There's another problem with the article's argument. It contends that the many studies on mask effectiveness have various shortcomings such as not being specific to kids, or having vaccination rates as a confounding variable. And therefore, we should not have mask mandates (despite the evidence that they work, however non-specific to school children they may be).

But its reason for concluding that children should not wear masks is because of all of these issues that themselves aren't well studied or understood by the article's own admission:

> Despite how widespread all-day masking of children in school is, the short-term and long-term consequences of this practice are not well understood, in part because no one has successfully collected large-scale systematic data and few researchers have tried.

Why in this case should the serious lack of evidence for the risks of masking children outweigh the greater-but-imperfect evidence for the risks of increased transmission of Covid by not masking children? It seems like a double-standard allowing the author to arrive at their desired conclusion.