Home adverse reaction Why are kids to be masked in schools if they don’t get...

Why are kids to be masked in schools if they don’t get COVID? [Video]


Fox News host Bret Baier conducted a 21 minute long interview with CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. We covered the first half of this interview which included quite a bombshell admission that the virus could potentially mutate to the point where it beats the vaccines. We also heard Dr. Walensky make some other fairly honest and heartfelt points.

However, at other times, she appears to be deliberately vague. She refused to answer “when can we expect to get back to normal – no masking at all”, by covering up the answer in obfuscating language. She similarly was a bit vague about this inefficacy worry, though some of her reasoning was logical, her conclusions appeared to reflect random panic as applied to dealing with COVID-19. Baier noted that the idea the CDC seems to have is to totally kill / eradicate the virus, which he pointed out was different, far different, that the original idea of stopping or slowing its spread.

The second half of the interview (starting at timestamp [9:45]) leans heavily on the matter of kids in school when the fall term opens, and this brought up a very major contrast: Since when are we now talking about children getting COVID-19? For the longest time, the narrative has been that children do not get this disease, only adults and especially older folks!

This is an example of lose-lose rhetoric that starts out dishonest and then gets convoluted trying to cover its own ass. It is illogical to assume that children simply never get COVID-19. They may shake it off much more quickly than adults do, but they get it occasionally.

Time stamp [12:40] begins this section. A viewer named Josh puts forth a pointed question: why are kids as young as three years old being required to wear masks in school?

This situation that this question puts forth is simply outrageous. I have a two-year old daughter. Putting a mask on her fact would be pointless and stupid. I do not know if something radically changes at age three, but what is the damned good reason that any child has to endure these awful things?

And yes, that is an opinion borne of experience: when I wear a mask, I cannot breathe. I also cannot see (I wear glasses which instantly fog up in humid Russia), and breathing my own hot sticky air back is something likely to truly make me sick enough to throw up all over myself and anybody who gets near me. Why would I do this to a child? We even know of children who have died from wearing a mask and being unable to breathe enough to survive after physical exertion. Fact checkers be damned, these reports indicated both come from China, but there are other reports to be found by anyone wanting to look.

Is COVID so dangerous that they must wear a mask? The doctor appears to get vague as hell here, unfortunately:

Dr. Walensky: First of all, I have three kids myself, and I completely understand: we want our kids back in school, and that is so very important. Over the summer we have had numerous summer school outbreaks that have occurred when masks are not worn. We have had jurisdictions that have had to close schools because there are so many clusters happening in the school system. So my primary goal is to get all our kids back, in person, safely, for full-time learning. And to do so, and to be able to keep the schools open and to prevent those clusters from happening in school, right now the best way to do that is to have everybody masked because we do have disease in the community, and hopefully as we have vaccinations for kids and less disease in the community, we will be able to scale back on the mask wearing.

My interruption: Really?! What happened to kids not getting COVID-19? Is that what she means? I notice that she does not actually mention COVID through this answer, but instead talks vaguely, as about “immuno-compromised” people and “a lot of disease” but I strangely hear nothing about COVID. Why is this?

More, when Bret then asks for specific data on this – after all, Dr. Walensky gives the impression that this sickness is widespread with her “numerous” and “so many” and “jurisdictions that have had to close their schools” remarks, indicating that this is affecting a great many people. But when he asks her about this, what do we get? Let’s listen and look at [14:08] onward:

Bret Baier: But those are cases, right? Those aren’t hospitalizations, and those aren’t deaths. Do you have a percentage of kids, young kids’, hospitalizations and deaths?

Dr. Walensky: (Stammering a bit) You know, we are following that very carefully. What I will say is that certainly, the kids do better than adults do. The older people, the more hospitalizations have occurred in demographics that are over the age of 65. But we are seeing illness in some kids who get… umm, who get… COVID. And it’s illness at the rates or even higher than the rates of influenza. So, in my mind it’s a vaccine-preventable disease. We want to make sure that our kids stay in school, wearing a mask, and then, when the vaccines – should the vaccines become available for our children, vaccinate them to keep them safe and healthy.

Another interruption: What the hell did she just say?! The rate of influenza is listed as “between 20 and 30 percent annually” by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. So, is Dr. Walensky talking about a 25% or higher COVID-19 contraction rate among children? That is sky-high considering that it is held to be more common in adults, and I do not presently know that one in four of all the people I know, adult or child, have come down with COVID-19.

The second surprising statement in this remark is “should the vaccines become available” – apparently COVID-19 vaccines are not available for children? Or was the teenager who was impaired with Guillian-Barre Syndrome after his first shot a warning sign?

The rest of this interview reveals the NEA teachers’ union’s great power in directing the CDC. When asked what the scientific basis is for masking the kids, Dr. Walensky does not offer hard data, but just rhetoric that appears scientific. She is also clearly uncomfortable with the question, though she is savvy enough to parry fairly well.

Another great question (Bret Baier deserves some credit here; he covers many of the important bases in this interview!) deals with the US policy concerning illegal immigration, where many illegals crossing the Texas – Mexico border have COVID and are flown to various places in the US without any mitigation or treatment of COVID, all the while travel of US citizens to Europe and other places is banned because of the fear of the self-same COVID that illegals are bringing with them into the country, totally unchecked.

Dr. Walensky avoids this question as well. She demurs, suggesting that the high infection rates of COVID on and along the southern border are NOT related to the high rate of infection of people crossing the border illegally. But then, she runs back to the “spend our time getting our communities vaccinated…” talking point as quickly as possible.

Perhaps this is because the CDC and Joe Biden the Evil Grandpa Imposter are cozy with one another, and to criticize the border is to criticize the Imposter and his handlers… and her own.

Finally, Mr. Baier asks what vaccine is best against Delta, a question for which the doctor has no clear answer. But with a smile she runs back to “get vaccinated!” talk and waxes effulgent about how the US has three possible vaccines to make use of. She also has no information about what might the results be of mixing vaccines, as in a first shot from Pfizer and a second from Moderna, for example.

Here as in several other questions reported here and in our other piece, when specific hard data is asked for, we do not get it from Dr. Walensky. The only thing that might be taken for hard data – the “rate of infection is the same as that of influenza or higher” may have been the doctor trying to pull a rhetorical rabbit out of her hat, because if we were talking anywhere about even as much as a twenty percent infection rate across ANY sector of our population, this would be blockbuster news and a HUGE problem.

Think about it.

Bret did, and he came back to this point: The CDC is supposed to be about science, so where is the data? he wonders at [18:52]: It has been 170 million people, don’t you have a lot of data by now?

Dr. Walensky pings the FDA as having data and manages to slide by without an answer. This is most regrettable.

The tragedy of this interview is that in some places, (I believe) the doctor was surprisingly honest. Maybe this is a way for her to try to squeak out some truth – and I get the sense that Dr. Walensky is a good person, and a sincere one. Her discomfort when pressed for specific data suggests that she is under orders not to disclose information that is politically motivated, not scientifically derived. That is my sense about her. Maybe I am wrong.

Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here