Should be “a new, urgent, substantiated unique recognition of the impact of long-term use” of masks on children under 12 years are “the light of the criteria established by the Who”. Because “taxation is not justified to a device such as the DPI on schoolchildren, young assumes the burden for the authority of the issuer to scientifically prove that the use does not have the harmful impact on the psycho-physical health of the recipients.” It was written by the president of the Third Section of the State Council of the Franco Frattini in a decree multi-member with which suspends the obligation for a little girl, to breathing difficulties, to wear the mask.
The exemptions provided for by the ministry
In fact, the ministry of Education regulations already provide for the possibility for people with very fragile, to suspend the obligation of the mask. But the decision of the Council of State seems to open a breach in a wall which seemed to have defined the safety rules at school in no uncertain terms, after the first phase of uncertainty. In August, the technical-scientific Committee had determined that it could stand at the counter without the mask, as long as there was the distance of a meter between the rhymes in the buccal. A choice that, faced with the onset of the outbreaks in the autumn, had been revised: November 6, it was determined that all students, from six years and then, they would have had to take the mask always, even to the tour “except for children under the age of six, and for individuals with illnesses or disabilities that are incompatible with the use of the mask”. A rule to limit the spread of the dangerous outbreaks in the classrooms and to limit the quarantines.
the line of The ombudsman for Children
But now it seems the emergence of a new line, that might question the choice. To mark there had already been some associations of parents, and then, last week, the ombudsman for Childhood and Adolescence of Tuscany, Camilla White, who sent a letter to the new prime minister, Mario Draghi, to report that “practical application” of the Prime minister-that have been going on “to counter and contain the spread of the virus Covid-19”, at last the prime minister’s Decree of 14 January last, “are resulting in substantial disruption in the school population. In particular, the guardian reports that “with regard to persons of minor age, I have received and continue to receive from parents’ reports with which to express the heartfelt, their strong dissent, and the deep concern for the compulsory use of masks in the schools where the teaching and education takes place in the presence”.
In his letter to the Dragons, White explains that according to the parents, “the long-term use in the situation of stability of the aforesaid devices of individual protection of the respiratory tract, such as during the in-class lectures, which would result in serious adverse effects on both physical and psychological”. The parents observed that “having to inhale for several hours while remaining almost fermi air gap of the lungs, as well as to determine the states of malaise linked to respiratory distress, may lead to a further serious risk to subjects infected but asymptomatic”. Additionally, the “psychological” parents argue that “the continued presence of the masks on the face, by inhibiting free expression and open communication, go have a negative impact on the balance of minors, have been widely compromised in this period of emergency by the absence of contacts and social relations”.
See also
the School, masks, also the bench from six years and up: who is the full-time mid-day needs to change
the rules for The masks to school: surgical or cloth? When to wear it?
Masks “pant” at school: why are loathed by students
What are the risks of contagion from the Coronavirus to school?
the School, infections and templates: confusion about the rules. Jay: not quit
Cts: at school by six years, all with the mask. Is it just for the query
Templates, class, chaos in Sicily and the region of Lazio. And Ravenna is the Common
The doubts between well-being and prudence
Already, the Lazio regional administrative court ruled on the issue. With the decision no. 2012/2021, the court has “declared to be incidental to the illegality of the art. 1, paragraph 9 (s) of the prime minister’s Decree of 3 November 2020 for defect investigation and justification, on the ground that the imposition of generalised of the obligation to wear masks is not in line with the principle of adequacy and proportionality that with that precaution in relation to the risks and dangers to which the measure could expose children”. An indirect confirmation of the concerns about the effects of the mask with the variants of the disease and the impact on segments of the population, more young and it may be prudent to loosen the obligation? Our special interactive shows, such as the use of the mask, even better if Ffp2, greatly reduces the possibility of infecting in the classroom.
