McKnight's discussion with health officer about in-person learning

[Anonymous]

The teachers union wants a virtual January to be permanent. They want to test the waters and see if they can gradually get us to accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The teachers union wants a virtual January to be permanent. They want to test the waters and see if they can gradually get us to accept it.

--i cry about teacher's unions because I am paid.

-the PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I say it was inconvenient? I said that so many people on these boards found it inconvenient not to have an army of service professionals exposing themselves to covid while they themselves worked at home.

Accurate.

My brother and I aren't close. He's not exactly foaming at the mouth with conspiracy theories. I'm just finding his sudden pivot on going back to nature with his family a little oddly-timed.

Yes, you did.

Instead they just see their lack of manicures and how inconvenient it was having Larlo at home when they were doing their important brand marketing for a K-street firm job.

Is English not your first language? I said, "they just see... How inconvenient it was having Larlo at home...."

In this context, I am mocking these people. I am not agreeing with them that having Larlo home is inconvenient.

But I know how you play this pointless game. Have we played it before? Now you will accuse me of backtracking, insist that isn't what I was saying, and try and distract with more inanity to derail the thread. That's what you do.

NP. I'm no covid denier, but you seem exceptionally nasty. Also, your brother has other issues, clearly.

I am. And he does. Thanks!

Those things have nothing to with me being right or not... Which I also am.

I love the DMV: our kids are being exposed to a potentially crippling illness, most of us agree this is bad, are horrified that other people ignore it and spread more covid.... But, of course, the real issue here is whether or not I'm rude.

Being both exceptionally nasty and highly irrational does not make you persuasive. Also, I do not know what you think you are right about, but I suspect it doesn't conform with reality.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Oh honey. Go to bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't really matter since it isn't true for their parents and grandparents. A lot of people seem to be unable to grasp that this is contagious.

Their parents are vaccinated and boostered, though. A lot of people on DCUM seem to be unable to remember that.

If we continue to spread it like this there will be more mutations and this will never end. This is exactly why we are in this mess right now.

There will be more mutations no matter what "we" (whoever "we" is) do.

The degree and extent largely depend on our actions. If we continue to be cavalier about it, sure there will be more deadly mutations and vaccines won't be able to keep up. A lot of people seem more concerned about missing their pilates class than they are with the future of our species.

You do understand that viruses have been mutating regardless of human action for quite awhile now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately that doesn't really matter since it isn't true for their parents and grandparents. A lot of people seem to be unable to grasp that this is contagious.

Their parents are vaccinated and boostered, though. A lot of people on DCUM seem to be unable to remember that.

If we continue to spread it like this there will be more mutations and this will never end. This is exactly why we are in this mess right now.

There will be more mutations no matter what "we" (whoever "we" is) do.

The degree and extent largely depend on our actions. If we continue to be cavalier about it, sure there will be more deadly mutations and vaccines won't be able to keep up. A lot of people seem more concerned about missing their pilates class than they are with the future of our species.

You do understand that viruses have been mutating regardless of human action for quite awhile now?

PP has started a research study linking viral mutations with pilates classes. We're all eagerly awaiting results, which will hopefully arrive early next year following peer review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

Most of us realize that it's not a zero sum deathwatch where we have to sacrifice one in the other. But then again, we didn't grow up selling ourselves on the streets of Minsk as you did, PP. Bless your heart, it's really not your fault you've had such a rough life. I sure hope this troll farm gig lifts your family out of poverty and perdition.

You're in my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

Most of us realize that it's not a zero sum deathwatch where we have to sacrifice one in the other. But then again, we didn't grow up selling ourselves on the streets of Minsk as you did, PP. Bless your heart, it's really not your fault you've had such a rough life. I sure hope this troll farm gig lifts your family out of poverty and perdition.

You're in my thoughts.

Glad you agree we shouldn’t be approaching this a zero sum game. We don’t need to harm kids for the benefit of the elderly. Everyone can win by keeping kids in school and helping the elderly to self-isolate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

Most of us realize that it's not a zero sum deathwatch where we have to sacrifice one in the other. But then again, we didn't grow up selling ourselves on the streets of Minsk as you did, PP. Bless your heart, it's really not your fault you've had such a rough life. I sure hope this troll farm gig lifts your family out of poverty and perdition.

You're in my thoughts.

Glad you agree we shouldn’t be approaching this a zero sum game. We don’t need to harm kids for the benefit of the elderly. Everyone can win by keeping kids in school and helping the elderly to self-isolate.

If only you believed that, but multi generational households escape your attention, and you're opting your kids out of testing and let's face it, two weeks ago you were demanding the mask mandate be lifted in schools.. we know your schtick, Svetlana. It never changes.

[Anonymous]

Didn't read the thread. Watched the briefing. Monifa seems stressed. Her voice had that weird high pitch it gets when she is tense. She is tense for good reason. She has NO control over the situation...schools are going to shutter right before our eyes. MCEA is destroying our children and their education. Hoping to get an acceptance to one of the privates we applied to for next year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

Most of us realize that it's not a zero sum deathwatch where we have to sacrifice one in the other. But then again, we didn't grow up selling ourselves on the streets of Minsk as you did, PP. Bless your heart, it's really not your fault you've had such a rough life. I sure hope this troll farm gig lifts your family out of poverty and perdition.

You're in my thoughts.

Glad you agree we shouldn’t be approaching this a zero sum game. We don’t need to harm kids for the benefit of the elderly. Everyone can win by keeping kids in school and helping the elderly to self-isolate.

If only you believed that, but multi generational households escape your attention, and you're opting your kids out of testing and let's face it, two weeks ago you were demanding the mask mandate be lifted in schools.. we know your schtick, Svetlana. It never changes.

No, I haven’t said mcps should lift its mask mandate. I don’t really care about masks.

If multigenerational households are really the problem for schools, then the county should be stepping in to provide alternative housing for those seniors. There wouldn’t be very many elderly people in a situation where they’d feel a need to isolate from kids. Earlier in the pandemic there was some emergency housing for healthcare workers trying to isolate from their families. We can do that again, but for the elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly even if it wiped out everyone over 65 worldwide is it really a big deal? Free up housing and save SS and Medicare and huge tax windfall when inherited 401k and estates gets taxed all at once.

You're new to trolling, aren't you?

What he says is still true, though. Callous? Absolutely. But true nonetheless.

Well then why not wipe out all the children? Huge savings.

Are you really in denial about this? We need kids to carry on society when we’re too old to do it ourselves. The same isn’t true for the elderly. They previously contributed to society, but become a bigger and bigger drain on society as they get older. Everyone over 65 could die tomorrow and society would continue just fine, with more resources available to younger generations. But everyone under 18 dying would lead to societal collapse in the future.

Yes, it is callous to think this way. But it’s true.

Please stop responding to this person people. That is what they want.

I understand. But do people really think that way? Do they not realize that kids are more important to the future than the elderly? And in particular, why has mcps been putting the interests of the elderly ahead of the interests of students?

Most of us realize that it's not a zero sum deathwatch where we have to sacrifice one in the other. But then again, we didn't grow up selling ourselves on the streets of Minsk as you did, PP. Bless your heart, it's really not your fault you've had such a rough life. I sure hope this troll farm gig lifts your family out of poverty and perdition.

You're in my thoughts.

Glad you agree we shouldn’t be approaching this a zero sum game. We don’t need to harm kids for the benefit of the elderly. Everyone can win by keeping kids in school and helping the elderly to self-isolate.

If only you believed that, but multi generational households escape your attention, and you're opting your kids out of testing and let's face it, two weeks ago you were demanding the mask mandate be lifted in schools.. we know your schtick, Svetlana. It never changes.

No, I haven’t said mcps should lift its mask mandate. I don’t really care about masks.

If multigenerational households are really the problem for schools, then the county should be stepping in to provide alternative housing for those seniors. There wouldn’t be very many elderly people in a situation where they’d feel a need to isolate from kids. Earlier in the pandemic there was some emergency housing for healthcare workers trying to isolate from their families. We can do that again, but for the elderly.

That is one of the most irrational things you've said yet, Svetlana.