Are therapists doing unmasked therapy for kids with anxiety about covid stuff yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Precisely. There is autonomy in both directions at the individual level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Just to add: While one potential client is seeking a therapist who is willing to not wear a mask, other high-risk, immunocompromised clients may be seeking a therapist and office space that minimizes the risk of infections as much as possible. If it comes down to it, which set of needs do you think will or should be accommodated? Which set do you think professional organizations and best practices will support? This issue is intensified for professionals who work with young child— with spaces, toys, and other materials that cannot be reliably sterilized — that are often shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Just to add: While one potential client is seeking a therapist who is willing to not wear a mask, other high-risk, immunocompromised clients may be seeking a therapist and office space that minimizes the risk of infections as much as possible. If it comes down to it, which set of needs do you think will or should be accommodated? Which set do you think professional organizations and best practices will support? This issue is intensified for professionals who work with young child— with spaces, toys, and other materials that cannot be reliably sterilized — that are often shared.

young children - not “child”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Look, if you can’t understand or acknowledge why masking is detrimental to some kids’ therapy, you’re not being honest or ethical. Especially considering that this is an unusual community norm limited to places like DC. And yeah, at a certain point, masked speech therapy violates the IDEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Precisely. There is autonomy in both directions at the individual level.

Your “autonomy” entails failing to do an important part of your job. As a therapist your autonomy does not entitle you to deliver bad services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ongoing governmental guidance is what I came up with, yes: the official reopening statement of schools for this year. Typically it is not readdressed unless it is readdressed as changes.

But if those people don't count as you make proclamations about the US -- fair enough. That's pretty clear. Thanks for being straightforward about your views.

ASHA is not the government.

And the fact that all you can come up with is Navajo Country (not updated for 8 months!) just reinforces the fact that indoor mask mandates are extremely uncommon right now.

Right, you didn't click all the links.

It's not uncommon -- it's just that for you, these people don't count. What if I posted links to a state school for the deaf's policy? They are also not in your worldview as people who count. There are a thousand ways to criticize in an accurate and tenable way, but "literally nobody else in the world" is doing it isn't one of them -- unless those people don't count as people.

Why not ask why SLPs aren't using masks with visible plastic windows, so the child can see their lips (if they aren't)? Or reference the CDC allowances in green and yellow risk zones? But don't say nobody else is doing it when, in fact, many are, even if they aren't people who count to you.

If schools for the deaf are requiring masks, I would consider that very shocking and sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Precisely. There is autonomy in both directions at the individual level.

Your “autonomy” entails failing to do an important part of your job. As a therapist your autonomy does not entitle you to deliver bad services.

I don’t think that person is necessarily a practitioner. They were trying to explain it more clearly though.


You don’t have to pick a therapist with a mask requirement. Several posters have shared where they’ve found theirs. Instead of reacting perhaps look for that info?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ongoing governmental guidance is what I came up with, yes: the official reopening statement of schools for this year. Typically it is not readdressed unless it is readdressed as changes.

But if those people don't count as you make proclamations about the US -- fair enough. That's pretty clear. Thanks for being straightforward about your views.

ASHA is not the government.

And the fact that all you can come up with is Navajo Country (not updated for 8 months!) just reinforces the fact that indoor mask mandates are extremely uncommon right now.

Right, you didn't click all the links.

It's not uncommon -- it's just that for you, these people don't count. What if I posted links to a state school for the deaf's policy? They are also not in your worldview as people who count. There are a thousand ways to criticize in an accurate and tenable way, but "literally nobody else in the world" is doing it isn't one of them -- unless those people don't count as people.

Why not ask why SLPs aren't using masks with visible plastic windows, so the child can see their lips (if they aren't)? Or reference the CDC allowances in green and yellow risk zones? But don't say nobody else is doing it when, in fact, many are, even if they aren't people who count to you.

I am the previous poster with a child in speech therapy with a masked provider. I am assuming you have not had a child in speech? Seeing the therapists lips in a clear mask would not come close to solving the problem. I guess there are different goals but the exercises my son primarily does generally involve manipulating a straw, popsicle stick or other object with his cheeks, tongue or teeth. At a minimum he needs to stick his tongue as far as possible outside of his mouth and move it in various positions. The exercises literally cannot be done wearing a mask of any kind. Before she was willing to pull down her mask occasionally, she often resorted to up teaching me and I would then demonstrate for him (since I was allowed to be unmasked) and then he would get it. The first time she pulled down her mask it was because I also could not understand what she was describing with the tongue placement and we had spent far too long on a single exercise. Again I understand some people have reasons they feel concerned and want to wear a mask, it’s the *pretending it doesn’t matter at all* that frustrates me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Ok so do you think OP can reasonably ask for an unmasked therapist for her child? Can a parent with a speech delayed child ask for an unmasked therapist? Autism? Or are we not allowed to because this fails to demonstrate our understanding that our kids are just bothers and “risks” and we need to accept whatever we get. (Nevermind that we are usually paying your fees out of pocket, or have a legal right to the services under IDEA.)

Yes, I think OP can reasonably ask for this. I also think that it’s more than reasonable for a therapist to refuse this request— for multiple reasons. While you are “allowed” to seek out services that you feel are appropriate, people providing those services are not only “allowed “ but ethically required to maintain environments that reduce health risks to others as well as to themselves. Clients don’t get to randomly dictate those standards. “Paying out of pocket” doesn’t change this.

While you MAY have “a legal right to services under IDEA”, there are limits to those “rights”. For practical purposes, since so many of the posters maintain that wanting to wear a mask when providing therapy is an anomaly, the simplest thing would be to find a therapist who doesn’t wear a mask. An individual patient has absolutely no right to services from a particular provider, and zero right to forcing an individual provider to alter their standards of care based on a particular client’s personal whims.

Precisely. There is autonomy in both directions at the individual level.

Your “autonomy” entails failing to do an important part of your job. As a therapist your autonomy does not entitle you to deliver bad services.

When the professional organization that provides certification for your specialty is at odds with an anonymous person on a discussion forum as to what constitutes best practices, I'm sorry to say the judgment of the DCUM poster does not hold the trump card.

Nobody is entitled to services from a particular provider, and you say this practice out of the norm. It should be simple to find another practitioner in line with your views. I have every faith you can and will, and I wish you well with it.

[Anonymous]

No one’s pretending it doesn’t matter. The whole thing sucks. We’ve been struggling with this for years now. All of us. (Even those that think covid is not a big deal now or ever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ongoing governmental guidance is what I came up with, yes: the official reopening statement of schools for this year. Typically it is not readdressed unless it is readdressed as changes.

But if those people don't count as you make proclamations about the US -- fair enough. That's pretty clear. Thanks for being straightforward about your views.

ASHA is not the government.

And the fact that all you can come up with is Navajo Country (not updated for 8 months!) just reinforces the fact that indoor mask mandates are extremely uncommon right now.

Right, you didn't click all the links.

It's not uncommon -- it's just that for you, these people don't count. What if I posted links to a state school for the deaf's policy? They are also not in your worldview as people who count. There are a thousand ways to criticize in an accurate and tenable way, but "literally nobody else in the world" is doing it isn't one of them -- unless those people don't count as people.

Why not ask why SLPs aren't using masks with visible plastic windows, so the child can see their lips (if they aren't)? Or reference the CDC allowances in green and yellow risk zones? But don't say nobody else is doing it when, in fact, many are, even if they aren't people who count to you.

I am the previous poster with a child in speech therapy with a masked provider. I am assuming you have not had a child in speech? Seeing the therapists lips in a clear mask would not come close to solving the problem. I guess there are different goals but the exercises my son primarily does generally involve manipulating a straw, popsicle stick or other object with his cheeks, tongue or teeth. At a minimum he needs to stick his tongue as far as possible outside of his mouth and move it in various positions. The exercises literally cannot be done wearing a mask of any kind. Before she was willing to pull down her mask occasionally, she often resorted to up teaching me and I would then demonstrate for him (since I was allowed to be unmasked) and then he would get it. The first time she pulled down her mask it was because I also could not understand what she was describing with the tongue placement and we had spent far too long on a single exercise. Again I understand some people have reasons they feel concerned and want to wear a mask, it’s the *pretending it doesn’t matter at all* that frustrates me.

Personally, I think your argument as to why it does matter for your child is absolutely relevant, and that this pandemic has been a crushing blow in so many unacknowledged ways. We are going to feel it for a long time. This is not fair, and I am sorry you and your child are going through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ongoing governmental guidance is what I came up with, yes: the official reopening statement of schools for this year. Typically it is not readdressed unless it is readdressed as changes.

But if those people don't count as you make proclamations about the US -- fair enough. That's pretty clear. Thanks for being straightforward about your views.

ASHA is not the government.

And the fact that all you can come up with is Navajo Country (not updated for 8 months!) just reinforces the fact that indoor mask mandates are extremely uncommon right now.

Right, you didn't click all the links.

It's not uncommon -- it's just that for you, these people don't count. What if I posted links to a state school for the deaf's policy? They are also not in your worldview as people who count. There are a thousand ways to criticize in an accurate and tenable way, but "literally nobody else in the world" is doing it isn't one of them -- unless those people don't count as people.

Why not ask why SLPs aren't using masks with visible plastic windows, so the child can see their lips (if they aren't)? Or reference the CDC allowances in green and yellow risk zones? But don't say nobody else is doing it when, in fact, many are, even if they aren't people who count to you.

If schools for the deaf are requiring masks, I would consider that very shocking and sad.

The school I am thinking of uses a therapist who came back out of retirement to fill a need when other parties quit, but they come with a significant medical history of their own. If that therapist leaves, there is nobody else who has applied. It's unlikely the school can coerce someone into the position either, of course.

I think it's likely the parents are more grateful that someone has come back that didn't have to, rather than sad, but I could ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly this thread has shifted from an apparently reasonable concern voiced by a parent to unsupported ranting about masks, deliberate mischaracterizations of comments, and “alternative facts”.

Here’s an important takeaway: Professionals, particularly those in clinical professions, will do their best to protect their families, their clients, and themselves in these uncertain, challenging and changing times. No amount of ranting on the part of people who want to politicize public health issues will change this. What it will change, is that professionals will increasingly limit their practices, retire, and leave their professions for other options — in the face of the selfish expectations that therapists and other health professionals put themselves at risk for the supposed needs (both actual and imagined) of those who seek their services. In many areas, well trained clinicians, particularly those who specialize in working with children, are at a premium. Look for that to get worse as the many risks associated with working in these types of professions far outweigh any possible benefits, and as the realities of capitalism far outweigh the kinds of values that often lead people to pursue these professions at considerable cost to themselves .

Right, SN parents are completely helpless to assert what they think is best for their kids. No criticizing teachers or therapists because we are powerless.

BTW the problem with your explanation is that *nobody else* is taking that moralistic view of masking and covid precautions, except in a very few “progressive” metro areas, where somehow deference to adult professionals who work with kids is more important than our kids.

If you’re going to dig in, please explain why the needs of the SN children who are immunocompromised apparently don’t warrant access to therapists who observe “deference” to appropriate precautions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of your anxious kids are traumatized and refuse to get in cars because they're required to wear seat belts or sit in car seats?

See how this works?

Seat belts don’t inhibit children with speech issues from learning to talk. Seat belts aren’t used as fear porn or to silence and create control. See how this works.

Speech issues are not caused by masking.

However, common sense is to mask at an appointment. Therapists can see 8-14 or more patients/clients a day and that puts them and your kids at high risk for covid.

g

Speech issues are absolutely caused by masking. Are you actually trying to argue that you can do effective speech therapy with a mask? Anyone trying to argue this with a straight face at this point is not credible.

My kid is unmasked everywhere -- school, metro, planes, trains -- and has not gotten covid. The ONLY place he masks now is in therapy. It's not "common sense" and the fact that you think it is just shows what a complete bubble you're in. I doubt you even need to drive 25 miles outside of DC to find a majority of child therapists who would look extremely sideways at a therapist requiring masking, particularly when emotion recognition, therepeutic bonding, or speech are the issues.

You are exactly why therapists mask. If your child is not masking you cannot blame masks for the speech issues. Your post makes no sense.

My child thankfully does not have speech issues. And somehow I doubt therapists are masking at dinner, with friends, etc etc. This is all a weird sort of theater now. The marginal benefit of masking is far outweighed by the damage to therapy. You know, the therapist's actual job.

Think about how small the therapy rooms are and how close we are to the kids. Now do that 10x+ per day. How’s our viral load if 2 kids are positive? How is the room? It’s not just your child passing through the office.


I absolutely hear you and we are doing our best. It’s not theater. Our families come in having recently recovered from covid, after minimal breaks in care. It’s exhausting absorbing everyone else’s risk.

No, you’re not doing your best. Not at all.

If a therapist gets Covid they cannot see clients for a week or two. And, many go unpaid.

Thank you for that last sentence. Yes, I lose all income when our sick. I also don’t charge for sick cancellations. So I don’t get paid when others cancel for illness and there isn’t appropriate time left to fill the spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Right, SN parents are completely helpless to assert what they think is best for their kids. No criticizing teachers or therapists because we are powerless.

BTW the problem with your explanation is that *nobody else* is taking that moralistic view of masking and covid precautions, except in a very few “progressive” metro areas, where somehow deference to adult professionals who work with kids is more important than our kids.

No, in some very poor and underserved areas, too.