Barbara H. Peterson

On December 5,2021, I received the following from my employer, OCDC:

Noted to Staff 

December 5, 2021

1.     It is official!  The new Head Start Performance Standard addressing face coverings for staff and students and mandated vaccination has now been published in the Federal Register.  There are different implementation dates for these two directives.  Students age two years and older are to wear masks while inside except for napping, eating, and outside and staff are to wear masks in the buildings.  .

Vaccinated staff and students do not need to wear masks while outside and staff maintain physical distancing. The mandate to wear face coverings/masks is to be implemented immediately.  However, OCDC is working to develop the protocol, talk with parents about this directive, orient staff to the policy and then implementation will occur.  Since OCDC is about to close for the holidays, this new protocol will be implement in January.  OCDC will provide masks for the children instead of having masks brought from home.  Home supplied masking have many opportunities for cross contamination and would divert teacher time from education to pronounced mask monitoring. 

Vaccination for COVID 19 is mandated for all those interfacing with children and those who are employed by Head Start. The only exemptions available is for medical or religious reasons.  Those with exemptions will be required to COVID test weekly.  Vaccinations are due by January 31, 2022.  

More specific information will be shared with staff as the protocols and communication tools are updated.


When asked if this includes children riding the bus, the answer was YES.

This is completely unacceptable and what I consider child abuse. The fact that an organization supposedly created to care for young children who are pre-school age is mandating a practice that injures them is abhorrent.

Therefore, I have drawn a line in the sand. I will not support or contribute in any way to abusing children. My route carries children who are 2 years of age, and I WILL NOT COMPLY.

The following is my response to management. CO2 levels are specifically addressed in this letter. There are other issues such as impairment of cognitive development, which is included in the attached JAMA report.

My Response:

I will be forwarding the following to OSHA as well. Studies on mask wearing for children places CO2 levels at well above the safety limit according to OSHA regulations. My children are on the bus for up to one hour per trip. Therefore, according to the study, their CO2 levels will be well past the safety limit as defined by OSHA if they are required to wear masks.

OSHA Rules on CO2 Levels:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas (36). It is a product of completed carbon combustion and the by-product of biological respiration. ASHRAE states that CO2 concentrations in acceptable out[1]door air typically range from 300-500 ppm. Adverse health effects from CO2 may occur since it is an asphyxiant gas. At concentrations above 15,000 ppm, some loss of mental acuity has been noted (36). The OSHA PEL is 5,000 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. The CO2 levels can be used as a rough indicator of the effectiveness of ventilation (26), and excessive population density in a structure. CO2 increases in buildings with higher occupant densities, and is diluted and removed from buildings based on outdoor air ventilation rates. Therefore, examining levels of CO2 in indoor air can reveal information regarding occupant densities and outdoor air ventilation rates. High CO2 levels may indicate a problem with overcrowding or inadequate outdoor air ventilation rates. Carbon Dioxide Poisoning – Symptoms CO2, a by-product of normal cell function, is removed from the body via the lungs in the exhaled air. Exposure to high levels of CO2 can increase the amount of this gas in the blood, which is referred to as hypercapnia or hypercarbia. As the severity of hypercapnia increases, more symptoms ranging from headache to unconsciousness appear, and it can also lead to death (36, 37).

Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings (

CO2 Randomized Clinical Trial Results from JAMA: 

From: “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children, A Randomized Clinical Trial”

The normal content of carbon dioxide in the open is about 0.04% by volume (ie, 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable…the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume. The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child’s carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm. [emphasis added]…

Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak.1,2 The question whether nose and mouth covering increases carbon dioxide in inhaled air is crucial. A large-scale survey3 in Germany of adverse effects in parents and children using data of 25 930 children has shown that 68% of the participating children had problems when wearing nose and mouth coverings.



The mean (SD) age of the children was 10.7 (2.6) years (range, 6-17 years), and there were 20 girls and 25 boys. Measurement results are presented in the Table. We checked potential associations with outcome. Only age was associated with carbon dioxide content in inhaled air (y = 1.9867 – 0.0555 × x; r = –0.39; P = .008; Figure). Hence, we added age as a continuous covariate to the model. This revealed an association (partial η2 = 0.43; P < .001). Contrasts showed that this was attributable to the difference between the baseline value and the values of both masks jointly. Contrasts between the 2 types of masks were not significant. We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes.3 The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume.4 The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child’s carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm.​

Barbara H. Peterson 2021

Tags: , , ,

3 Responses to “Oregon Child Development Coalition OCDC Mandates Masks for 2 Year Old Children”

  1. RonJeka says:

    Pure evil and ignorance forcing children to wear harmful masks. German Neurologist On Face Masks: ‘Oxygen Deprivation Causes Permanent Neurological Damage’ “For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain, is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active.

    To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.”

  2. Tazz says:

    This is total child abuse…#DontComply,home school the children and #fightBack

  3. Why not just snuff the kids by putting plastic bags over their heads quick way to get rid of useless eaters the sooner the better.