Will fall 2021 mean full IP classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

Don't make assumptions about others' ability to read editorials in science journals. By the way, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, BMJ are possibly higher ranked than JAMA. But, obviously, there's our big A in JAMA, so it's the most, sure. And again, this is a viewpoint, not a meta-analysis, so it's about as frivolous as a medical journal will publish.

DP. You still haven't rebutted anything with anything of substance though. You keep harping on the genre, as if that meant the contents were by definition suspect. Why don't you show us an "editorial" from a medical journal, or some other credible source, broadly looking at the data and coming to the opposite conclusion?

would you instead be willing to accept a YouTube video and a FB post from my aunt? How about this fortune cookie and a copy of Zoobooks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

The numbers are very low. Those are aggregates over more than six months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

The numbers are very low. Those are aggregates over more than six months.

I love it when people post data which makes the completely opposite case than intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

The numbers are very low. Those are aggregates over more than six months.

I love it when people post data which makes the completely opposite case than intended.

+1

People forget the numbers don't mean anything unless you have a denominator. A few dozen cases is not very many when you're talking about tens of thousands of people over the course of more than half a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

The numbers are very low. Those are aggregates over more than six months.

I love it when people post data which makes the completely opposite case than intended.

+1

People forget the numbers don't mean anything unless you have a denominator. A few dozen cases is not very many when you're talking about tens of thousands of people over the course of more than half a year.

That's not 50 cases. That's 50 demonstrated outbreaks, second only to the number of outbreaks seeded in supermarkets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

Nah, they're not doing fine.
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/outbreak-data

/not a teacher

Numbers seem pretty low to me. There's 50,000 kids under the age of five in DC. My son has been going to daycare since August. We havent had any issues.

The numbers are very low. Those are aggregates over more than six months.

I love it when people post data which makes the completely opposite case than intended.

+1

People forget the numbers don't mean anything unless you have a denominator. A few dozen cases is not very many when you're talking about tens of thousands of people over the course of more than half a year.

That's not 50 cases. That's 50 demonstrated outbreaks, second only to the number of outbreaks seeded in supermarkets.

Still tiny.

[Anonymous]

Not all 50,000 kids are in school- the denominator on number of outbreaks is considerably lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all 50,000 kids are in school- the denominator on number of outbreaks is considerably lower.

Of course, not every single child is in daycare -- people's situations vary. But a whole lot of them are. Probably a lot more than usual. Seems pretty common for people to take children out of preK -- because prek over zoom calls is a cruel joke -- and put them back in daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all 50,000 kids are in school- the denominator on number of outbreaks is considerably lower.

Childcare centers are required to report every case to DC health. If they don't comply, they risk being shutdown. Also, the definition of outbreak, as stated in the website, is two or more cases reported in a location within 14 days, but they do not have to be related. In other words, it does not mean that transmission occurred within the center. When community transmission is high, people are more likely to be exposed in multiple settings.

Our kids have been in childcare since August. They've had around 6 cases thus far in the center (which cares for over 500 kids). At least two cases met the 'outbreak' definition, but in-classroom transmission did not happen -cases were not related, in different classrooms and people never met. After the 14 day quarantine period, nobody else tested positive. We know of another childcare center that had a few related cases because the affected teachers were friends and met outside classes to chat. It also did not spread further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Right? And when they come up against this research, generally they begin relying on intuition and a notion of "common sense," as though these two things are more important than expertise and data. I understand why it feels like common sense that schools are dangerous disease vectors. Indeed, I thought that was the case at the beginning of all of this. But the data show us otherwise.

We like to rely on intuition and common sense. This is how we make the majority of our decisions. It is often correct, but not always. Intuition and "common sense" lead us to the wrong conclusion about the safety of school reopening.

It is a mark of critical thinking to be able to observe that your intuition is wrong and revise your own conclusions when presented with evidence. My disappointment here is the number of educators who apparently lack the critical thinking skills to revise their own thoughts. Their willingness to throw out evidence and data when it conflicts with common sense. My concern is that teachers who lack critical thinking skills are unable to teach children to think.

This is very thoughtful. True that so many intelligent people will not listen to the research (not just teachers but parents too). It is not a lack of critical thinking I believe, but fear, distrust of government and not wanting to let go of intuition when physical safety is at stake. Many very smart people hold onto these views. I agree with you that they are wrong not to consider the evidence, but I do not think in many cases that critical thinking skills are generally lacking. As for teachers I think that there is a conflict of interest for some in their thinking because it is natural that many would want to play it safe, as many of us are. Risk in a school is very low when proper precautions are taken but it is not zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Right? And when they come up against this research, generally they begin relying on intuition and a notion of "common sense," as though these two things are more important than expertise and data. I understand why it feels like common sense that schools are dangerous disease vectors. Indeed, I thought that was the case at the beginning of all of this. But the data show us otherwise.

We like to rely on intuition and common sense. This is how we make the majority of our decisions. It is often correct, but not always. Intuition and "common sense" lead us to the wrong conclusion about the safety of school reopening.

It is a mark of critical thinking to be able to observe that your intuition is wrong and revise your own conclusions when presented with evidence. My disappointment here is the number of educators who apparently lack the critical thinking skills to revise their own thoughts. Their willingness to throw out evidence and data when it conflicts with common sense. My concern is that teachers who lack critical thinking skills are unable to teach children to think.

This is very thoughtful. True that so many intelligent people will not listen to the research (not just teachers but parents too). It is not a lack of critical thinking I believe, but fear, distrust of government and not wanting to let go of intuition when physical safety is at stake. Many very smart people hold onto these views. I agree with you that they are wrong not to consider the evidence, but I do not think in many cases that critical thinking skills are generally lacking. As for teachers I think that there is a conflict of interest for some in their thinking because it is natural that many would want to play it safe, as many of us are. Risk in a school is very low when proper precautions are taken but it is not zero.

Risk is not very low in schools, even when proper precautions are taken. It is moderate. The research doesn't say it is very low - the editorialized interpretations do. Our critical thinking skills are less clouded by fear than yours are clouded by the panic of having your kids learning from home, which we have all seen expressed in videos and interviews and posts here, but which, admittedly, I find a bit hard to empathize with. Your pseudo-empathetic projection of a refusal to let go of intuition, and hold onto what seems 'common sense' is funny and cute. It is hard to be mad with your bullshit when you speak in such a sweet tone about us. Happy Valentine's Day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Right? And when they come up against this research, generally they begin relying on intuition and a notion of "common sense," as though these two things are more important than expertise and data. I understand why it feels like common sense that schools are dangerous disease vectors. Indeed, I thought that was the case at the beginning of all of this. But the data show us otherwise.

We like to rely on intuition and common sense. This is how we make the majority of our decisions. It is often correct, but not always. Intuition and "common sense" lead us to the wrong conclusion about the safety of school reopening.

It is a mark of critical thinking to be able to observe that your intuition is wrong and revise your own conclusions when presented with evidence. My disappointment here is the number of educators who apparently lack the critical thinking skills to revise their own thoughts. Their willingness to throw out evidence and data when it conflicts with common sense. My concern is that teachers who lack critical thinking skills are unable to teach children to think.

This is very thoughtful. True that so many intelligent people will not listen to the research (not just teachers but parents too). It is not a lack of critical thinking I believe, but fear, distrust of government and not wanting to let go of intuition when physical safety is at stake. Many very smart people hold onto these views. I agree with you that they are wrong not to consider the evidence, but I do not think in many cases that critical thinking skills are generally lacking. As for teachers I think that there is a conflict of interest for some in their thinking because it is natural that many would want to play it safe, as many of us are. Risk in a school is very low when proper precautions are taken but it is not zero.

Risk is not very low in schools, even when proper precautions are taken. It is moderate. The research doesn't say it is very low - the editorialized interpretations do. Our critical thinking skills are less clouded by fear than yours are clouded by the panic of having your kids learning from home, which we have all seen expressed in videos and interviews and posts here, but which, admittedly, I find a bit hard to empathize with. Your pseudo-empathetic projection of a refusal to let go of intuition, and hold onto what seems 'common sense' is funny and cute. It is hard to be mad with your bullshit when you speak in such a sweet tone about us. Happy Valentine's Day.

Are you the “honey” poster who says we’ll be virtual until 2022?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Right? And when they come up against this research, generally they begin relying on intuition and a notion of "common sense," as though these two things are more important than expertise and data. I understand why it feels like common sense that schools are dangerous disease vectors. Indeed, I thought that was the case at the beginning of all of this. But the data show us otherwise.

We like to rely on intuition and common sense. This is how we make the majority of our decisions. It is often correct, but not always. Intuition and "common sense" lead us to the wrong conclusion about the safety of school reopening.

It is a mark of critical thinking to be able to observe that your intuition is wrong and revise your own conclusions when presented with evidence. My disappointment here is the number of educators who apparently lack the critical thinking skills to revise their own thoughts. Their willingness to throw out evidence and data when it conflicts with common sense. My concern is that teachers who lack critical thinking skills are unable to teach children to think.

This is very thoughtful. True that so many intelligent people will not listen to the research (not just teachers but parents too). It is not a lack of critical thinking I believe, but fear, distrust of government and not wanting to let go of intuition when physical safety is at stake. Many very smart people hold onto these views. I agree with you that they are wrong not to consider the evidence, but I do not think in many cases that critical thinking skills are generally lacking. As for teachers I think that there is a conflict of interest for some in their thinking because it is natural that many would want to play it safe, as many of us are. Risk in a school is very low when proper precautions are taken but it is not zero.

Risk is not very low in schools, even when proper precautions are taken. It is moderate. The research doesn't say it is very low - the editorialized interpretations do. Our critical thinking skills are less clouded by fear than yours are clouded by the panic of having your kids learning from home, which we have all seen expressed in videos and interviews and posts here, but which, admittedly, I find a bit hard to empathize with. Your pseudo-empathetic projection of a refusal to let go of intuition, and hold onto what seems 'common sense' is funny and cute. It is hard to be mad with your bullshit when you speak in such a sweet tone about us. Happy Valentine's Day.

Are you the “honey” poster who says we’ll be virtual until 2022?

No.