11 schools going virtual for 14 days starting tomorrow, 1/5
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Please. There's been plenty of goalpost-moving on both sides, so don't try to claim superiority on that front. If MCPS wants to earn my trust, personally, when so many staff are out with Omicron that they can't function, they won't offer virtual at all, because it's a farce. They should admit that, due to the pandemic, they cannot provide the services they are literally paid to do, and shut their doors. And then, once Omicron has subsided in, what six weeks? Eight? They'll reopen for in-person and deal with the learning loss they claim is fake. As for mental health, again, anyone who thinks it's a less serious risk *specifically to children* than Omicron and its additional prolonged school closures either isn't paying attention or doesn't care. |
Anonymous
I didn't claim superiority because I'm not interested in winning any sort of game here. You're right that I am assuming virtual won't last more than a month. To that end, I'm comparing the mental health impact of that marginal (additional) amount of virtual schooling to the impact of marginal long-term disabilities among other things (that I don't necessarily expect to show up right away-- see 1918 flu and Parkinsons). Going virtual would slow the spread which would, contrary to popular belief, lead to a decreased number of total cases, even if it only slows it a bit. It would also lead to fewer deaths and disabilities caused by overloaded hospitals. It also gives kids and others who haven't been fully vaxxed more time to catch up and reduce the risk of poorer outcomes (even if we imagine no one dies). It also reduces everyone's viral load, which leads to better outcomes. The difference between, say, 10% and a 15% rate of certain disabilities in the future is actually highly significant. But we can all play the conjecture game. No one knows with anything remotely like certainty who is right, but I'm not being cavalier about mental health or learning loss. I'm simply judging other consequences to be greater. And yes, I'm making an assumption about the length of virtual-- but so are you. Your conclusions are based on indefinite or many months of virtual, and mine on a few weeks at most. So of course they're likely to have different imagined consequences. The part of my argument no one seems to be touching is that I don't think there's as a wide a range of choices as people are imagining. Virtual to some significant degree is inevitable. So some of these arguments are for just kicking the can down the road. Regardless, you showed some of your cards (or whatever) when you said that, given more extreme circumstances, you'd rather schools shut down completely than have them go to virtual. What effect does that have on mental health? And do you realize that by being less proactive at lower rates of viral spread, you actually potentially hasten that outcome? The one where everything shuts down completely? |
Anonymous
| How can we vote out these bastards that keep closing schools? |
Anonymous
|
I don't think most people are terrified of the new variant but are well aware that they can't come to work if they get sick. Ask any teacher, most of us have come to work dragging ass because we couldn't get a sub or it was just easier than writing sub plans. With COVID, there's no "pushing through it". You test positive, you're home and can't come in. If your kids get it, you have to stay home with them. Add the sub shortage to the equation and we're screwed.
Schools are going to end up going virtual because there won't be enough teachers able to work when their own children get sick or have their schools switch to virtual. I can't leave my 7 year old home alone for 14 days. |
Anonymous
|
I understand January and probably February are going to be disrupted, with some schools (or perhaps granularity down to classes at elementary level in some cases) needing to occasionally go virtual for staffing reasons. Ideally with some sort of care for the most vulnerable students who have no options. The rest of us, well, I basically expect to be screwed as a working parent during the omicron wave. I've accepted my fate.
But closing 14 days at a time? That is extremely, unnecessarily conservative. And based on community spread! Why does it matter how many students are positive or quarantining, unless you get to something like the 20-25% level, where some argument could be made for virtual? They need to separate these numbers out and report staff and students separately. How can they even make informed decisions about whether they can run a school? (The answer is that they are closing because of "community spread", not because they can't run a school.) This is completely silly and not scientific, but I don't have the energy to fight it anymore. Let's hope this wave is short and painful... |
Anonymous
$1200? Our provider promptly raised rates and we were paying $2000 a month. Imagine all the families for whom that would be completely out of reach. It was a stretch for us. We did that for almost a year. It’s hell. |
Anonymous
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ |
Anonymous
And yet, this is the dilemma this asinine policy creates for non-teachers. |
Anonymous
Summed up perfectly. |
Anonymous
No. |
Anonymous
She is also a great hard working reporter. Routinely tries to juggle five stories a day. |
Anonymous
What? Over FIVE percent positivity rate is bad (and means actual case rates are significantly higher than reported) and calls for additional community restrictions. |
Anonymous
Nope. Sorry. You can always homeschool though! |
Anonymous
Glad smarter minds than yours prevail. |
Anonymous
No evidence of that yet. |