Biden administration privately says it won’t relax school mask recommendation

Biden administration privately says it won’t relax school mask recommendation
Image: nunosilvaphotography/Shutterstock

Reason Magazine reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will not change their guidance instructing schools to mandate masks for  students. Reason obtained audio of a closed-door Congressional committee briefing.

“The CDC provides guidance,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says in the recording. “Our guidance currently is that masking should happen in all schools right now.”

The Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held the briefing, which hosted Walensky, White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci, and HHS Assistant Secretary Dawn O’Connell.

Congress members criticized the CDC’s guidance as confusing and unrealistic. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R–WA) challenged Walensky on the purported science behind school mask mandates, pointing out that the Arizona study frequently touted by the CDC in support of requiring kids to wear masks has been thoroughly shredded by The Atlantic.

“What we see in the U.S. is an outlier as it relates to the mask mandate for our children to go to school,” the Congresswoman observed. “[The World Health Organization and UNICEF] have both recommended against masking for kids under the age of five because it’s going to do more harm than good. For children ages 6 to 11, they think that we should be considering other factors like learning and social development. My question today, my one question, is Dr. Walensky, will you commit to update your guidance by Friday to allow children in person without the burden of masks?”

But Walensky refused to commit to any timetable for ending school mask mandates. She conceded the “limitations” of the Arizona study, as well as other reports the CDC has cited to justify its guidance, but ruled out any near-term changes on school-masking recommendations.

“They all have limitations, and that’s important to recognize because we are not randomizing schools,” she argued. “We have to control for whether there are windows, ventilation, and other activities happening outside of these schools. So all of these studies have limitations. But they are for the most part uniformly pointing to that when there’s a lot of disease out there, the masks are preventing that disease and preventing that transmission and because of that we are able to keep our schools open.”

Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) asked the CDC head how she could justify the agency’s guidance in favor of mandating masks.

“Explain why we need to keep allowing school districts to impose a mask mandate on kids,” he asked.

In response, Walensky argued the CDC’s guidance was justified, but also conceded—perhaps with some frustration—that local jurisdictions were free to disregard it.

“I will also say that guidance is just guidance, and all of these decisions, we’ve continued to say, have to be made at the local level,” she noted. “As cases come down dramatically, we have deferred our guidance to the local jurisdictions.”

Given that many jurisdictions are waiting for the CDC’s permission to relax masking requirements— some areas have local legislation that applies CDC guidance by reference to the schools —this answer did not satisfy members. “That’s not acceptable,” said Palmer.

Even some Democrats were concerned. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) was puzzled that the CDC could not be clearer about what triggers for masking were justified.

“You hear the word confusion over and over again,” said Eshoo. “But here’s another one for you: masking. You know where I live in the Bay Area, the peninsula in the heart of Silicon Valley? Schools, cities, towns, counties: you’re saying one thing, and they’re doing something else. And this is a highly educated area, too. I trust our public health officials here. So my first question and my second point to you, Dr. Walensky, why do we have to be on two different tracks? Isn’t there some kind of public health consensus about this?”

Walensky replied by repeating the national figures, but Eshoo interjected: “When you use the national figures, that’s not a snapshot of where we are, so can you take that into consideration as you’re giving me an answer?”

Walensky’s answer was confusing. “We know that all of these decisions have to be made at the jurisdictional level. So not only do we report the national data, but we have to report them at the jurisdictional level, because we know that we ask the jurisdictions to look at their local context, to look at their local cases, to look at how their hospitals are doing, to look at their local death rates. And that is exactly what I think is happening across the country in a phased way. Many different policies are rolling out. Some are saying they’re removing masks. Now some are saying they’re removing masks at the end of the month. Some say we’re removing masks at the end of the month, but not yet for schools. And so this is really happening at the jurisdictional level. And what we’re recommending is that given right now, where we are for cases, that the masks should still stay on.”

Eshoo replied skeptically, noting that people were checking the CDC website to try to figure out which policies were applicable based on their local jurisdictions’ figures.

“I think that’s confusing, and I do think that it puts a dent in CDC credibility,” said Eshoo. “Credibility is everything in this. Who are you going to pay attention to? So, I mean, it goes to that and I think it’s troubling. They’re making it sound as if, you know, all of these local entities, public health directors, whatever, are not paying attention to the CDC. That’s the way it looks to me. All right? That’s the way it looks. That’s the way it sounds. So I don’t know. What should I tell my constituents? Oh, look at their website. I don’t think that’s a good answer, honestly.”

Republicans questioned Fauci about the National Institute for Health (NIH) grant that funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) asked Walensky about the CDC’s refusal to recognize immunity acquired from a previous infection as legitimately protective. He observed that given recent findings, so-called natural immunity should count in place of vaccination.

“During the delta surge, case rates for those who had previous infection and no vaccination were substantially lower, four- to fivefold lower, than those who were only vaccinated,” said Joyce. “Hospital rates followed a similar pattern. Given these findings, will the CDC commit to updating the guidance to recognize the value of natural immunity? And will you advocate to alter the [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] vaccine mandate for health workers, which you pointed out right now are gravely affected by COVID-19, so that natural immunity will be recognized as satisfying the requirement in order to ease the pressure on health care staffing throughout the United States?”

Walensky indicated she did not support that change.

“Thank you for that question and for recognizing our work and trying to understand the importance of infection and immunity,” she said. “We published that report in [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] and actually late last year, we also published a scientific proof that demonstrated a review of dozens of papers on the importance and the and the impact of infection-induced immunity. Two key limitations from that report were that they were done during the delta surge. All of these data were collected during the delta surge and did not reflect omicron, which we now know requires a higher level of immunity. And secondly, that they did not reflect the period of time when boosters were available. People were not necessarily up to date with their vaccines, and the vaccines had actually likely been waning.”

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.