> How is this extreme and irrational assumption about "unable" supported?
How is my assumption 'extreme and irrational'?
I'm sure parents do not have their masks on at home either.
But most people outdoors were wearing masks. Relatives, grandparents etc were NOT encouraged to visit, but if they did they should take precautions - that would be wearing masks.
Young children develop by seeing people - they look to faces. A face with a mask on cannot be read by a child. It can't be anything but harmful. I don't see what's to debate about this, but if you want to explain how this is a good or neutral thing - please make an argument.
If I was to push further, preventing normal interactions is a form of child abuse. But then I also think that piercing a child's ears or damaging their body is also abuse - and this isn't a popular view either, albeit I think this too is self-evident.
How is my assumption 'extreme and irrational'?
I'm sure parents do not have their masks on at home either.
But most people outdoors were wearing masks. Relatives, grandparents etc were NOT encouraged to visit, but if they did they should take precautions - that would be wearing masks.
Young children develop by seeing people - they look to faces. A face with a mask on cannot be read by a child. It can't be anything but harmful. I don't see what's to debate about this, but if you want to explain how this is a good or neutral thing - please make an argument.
If I was to push further, preventing normal interactions is a form of child abuse. But then I also think that piercing a child's ears or damaging their body is also abuse - and this isn't a popular view either, albeit I think this too is self-evident.