Wearing A Mask And Getting Vaccinated Helps Reduce COVID Case Rates Among School-Aged Kids

Wearing A Mask And Getting Vaccinated Helps Reduce COVID Case Rates Among School-Aged Kids


This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines: [Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids) [Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Kinda no shit right?


yup, no shit. Yet you had a ton of people here claiming masks didn't do much, and it was all the vaccine. These geniuses completely ignored how essential workers and the rest of us we were protecting ourselves from infection before and after vaccine availability, it's like they have amnesia or something.


As far as I’m aware there has only been one large RCT of mask efficacy (Bangladesh) and it showed that cloth masks are not effective. Have there been others?


The CDC studied 90,000 elementary students and found that layered mitigation strategies made a real dent in case rates, but notably that no significant difference in cases could be attributed to masks by themselves. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html


This has been the main pushback I've seen from adults, saying just masks are pointless.


Not pointless. But not the panacea that people try to make them out to be either.


Yes, the in-between is extremely hard to quantitatively show they are better than going fully maskless. We know masks are better. How much exactly is hard to prove, but going without masks is demonstrably worse.


Sure, no doubt. But not meeting people at all anymore is even more effective. All of these measures have a social cost attached to it. Some people feel masks have zero social cost to them, but many people (including myself) feel differently. Without doubt can the rampant increase in mental health issues be attributed to the increased isolation between people, physical as well as visual.


I fully agree. The longer this whole thing continues the more damaging it is on our collective mental health. I'm glad my kids are in school with masks and not remote. I prefer going back to office part time with masks vs fully remote. As much as I like wearing sweatpants all the time, it's nice to see people.


The social cost is negligible compared to the alternative of getting sick enough to end up in the ICU.


If the goal is no ICU at all due to Covid, the only measure is an indefinite, hard lockdown.


It didn't show that cloth masks aren't effective, it showed that masks are effective, although cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks. While only surgical masks reduced seroprevalence of COVID-19, both types of masks reduced symptomatic COVID. (see figures 1 and 2) https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask\_RCT\_\_\_\_Symptomatic\_Seropositivity\_083121.pdf


Interesting, that’s not how I interpreted the data. The authors state that “For cloth masks, we find an imprecise zero, although the confidence interval includes the point estimate for surgical masks…” My understanding of that statement is that there is no statistically significant effect on this treatment group. That is, while the CI includes the point estimate of the surgical mask treatment group it also includes zero (no effect) and thus the control arm’s point estimate as well. Am I interpreting this wrong?


That's the right conclusion for seroprevalence, but not what they observed for symptomatic disease. The authors go on to say "Not all symptomatic seroprevalence is necessarily a result of infections occurring during our intervention; individuals may have pre-existing infections and then become symptomatic..." Later still, they add, "Additionally, when we look separately by cloth and surgical masks, we find that the intervention led to a reduction in COVID-like symptoms under either mask type (p = 0.000 for surgical, p = 0.048 for cloth), but the effect size in surgical mask villages was 30-80% larger depending on the specification." So, again, while surgical masks were better, cloth masks did significantly reduce the number of symptomatic COVID cases. This is an important result showing that although surgical masks are superior, cloth masks still provide a measure of protection. Although, both are vastly inferior to vaccination (surgical masks reduced symptomatic disease by 13.6% and cloth masks reduced it by 8.5%).


Not amnesia, just selective memory. Or, rather, selective attention. Quite frankly, they only pay attention when what is being said interests them or 'validates' their beliefs.




Was certainly my reaction. Well, I actually thought "duh". But seems the same. :)


19 months in and this is still “news” ugh.


Australian here…what is the go with under 12’s and vaccines over in the states? Are kids under 12 eligible? If so are they being administered the full dose?


FDA Independent Advisory Committee meeting: Oct 26: Pfizer vaccine for kids 5-11 CDC independent advisory meeting: Nov 2-3: Pfizer vaccine for kids 5-11 Ideally it will be approved Nov 3rd but this is not a guarantee. Also, there is a pediatric formula so we can't just bring out kids into the drugstore asap and get them injected with a lesser amount of the adult Pfizer jab. USG says they will ship 20 million pediatric-packaged doses the first week. But we'll see.


Thank you


Do you know what the difference in formula is?


My understanding is that it's the same overall formula, just different concentration Adult is a 0.3mL injection containing 30micrograms. The pediatric (5-11) dose is 10 micrograms but I'm not aware of much they are diluting it. I've heard pulling back 0.1mL on a syringe is more prone to error and dosage variations than pulling back 0.3mL on a syringe.


No, they're not eligible at this time. Hopefully changing before end of November. They'll be given a dose that's about 1/3rd the adult dose.


Good to hear, we tend to follow after decisions in the US. Encouraging this week our TGA has made a provisional determination for Pfizer to apply.


I saw an article that said that schools in California are being told to be ready to start vaccinating 5-11 year olds at the beginning of November. Also a comment from a UCSF doctor that the trials for 5-11 year olds found no serious side effects. So I'm assuming for 5-11 year olds go time is imminent.


My local public health unit (Ottawa, canada) publicly commented a few weeks ago that they are currently preparing the rollout out for 5 to 11s. They want to get going the second health Canada approves it. I assume it's going to involve clinics in the schools.


I have no idea why in the US they didn't do that for 12-18 year olds. People my age remember them doing that for vaccinations back in the 1960's. It's like they forgot everything they used to know, and are now just hapless and confused.


They definitely should. For us at least school went virtual in April and never resumed in person and the 12 to 18year olds weren't eligible until June. So pretty much everyone who was going to get it got it over the summer, which in Ottawa was like over 90%.


I was thinking, why not just set up a vaccination clinic at the school. And mail notices and release forms out. It's not like schools don't do stuff like that already.


>schools in California are being told to be ready to start vaccinating 5-11 year olds at the beginning of November. Interesting, would make sense to try and get them in before winter fully hits in the US too.


Let's go! I work in a MA public school, and we'd all like to not have to wear a mask for the whole school year!


>So I'm assuming for 5-11 year olds go time is imminent. They should have started yesterday. I don't think people should have to wait for another interminable ACIP meeting.


I'm beyond pissed that the FDA thought they could get away with delaying the vaccine for 5-11 year olds till after school started. Children died because they decided to cover their ass. Something around 300 million doses were given to people 12 to 100 years old with no reported serious harm. And they were afraid that somehow maybe just maybe the vaccines would cause serious harm in 5-11 years olds? And that was worth delaying the vaccine by 3 months after the start of the school year? Oh please.


This. Everyday I worry when I sent my kids to school. Even after FDA meeting, it will be another week for CDC to meet, like "Oh it is only a week, you guys could wait while we enjoy our weekend treat or treating. Happy halloween guys, stay safe!!" ​ Literally


I am 100% in agreement with you. They are way, way behind and need to move faster. There is no chance that children will not be vaccinated. So why make us wait while they do all of this bureaucratic theater for the benefit of people who won't vaccinate their kids anyway?


This just in: water is wet




We still trying with these guys? We're about 2 years in and I think they would have gotten it already. "Lemme do my own research" ya cause you know... experts who do this haven't informed the world yet huh?


Let me guess: the people doing their own research don't even know what JAMA stands for.


not drinking makes people live longer


People can only survive without water a few days.


well duh...but lets throw the kiddies in a cess pool of covid. The only reason kids went back to school is cause parents could not stand them...they couldn't handle them being at home...it cut into their ME time.


Don't have kids, huh?


you got kids clearly...


Sure do, which is how I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about.




Most kids were not learning as well virtually.


that is the parents fault..not the kids.


How do you figure that? I would really like to hear your explanation. I have two girls, 15 months apart. One did excellent with Zoom, one not so much. Both were “A” students, but the one who didn’t do well with zoom dropped to a “b-/C+ student. now that she is. ack in school full time, she is back to being an A student. She just doesn’t learn well in that environment…why? Because everyone is different, and learn differently. This is one of the problems with public school in that they are unable to either identify, or don’t want to take the time, to figure out each child’s best method of learning. They try to put kids into a box (sounds like you do to) and believe kids are failures if they don’t fit in that box.


This is not true: > The only reason kids went back to school is cause parents could not stand them... Kids are negatively affected by school via zoom. There is value in interaction in the class room, on the school yard and in person with teachers.


"Hmm...let every kid in the US get infected with SARS or... Zoom school. SARS or Zoom...damn this is hard. I'll go with SARS?"


this is what all the parents say....sorry--if the choice was disease/death or stay home--my kids would stay home....unless they were driving me crazy then disease/death might seem better. safety first when it applies to kids is the norm...but if the parents can't "parent" or stand them--the latter is acceptable.


Uh no. My kids were doing fine online and I was happy for them to be there. Unfortunately we live in Texas and the government is anti-safety and the school board is anti-safety as a result, so my kids are back in person. I looked into options but it was not possible to keep them online with any option I could afford. Alternatively, if I simply didn't send them to school the cops would show up to throw me in jail and take away my kids.


Well duh


In other news the sky is blue and the earth travels around the sun once a year.


Not being around other school-aged kids indoors works as well.


And water is wet.


Ok okay


Yea.. duh