Do parents of small children need to make them wear masks? Do they need to get them vaccinated? These are important questions many parents face today.

To be sure, the government has been guilty of mixed messaging. Healthcare officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky have been all over the map with their advice and it certainly looks like their messaging has been influenced more by politics than science.

As of now, masks are still required for small children over the age of two on airlines, public transportation systems, airports, some schools, and even summer camps. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Ashley McGuire, mother and writer, complains about her nine-year-old daughter who was forced to wear a mask in 98-degree heat while playing tennis at a summer camp run by the prestigious Sidwell Friends School of Washington, D.C., formerly attended by President Obama’s children. Her daughter nearly passed out. This is insanity!

The latest CDC guidelines call for schools to be open in the fall, but still insist children who are not vaccinated wear masks. Since vaccines are not authorized for children under the age of 12 years, that means all younger children still must wear masks. Is this really necessary?

The risks for children getting Covid-19 are very low. New information tells us they are even lower than previously concluded. Denise Roland, writing in The Wall Street Journal, reports on the latest data. Some 99.995% of the 469,982 children in England who were infected during the year and were examined by researchers survived, one study found. Among the 61 child deaths linked to a positive Covid-19 test in England, 25 were actually caused by the illness, the study found. We don’t know if they had other co-morbidities.

This study is an important addition to the data used to make healthcare policy. “Having a larger and larger database . . . adds a lot to our ability to make important decisions,” said Rick Malley, an infectious disease specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

There is some risk with any vaccine. The current Covid-19 vaccines have shown remarkable efficacy and safety, but there are exceptions. There have been some reports of inflammatory conditions of the heart in some adolescents. This has caused some concern with parents of children of all ages. Advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have urged vaccination, saying the benefits outweigh the risks.

The Biden administration is currently advocating door-to-door promotion of the vaccines to get reluctant Americans to accept vaccination. It remains to be seen if they will do the same thing for children if vaccines are approved for them.

The real question at this point in the pandemic is “What role should the government be playing in the decision-making of adults and parents of children?” By now every adult who wants to get vaccinated has had ample opportunity to do so. Any continued hesitancy is a matter of personal choice, and in some cases, doctor’s advice. While I am a strong advocate for vaccination of those who are most vulnerable – especially the elderly and those with co-morbidities such as diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and obesity – I also believe everyone has the right to make their own decision.

Just as the CDC mentioned above, the decision to get vaccinated is a risk-benefits decision. For those whose risk is high, the benefits are great and they should get vaccinated. For those whose risk is low, like the young – especially very young, the benefits may be too little to justify the risks of the vaccines. The same is true for wearing masks. Small children wearing masks certainly does not make sense in any reasonable risk-benefits analysis. The harmful effects of reduced oxygen and increased carbon dioxide levels surely outweigh any benefits of wearing masks to prevent Covid-19 infection. It’s time to let people make their own decisions. It’s time to let science, not politics, influence those decisions.

Most public schools were shut down last year. Everyone knows this wasn’t good for children, but what harm was actually done? Studies have confirmed our worst fears about rising rates of suicide, drug abuse, and emotional illness, but what about the loss of education? Now we know how bad that was, too.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reports a new analysis done by McKinsey and Company which quantifies the extent of the harm to education of our children. The consulting firm examined spring 2021 test results for 1.6 million students in grades 1 through 6 across the country, then compared their performance with that of similar students pre-pandemic. They discovered that the pandemic-era children were, on average, about four months behind in reading and five months behind in math.

As bleak as those numbers are, McKinsey says these numbers, “likely represent an optimistic scenario.” The results measure “outcomes for students who took interim assessments in the spring in a school building – and thus excludes students who remained remote throughout the entire school year, and who may have experienced the most disruption to their schooling.” 

Who is most affected by this harm?

The McKinsey study found that children in majority black schools ended the school year a full six months behind in math and reading on average. Students in schools where the average household income was below $25,000 were seven months behind in math and six months behind in reading.

McKinsey went on to note that “students who move on to the next grade unprepared are missing key building blocks of knowledge that are necessary for success,” and “students who repeat a year are much less likely to complete high school” and attend college. Without “immediate and sustained interventions,” the report predicts the lost learning could slash lifetime earnings by $49,000 to $61,000 on average. The WSJ believes these numbers are probably too low and the damage will be worse than average for millions.

Who is most responsible for this tragic undereducation of our children?

The McKinsey study doesn’t place the blame on anyone but the WSJ editors do. They blame the teachers unions calling them “the main architects of this calamity by first refusing to return to the classroom, then insisting on watered-down schedules. The data company Burbio found that, by the end of the spring semester, most students could attend school at least part-time. But due to union demands, the return sometimes amounted to a few days or hours of in-person learning a week.” 

Who is responsible for giving the teachers unions this amount of influence?

President Joe Biden, and his teachers union first lady, are solid supporters of the teachers unions. During his presidential campaign, Biden said to the teachers unions, “When we win this election, we’re going to get the support you need and the respect you deserve. You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an NEA member in the White House. And if I’m not listening, I’m going to be sleeping alone in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

In February of 2021, when schools were eager to reopen, new CDC Director Rochelle Walensky announced a recent study by her institute found schools were safe to reopen without vaccinating the teachers. But the White House pushed back against this scientific study – because the teachers unions didn’t approve. Walensky quickly learned that science takes a back seat to political agendas in this White House.

The WSJ notes many affluent parents can pay for tutors or private schools and avoid these tragic undereducation outcomes. But poorer children don’t have such options. They say the solution is more school choice options. I couldn’t agree more.