Many have questioned school closings, and especially the mask mandates for schoolchildren, because of the low infection rates and less mild illness in the young, and these strict measures seem more designed to protect teachers fearing infection themselves. Recent studies are emerging suggesting there are many harmful consequences among children of the pandemic policies, including increased developmental delays for both cognitive and motor functions, impaired speech and social development, and even lowered IQ scores.

All the things you mention are happening and more. There are increased fears and anxiety from the stressful emotions created by the sense of isolation from putting masks on everyone, and all of the school closings and social distancing measures are a huge contributor to things like increased suicidal thoughts. The psychological harm is considerable. We have recounted for you many ways that children can do well with vaccination, for the most part, particularly if they are older children, and there are other circumstances to consider, as in families that are multigenerational where having many people in the household, including children, increases the risk to the aged who may be living with them, and if that is the case, will be at increased risk, eventually, of exposure to the virus. So as always, one size does not fit all in terms of solutions. But it is clear that masks that are tolerable for any period of time are only marginally effective, but yet can cause all of the downside you recount, through impairing communication and smooth functioning and the clarity being impaired, to interfere with learning and adjustment, and so on. It is a high price to pay for a small, if any, benefit from mask wearing. Similarly, school closure makes no sense given that children are not a large vector for the virus in any circumstances, and really pose no inordinate danger to their teachers. There are always potentials for transmission so the risk can never be zero, but school closures on a mass scale will cause much greater personal and social arm than whatever might happen from a theoretical increase in viral transmission and infections that might result with no attempts at mitigation. This is why we have not endorsed vaccination of very young children, that the risks have not been fully worked out, and when the benefit becomes less and less because of the resilience of the young, it is foolhardy to impose draconian mandates on people of all ages without regard to risk and the unknowns, especially for the young. So in the same way we are against lockdowns and vaccine mandates, we are against mask mandates also. In that way, the state will not be harming people by decree and the responsibility will be shifted to the individual to assess their risk level based on age, the presence of comorbid health problems, and other risk factors. That would be a saner and inarguably, a fairer approach that honors personal sovereignty. Even though people are a risk to others, potentially, that is simply the price of being human in that human culture. You cannot simply stop living, stop interacting, and create perfect isolation without destroying the fabric of society, as the consequences will be much, much, greater than widespread illness in the lost livelihoods and the lifelong struggles that might not ever be overcome in the course of a lifetime, as well as mass deaths from many secondary consequences of living in a world that is distorted, limiting, and punitive. In short, the cure should not be worse than the disease, and when it is, you can rightly question any policy that is greatly harmful, as it will most likely have a sinister origin to create and maintain it.