Connect with us

News

Large CDC Study Says School Mask Mandates Not Effective

A large study sponsored by the CDC found that masking children in schools is not an effective means of mitigating the virus.

Published

on

A large study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control found that masking children in schools is not an effective means of mitigating the spread of the coronavirus.

The study found that there were no higher rates of COVID transmission in schools without a mask mandate than there were at schools with such requirements.

Per the study:

The study, which analyzed some 90,000 elementary students in 169 Georgia schools from November 16 to December 11, found that there was no statistically significant difference in schools that required students to wear masks compared to schools where masks were optional.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional,” the CDC said. “This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements.”

As New York magazine’s David Zweig noted, these findings, as well as other statistically insignificant preventive measures, “cast doubt on the impact of many of the most common mitigation measures in American schools.”

Despite this finding, schools in liberal enclaves continue to force children into dangerous masking requirements.

The CDC’s findings on masks and other preventive measures would not be particularly noteworthy or controversial outside the US. As New York magazine noted, many European nations have exempted students from mask mandates—including the UK, all of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and even France and Italy—though with varying age cutoffs. The results have not been dire.

“Conspicuously, there’s no evidence of more outbreaks in schools in those countries relative to schools in the U.S., where the solid majority of kids wore masks for an entire academic year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future,” wrote Zweig. “These countries, along with the World Health Organization, whose child-masking guidance differs substantially from the CDC’s recommendations, have explicitly recognized that the decision to mask students carries with it potential academic and social harms for children and may lack a clear benefit.”

Liberals do not follow any science. It’s politics all the way through.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

News

Dem-Run City Adds Stunning New Stipulation to Second Amendment

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement. 

Published

on

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it.

They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed.

And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds.

The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021.

“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week.

The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent:

The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates.

“Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing,” he added.

On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported.

“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement.

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it. They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed. And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds. The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California. A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules. The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021. “The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week. The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent: The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates. “Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common…

Continue Reading

News

Puffed-Up Putin Issues Threat Against US and NATO Over Ukraine Invasion

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check. 

Published

on

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin.

The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability.

He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community.

Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses.

“If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported.

And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special forces guys — and they’re inside Ukraine already — to topple this Zelensky government. That’s also an option.”

“I have a high level of confidence Putin will do something,” Hoffman added. “As far as what that is, I’m not even sure if Putin has decided yet.”

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check.

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin. The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability. He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community. Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive. The U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses. “If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported. And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure: Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week