks creating learning loss or being ineffective at stopping a virus. Those are still an issue, but they weren't the pivotal points. If that was all I was up against, I might have swayed a few to understand that masks definitely stop most virus particles and that learning loss from muffled voices is nothing compared to learning loss from multiple consecutive illnesses (not to mention illness of teachers and potential long term neurological decline) with links to studies in my posts here and/or at my trustee website. It was argued that I provided no evidence for any claims in my motion or preamble, but I posted them with links shortly after presenting.
Instead, the delegates appeared to believe that Covid completely ended based on the burst of laughter that ensued from the gallery when I suggested it's still a concern. One delegate insisted that hospitalizations for children under 20 are at their lowest right now, but I couldn't find what data they were using, and I can't imagine how there can be data that demonstrates that when children are waiting for treatment on the floor in hospitals because there aren't enough beds to go around. They appear to believe Covid has no significant affect on children because children do have less acute illness from it relative to adults, which is true, but that misses the effect Covid has on kids when the adults in their lives fall ill (kid 10-19 are biggest spreaders) and when kids fall seriously ill from other viruses because of immune damage, not to mention the potential of Long Covid. But the biggest surprise to me is that they really believe that masks physically harm children, demanding a guarantee that they don't harm before they're further encouraged in school. Essentially, they want us to oppose public health guidance that strongly encourages masks.
Their claim (paraphrased from my notes):
Peer-reviewed studies show that masks impact multiple organs, cause changes to the brain, heart, lung, kidney, and immune function, increase levels of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream and lower levels of oxygen. These are the real harms many children are dealing with after these mask mandates. We can't let feelings get in the way of this information. Mistakes made in the past [i.e. promoting masks] are due to fear; we now know better and need to do better for our kids. Firefighters are told to only wear N95s for 20 minutes at a time because the body needs fresh oxygen.
This definitely helps me to understand why some people are so furious at the mere encouragement of masks. The source they provided for this information is the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, and I'd really like to take the time to sit down and go over the information at that site - especially with a class of students. The site advocates a healthy diet and exercise to ward off Covid, along with a pile of supplements including taking ivermectin twice each week preventatively despite a warning from the FDA. The journal being cited there with the information paraphrased above is the Primary Doctor Medical Journal: A peer-reviewed journal by physicians and scientists without commercial influence.
Oh dear.
It says so right in the title that it's peer-reviewed and there's no conflict of interest, so it must be so, right?? I'm being a bit sarcastic here because the fact that it says that it's peer-reviewed twice in the heading is a big tip-off that something's amiss, but how would the average person know that?? It's kind of like if a website said repeatedly, "This is an absolutely true factual website of true things," it might raise a red flag.
I find the earnestness with which this evidence was brought forward absolutely heartbreaking. I'm not making fun of anyone - I'm upset that this garbage is out there, made to look legit, and conning so many into believing that the very thing that could help their kids will actually harm them. In lieu of learning the ins and outs of good and bad studies, or knowing that this journal doesn't even show up on ranking lists, that it's not even a Wikipedia entry about the journal, and it's not even in their list of journals, another handy way to check how reputable a journal is is to search it at MediaBiasFactCheck.com. This one is labelled quackery. The authors haven't published in any reputable journals. The Media Bias analysis says of the "journal",
"It is a website that publishes studies and research by Naturopath Colleen Huber, who runs a clinic that promotes natural cancer cures. The website's focus is anti-mask and lockdown propaganda as it relates to Covid-19. . . . All of the six so called research papers on the website are either misleading or false."
A journal with just six papers in it and all by the same authors should lead to some questions. Another big hint that it's a website and not a reputable science journal is this bit at the top:
I am so angry that this is out there! It's as bad as Action4Canada in making it appear to have factual data that is either completely false or horribly misrepresented. I listened to the delegates argue that I shouldn't dare suggest that somehow my evidence is better than theirs, and I feel ill that our education system doesn't do a better job of training people how to spot junk science. If explaining where they're going wrong in banking on these websites is arrogance and causes outrage, then I'm at an absolute loss of what to do.
Delegates claimed that Sweden had great success without any masks or lockdowns, citing a reputable journal New England Journal of Medicine, except it's from February 2021. More recent studies found that Sweden didn't actually do that well - from Sweden's Pandemic Experiment:
"Many elderly were routinely directed to palliative care and provided, for example, morphine instead of life-saving care and oxygen. . . . [Selective containment] completely failed to prevent the infection spread in the risk groups. . . . The most vulnerable . . . perished, often alone. . . . the propaganda on schools, Covid, and children pushed by Swedish officials as well as GBD-signee Ludvigsson, have also most likely had devastating implications far beyond the borders of Sweden. . . . The central challenge is to drop the prestige, embrace the science on airborne and asymptomatic transmission, and admit past failure. The science of what needs to be done is unambiguous."
This can also be seen with a quick look at cumulative deaths per capita. We've lost about 1 in 1,000 people to Covid; they've lost about 1 in 500 - twice as many:
Another source they cited that's from a reputable journal is this study, "Non-Pharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Non-Healthcare Settings," published by the CDC in May 2020, which found masks to be ineffective, but, again, it's old. It's from back when there was a mask shortage and the CDC was actively dissuading people from masking because of a lack of supply, so that's a little suspect. It also concludes that hand washing may not be effective in stopping the virus: "randomized trials of hand hygiene and face masks have not demonstrated protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza." But notice that the authors looked specifically for randomized control trials, which can provide quality evidence, but aren't the right tool to measure equipment. We don't do RCTs for parachutes or seatbelts (e.g. sending half out of a plane with no parachute and half with and watch what happens) because they're unethical; they test them in a lab to ensure they work before being used in public. We can look to the physics of how masks work (here and here). The closest thing we have to an RCT for masks is when mandates were followed by some schools and not by others in both Boston and Alberta, and both found that dropping mandates led to more cases of Covid: 12,000 additional cases in Boston, and three times as many cases in non-mandated schools than mandated in Alberta.
It's not enough to find a piece of evidence on the other side; it has to be better evidence, which means a larger sample, better research methods, more recent technology, etc. The evidence is overwhelming that masks do significantly reduce transmission of viral particles. Their counter argument is, "This article/person agrees with me," but they need to counter the physics that shows, for instance, Covid masses are 6 billion daltons, so much bigger than oxygen (16 daltons) or carbon dioxide (34 daltons) molecules, so they don't easily travel through a mask and masks don't significantly affect air exchange. Alternatively, we can trust the 386 scientists that published collectively in one of the most highly reputable science journals out there, Nature, when they say, "Wide use of high-filtration and well-fitting facemasks (for example, N95...) is important to reduce transmission." Dr. Rohin Francis made a 2 min. video showing him exercising with an oxygen meter while wearing the tightest fitting mask to show that it has no effect on oxygen saturation levels, and he adds, "By now if you aren't convinced that masks don't affect oxygen levels then your probably don't want convincing."
We were chastised as a group for asking kids to mask for the full day when we just wear masks for three hours at a time (at a meeting that lasted almost five hours). This is just anecdotal, but as a teacher, I wore a double mask for eight hours each day, an N95 hiding under the required surgical mask, not even taking them off for a sip of water while I was in the building. Not once. I used to get up early to mark and eat a huge breakfast and drink a ton of water in order to make it through the day. I did that daily for two years (less lockdowns and when online learning was allowed to be taught from home), and I've had zero health problems to show for it. In fact I've benefitted not just from avoiding any illnesses at all, but also from avoiding chapped lips for the past three winters! Doctors and nurses keep masks on for 12-hour shifts without any problems. Does it really make sense that masks cause severe physical health problems when so many medical professionals have been wearing them for years?
Consider also that one of the most highly masked industries right now is the film industry. They would lose a fortune if they had to delay filming because an actor got sick, so masking is still mandatory on set except for people on camera, and they've had great success with keeping entire crews healthy. They were motivated by money - the price of filming and the cost of replacing an actor partway through a shoot. If there was any chance that it's masks causing problems instead of a virus, then they would be in ruin. If they can do it because they can't risk harm to anyone on set...
Another delegate said they'd email us all with their sources, and I waited a few days to write this because of that, but I still haven't received anything. They also insisted the school board doesn't have a right to promote public health initiatives, but we actually do. We do it whenever we have assemblies about drunk driving, wearing seatbelts, drug use, smoking, safer sex, concussions, mental health awareness, or even when reminding kids to wash their hands and cough into their elbow. It's one of the things schools do. We don't need a medical license to encourage kids to eat less sugar or to show them the problems with vaping. We're trained in how to put masks on and off just like we're trained on how to use an epipen despite not being doctors. It's bizarre, and really curious to me, that we discuss Covid so little despite the toll it's taking, and that it even feels like we're not allowed to talk about it.
BUT WHAT ABOUT DR. MOORE???
Yes! What about that one line Moore said about masks destroying kids' immunity? He's tied to the Premier and doesn't speak freely as a medical professional, so be aware that he could have ulterior motives for pushing vaccinations while arguing against masks. I don't know what motivated his comment, but the article goes on to explain that the comment "counters evidence that exposure to COVID is affecting some peoples' immune cells and weakening their immunity." And in that same interview Moore also said,
"People should continue to use layers of protection over the holidays, including ventilation, masking in some settings, and isolating at home if sick. . . . Moore said he always wears a mask in public spaces such as stores and on transit."
Dr. Julia Koehler, a pediatric infectious disease physician, wrote in the Boston Globe the other day reacting to the claim that children have to pay now or pay later - the obvious extension of the immunity debt hypothesis denounced by many medical professionals. The claim is that if children don't get sick today, they will get sicker later. She argued that no pediatrician would make that claim as they,
"see the youngest children suffer the most from viruses like RSV and influenza. These viruses are by far most deadly in infants under one year. . . . I am baffled by antagonism against straightforward protections like air filtration or ventilation, and universal school masking during surges, that protect children and that reduce school absences. And: how do we respond to the disproportionate orphanhood of Black, Latino, and Native American children from COVID and from influenza?"
And Ms. Elise Pechter, a member of Boston Public Schools Families for COVID Safety adds,
"No wonder parents are confused about respiratory diseases. . . . Despite the CDC's warnings that COVID cases, ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising, the physicians blame the precautions taken to reduce COVID for adversely affecting children's lives. . . . About 10.5 million children lost primary or secondary caregivers to COVID-associated deaths. Their entitled view of children burdened by mask-wearing flies in the face of the loss of life and disability caused by the COVID pandemic."
All that being said, I'm still completely open to look at any research that says masks cause more harm than these viruses are causing. I care deeply about the well being of kids, and it's killing me that so many are lined up in hospital hallways. Nothing's worse that having a little one struggling to get air into their lungs from a virus that could have been prevented if enough people would wear a mask.
A delegate said they had 520 families and 80 teachers reach out to stop any encouragement of masks. If we're looking at numbers, I was cautioned not to discuss masks when canvassing, but I ignored that advice and ran on transparency, making it very clear that I support masks and vaccinations. If people didn't vote for me, then it would send a clear message that the community doesn't want masks in class, but over 8,000 constituents made it clear they do want more protections for their children. (For comparison, votes ranged from about 1,000 to 10,000. They also argued that each trustee got less than 10% of the vote, as if that means we shouldn't be making decisions on anything, ever, in which case, what are we all doing here??) But here's the thing: the popularity of a policy doesn't really matters when it comes to protecting kids. Most people fought against the new idea of cleaning water back when John Snow turned off the tap of water infected with cholera. The average person did not want their water shut off. He did it anyway to save lives. Tons of people fought seatbelts and restrictions on smoking too, but now that we're used to them, we're happy to comply.
People were quite sure encouraging masks would be the same as a mandating them, shaming children if it's said by a teacher because of the power imbalance, but I imagined it would have about the same effect as a teacher remind kids, "Don't forget your mittens!!" The kids who want them will make sure they have them, and the one who hate them - like my kids did, will make sure they don't.
Beyond these overt claims, however, I heard one primary concern: Don't tell my kids what to do. So I spent my final few minutes before the vote insisting that this motion to encourage masks is for the kids who want to mask but feel pressured to stop. It's not intended to be harassing or bullying, and we have to trust that implementation will take into account the spirit of the motion. My concern is that parents are reporting their children being bullied for having a mask on. I haven't heard from any parents that their children are being given a hard time for not masking, so I want to give some support to the families who are currently experiencing problems in the school. This is being misrepresented or misunderstood, by some, as flipping the bullying to happen to the unmasked. No matter how often I reiterate that I don't want any students harassed or badgered or belittled for not wearing a mask, some people can only see my plea to follow public health guidance and encourage masks as a hateful act.
I voted in favour of the motion, not because I ignored their concerns, but because their arguments and research weren't compelling to me. From what I'm hearing, many parents are very concerned that their children can't mask in class. We want to make that group feel more comfortable in school. But here's something that might really help to calm the frayed nerves of the delegates and gallery:
THE RESULTS!
Now that we're all on the other side of the motion being ratified and implemented, check out what it looks like in action:
But now I'm even more concerned with how far we need to go in teaching media and science to the general populace.
I was not (and am not) emotionally perpetuating an ideology as was claimed, which is an unsubstantiated believe that forms the basis of a political or economic theory or policy. I'm following the best science available and reinforcing a public health initiative.
It all reminds me of an issue I had in a class in last year. I was teaching how to make graphs of data and why we convert raw scores into a percentage of each group. In a nutshell: If our sample had 100 guys and 200 girls, and 80 guys and 120 girls did X, we can't conclude that more girls than guys were affected by the variable. Right?? We have to look at how many people of the number sampled in each group were affected, which is 80% (80/100) of guys and 60% (120/200) of girls. So a greater percentage of guys than girls did X, which we can generalize to the population. One student insisted that I was teaching them to manipulate the data, and she refused to follow any of my leftist dogma! Mum called and started our meeting by ranting about the fact that I don't use honourifics*, spending a lengthy amount of time questioning me about my vagina. Wha....??? Things are getting very odd out there when even math is politicalize and some students will refuse to learn how statistic work. If people won't listen to what a good scientific journal article looks like because they think I'm just trying to make them feel bad, then we can't possibly convince them that masks could save their lives.
I have no solutions.
Stay safe out there, and have a lovely holiday!!
________
*For decades, long before we argued about pronouns, I've referred to myself as just Snyder. My stance is that Mrs. sounds matronly, Miss sounds too young, and Ms sounds bitchy. I don't have time to get a PhD just to be allowed to use Dr., so I skip them all. I think it feel friendlier too, and it shows solidarity with anyone non-binary to boot! But it's also weird and something for people to yell about if they're looking for something, and suddenly, in my final year of teacher, there were a few really looking to start a fight. I legit blame Trump, January 6th, and the Ottawa convoy, which all modelled and glorified anger, upheaval, and vengeance.
No comments:
Post a Comment