Open Letter to The New Zealand Principals' Federation

On the Ministry of Education requesting that the NZPF enforce mask wearing.

from: Jodie Bruning

to: office@nzpf.ac.nz

date: 24 Jul 2022, 15:07

subject: Mask wearing in educational environments

CC’d to the The New Zealand Principals' Federation executive.

July 24, 2022.

Open letter to New Zealand school principals.

Re: Mask wearing in educational environments

The Ministry of Education has recently sent out information urging that teachers ‘enforce’ mask wearing in schools.

Covid-19: Government changes position on masks in schools again, 'enforcement' advice issued

This communication prompts questions that straddle science, ethics and risk, all of which are rarely black and white. Rather they are complex, uncertain and ambiguous. Should children and young people who are more at risk of depression, anxiety and bacterial infection, than from hospitalisation and death from COVID-19, be forced to wear a mask daily? Should children and young people who have experienced COVID-19, who are otherwise healthy, be forced to wear a mask daily? Who in the Ministry of Education has sufficient authority and autonomy to ask such questions?

Questions of principles and ethics are important. The Ministry of Health have never convened bioethics committees to discuss complex issues such as this, nor have they reviewed the literature on masking.

While it is Jan Tinetti who is fronting the enforcement call, the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins was previously Minister for COVID-19 Response. He has been responsible for, and the signatory to, the vast majority of legal rules (Orders) mandating masks and vaccination.

Where are the balanced reviews to establish cost-benefit, to understand efficacy and risk?

Hipkins has declined to respond to an OIA request, which asks where the scientific and peer reviewed literature which supports his decision-making is held. As principals will understand, public health and education in complex interconnected environments, require a solid evidence base if they are to affect the lives of real people. Currently, there is no evidence that Minister Hipkins has a solid evidence base to support mandates, particularly as the modelling scenarios have failed to be replicated in the real world.

The latest advice to principals, including on He Pitopito Kōrero is taken in absence of sound, methodologically reviewed evidence. The Ministry of Health has not conducted reviews of the scientific literature, whether to consider and understand the efficacy – prevention of hospitalisation and death; or safety – such as - what are the adverse outcomes from all day masking? Such work would demonstrate that principles of administrative law are taken into account, in order to underpin policy. Yet there are no wide ranging analyses considering the bioethics of such policy.

Accountability is important. You may remember that when masks were mandated at the commencement of the educational year, that over this time infection rates spiked. I have previously discussed the failure of the legacy media to acknowledge question this policy ‘fail’.

Where are the ethics considerations?

It's arguable that enforcement, whether implicitly through social pressure or explicitly, is scientifically and ethically questionable. Firstly, the majority of children and young people are not at risk for severe COVID-19; secondly, the evidence that masks work in community settings (i.e. people who are not at risk for hospitalisation and death are forced to wear masks) can only be supplied by cherry-picking data.

After two years, it is evident that infection is not a primary predictor of hospitalisation and death. Age and multimorbid status place people at different risk. It’s well known that severity stratifies to age and health status, yet policy to improve health measures to ensure the most vulnerable and deprived can access at home treatments to limit viral replication, have been sidelined in this pandemic.

Yet community-wide masking infers that infection is the main driver of hospitalisation and death. In fact data, suggests mask wearing is also a poor predictor of SARS-COV-2 infection in the US. The same inconsistent effect has been found in Europe.  It’s well recognised that as infectivity viral infection increases, pathogenicity decreases. Mask wearing might work in low transmission environments, but not where infection is everywhere.

Every teacher, every principal understands, that risk in for non-communicable and communicable disease is based on family income, culture, and diet. This includes intergenerational policy shifts which privilege some while excluding or burdening others. Yet the government continues to rely on narrow mask, test, isolate and vaccinate narratives to keep the determinants of health outside the picture.

I have discussed, this at length, in New Zealand, science policy & COVID-19. Lessons for the next pandemic. This Rumble video discusses what actions could be taken to protect our most vulnerable groups, our aged and infirm, and those with multiple complex health conditions. Suggestions largely concern lowering the barriers for low-income groups to access nutrition and medical treatments at home. Medical doctors have demonstrated that such shifts can dramatically reduce hospitalisation and death risk. Schools have long borne the brunt of social, economic, medical and political systems that consider all have equal capabilities and experience equal treatment. Principals know this is far from correct.

Side effects from constant mask wearing.

Past reviews of the literature have documented the potential for a broad swathe of side effects to arise from mask wearing. Masks pose a particular challenge for the hearing impaired. Masks increase exposures to environmental chemicals. The authors of a recent paper found that masks increase exposure to bacteria and fungi and recommended that ‘immunocompromised people should avoid repeated use of masks to prevent microbial infection.’ Ironically, a similar pattern of exposure to all day humidity, may result in increased risk for COVID-19 due to prolonged exposure to contained viruses in imperfectly sealed environments, which must be expected in reluctantly enforced environments.

Masking impairs respiration and increases potential for headaches and can impact problem solving capacity. Deoxygenation continues to be a real risk, with the N95 masks having similar filtration effectiveness to FFP2 masks. Low oxygen, produced by wearing these masks come with a inter-related physiological risks, which healthy young people do not need to be exposed to. Young people are exposed to higher CO2 concentrations from mask wearing. A recent paper noted that the ‘The CO2 concentration was significantly higher among minors and the subjects with high respiratory rate.’

Asking schools to ‘enforce’ tacit acknowledgement policy has no basis in law?

The action by the Ministry of Education asking schools to enforce such rules, without the Ministry issuing formal mandates constitutes a tacit acknowledgement that the request lacks an evidential basis. In addition, and likely, the Ministry of Education may consider that such a rule would not stand up in a court of law. Frankly, because such enforcement would be arbitrary and unfounded.

Critical discussion of COVID-19 policy, and investigative journalism that would inform the public have been markedly absent, which is why critics such as myself must publish offshore. There’s blanket reluctance to look at cost-benefit – and marginal outcome – because, well, the SARS-COV-2 is highly infectious and small differences from mask wearing don’t – and can’t - make much difference over time.

I urge principals to gently, but firmly and persistently, refuse to enforce masking in schools.

​Kind regards | Ngā mihi

Jodie R Bruning. MA (Sociology). Republished on JRBruning.Substack.com