WOOHOO SB 739 has passed the house- it is on its way to the Governor-

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst case, it’s just over two weeks until we find out which kids have completely antisocial, self-absorbed parents, and therefore are best avoided.

Yep - just look for the kids wearing masks and then you will know who has parents like that !

You know that kid or someone in their household could’ve medically fragile and therefore have strong reason for needing the mask, especially as your kid goes without, right?

This article nails it so well: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/weve-never-protected-the-vulnerable/619981/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR15DA6nTNIthIUjDAArj_7CuRgD6fdeg7PkIcptLEkjgr8EuoX6uTZr6Ow

From the article:

Now, as more and more people get vaccinated, much of the country is returning to normal. Some people point to decreased hospitalization and mortality rates among the immunized, or argue that COVID-19 is here to stay but manageable and that restrictions are unnecessary. Some further argue that most who aren’t vaccinated have chosen that path, and so if risk remains, it’s on them.

Such thinking ignores a third, not-insignificant group: those who would like to be immune but aren’t. Some people are still at risk because they can’t yet be vaccinated or because vaccines don’t work for them. They hope that their fellow Americans will take care of them. They hope that the rest of us will agree to sensible precautions or protections to keep them safe until they, too, can be immunized, or until the danger from exposure eventually subsides.

Much of the public is refusing. That’s not new, though. In America, it’s always been like this.

…

Part of my job, both as a writer and as a chief health officer, is to explain how much less-risky most activities are now compared with last year. Many of the people I talk with, though, have others in their life who aren’t yet safe, and they are horrified that we can’t create exceptions or come up with policies to protect their vulnerable loved ones. I share their frustration, but I’m puzzled by their surprise. America has never cared enough. People just didn’t notice before.

At some point - something has to give and we have to give those who want it - school with no masks. Those who don’t want that are going to have to do something like apply for Virtual VA for school next year.

You’ve got it backward. Your maskless kids can apply for virtual. Makes more sense. Masks in public. None at home.

Nope sorry honey - you have it backwards. Why would 99% of folks change their behavior to accommodate the 1% versus the 1% making the necessary adjustments they need to make? You are so friggin selfish it's disgusting.

You must not be in APS. The majority of parents want to keep masks. Even that silly informal poll showed so.

Have you been to any youth basketball games in Arlington, seen and Arlington Soccer or Lax teams playing at St. James, seen their swim teams competing in meets? There are plenty of Arlington parents perfectly fine with their kids indoors unmasked. Heck, just look at any resteraunt and you'll see plenty of families.

I am comfortable allowing my fully vaccinated children unmask indoors. If the vast majority of Arlington families want to continue masking then there should be very little change from the status quo by lifting the mandate. Stop making kids protect the unvaccinated and the vulnerable while the rest of society continues on w/o restrictions. It is not okay.

The problem you are identifying is that the rest of society isn't doing what it can and should to protect vulnerable people. You know, the kids with chronic health conditions at risk for covid complications who are too young for a vaccine.

If anyone were talking about the reality that there are some kids (like hearing impaired) who have legitimate, serious problems wearing masks, then I would hope we could come up with some clear exceptions to mask mandates. I suspect we're talking pretty small numbers here. (which isn't to say that those kids are unimportant, simply that I think unmasking kids who have legitimate need to be unmasked would be a small increase in transmission risk). But where is that line? Parents, such as myself, who support masks in school to protect my under 5 with a COVID health risk, aren't trying to harm other kids. The problem is I hear too many parents screaming that they're tired of wearing a mask, they're tired of not living their life the way they want to. Its all about them, them, them and what they want. The parents complainign they're just tired of masks, and they are done looking out for other people are the problem. The trouble is defining what is and is not a legit need to unmask in school. Parents of kids at risk for COVID complications and parents of kids with legitimate problems wearing masks have a lot in common.

Except that the fight seems to be only for one group (kids at risk for Covid complications) and not for the other (kids who legitimately have issues from masking).

Did you know the CDC defined all primary grade kids learning to read as being potentially at risk from masking?

The conversation is all masks or none at all. This is a problem. Parents with at risk under 5s vs. whiny parents who are just tired of covid AND parents with kids who have legitimate issues with masks. Parents with at risk under 5s don't trust this second group because it includes whiny parents who want zero limitations on who can be maskless. Parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks don't trust the other side to ever have an off ramp, and don't trust a limitation on who can be maskless because they fear it won't include their child. I do think the biggest problem is the whiny parents who are just tired of COVID. They're the ones screaming loudest for zero restrictions anywhere. They know they don't have a legitimate medical basis for their kids to take off their masks. Kids I know with legitimate issues with masks also have some other challenges, so their parents are all too familiar with the world not being as available to them as it is to everyone else. I'm not saying that is right. I'm simply saying in my limited experience these are NOT the families throwing tantrums demanding they be allowed to take masks off just because they feel like it. I don't know how to solve this, I'm simply pointing out that two groups with a lot in common (parents with at risk under 5s and parents with kids who have legit issues with masks) are getting wedged apart by a very loud and selfish group of people.

In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Not in my experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

As far as legitimate need, I know at least one parent with a child with a medical exemption in my school district. I don't know how easy they are to get, but they are an option.

I don't think we're disagreeing, just sharing different anecdotal experiences.

What district are you in? If medical exemptions are already an option for kids to opt out of masks then I'm wondering why people on here claim they are parents of kids with desperately need to take the masks off (again, thinking hearing impaired kids, and I'm sure there are others). I don't think APS has this opt out option, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Data shows that the number of truly at-risk kids under age 5 is incredibly low, but somehow everyone on the internet has one. Weird.

Please share the data on this.

Obvioulsy you have a skewed sample on the internet because those who care about this issue are the ones posting about it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3

296 deaths for 0-4, 644 for 5-18 throughout the entire pandemic.

Unless you have a very skewed view of risk, the risk for kids ages 0-4 is minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, less than 3% of Fall Church PS parents have opted out of masking, as they now are able to. Anti-maskers thinking they are in the majority are in actuality in some crazy echo chamber.

I mean, it's been a day. Give it time.

Also, why is everyone so scared of a small percentage of the school population being unmasked?

Exactly. If so few people choose to unmask then doesn’t that prove it should be mask optional? That allows the families whose kids are not doing well with masking to opt out and barely moves the needle. Of course, the reality is that most parents are afraid of being socially ostracized for wanting masks off their kids, but everyone can see which way the wind is blowing and it will soon be socially acceptable to go mask free. At that point the mask always crowd will have FOMO.

Well I support Universal masking but I'm not having my kid mask if others in their classes are not showing them the same courtesy. I'm happy to participate in a group mitigation effort but not planning to give a special priviledge to a whiny subset of people that only cares about themselves.

That... doesn't make sense. You're in favor of masking unless someone else doesn't have to, in which case you don't believe in masking? Sounds like you aren't actually that into masking after all.

Agree. If you believe masks provide significant benefit, wouldn't those that are masked have the special privilege?

My mask protects you, your mask protects me. Surely you’ve heard that. It’s a collective action.

sure I've heard it- it just doesn't happen to be true. It was based on probably 2 things that have been shown to basically be false.
1. the idea that COVID primarily spread through droplets rather than aerosols. A cloth mask does a decent job of keeping in a cough or a sneeze- so masking an infected person (who is coughing and/ or sneezing) is an effective way to keep virus from spreading.
2. The idea that N95 masks were in very very short supply, so we needed to reserve those for health care workers. This was true at one time, but it not true now.

Things change- our practices need to change too. A person wearing a N95 is very protected- successful one way masking. A person wearing a cloth mask is neither protecting themselves or anyone else (with the exception of if they are actively coughing or sneezing.) A person who is actively coughing or sneezing is kicked out of school regardless of mask status (and indeed, removing the mask, should make it more obvious that this is happening.

Masking no longer is a collective action- those who want to be in masks can wear better quality masks. Those who don't, can wear nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Data shows that the number of truly at-risk kids under age 5 is incredibly low, but somehow everyone on the internet has one. Weird.

Please share the data on this.

Obvioulsy you have a skewed sample on the internet because those who care about this issue are the ones posting about it.

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

He was elected to do this. Parents of at-risk students will have the option to mask their child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Data shows that the number of truly at-risk kids under age 5 is incredibly low, but somehow everyone on the internet has one. Weird.

Please share the data on this.

Obvioulsy you have a skewed sample on the internet because those who care about this issue are the ones posting about it.

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

Those visuals really say it all, don't they. The hysteria on this site and elsewhere over the danger COVID poses to kids (and most kids' parents) demonstrates the lack of ability most people have to gauge risk appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Data shows that the number of truly at-risk kids under age 5 is incredibly low, but somehow everyone on the internet has one. Weird.

Please share the data on this.

Obvioulsy you have a skewed sample on the internet because those who care about this issue are the ones posting about it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3

296 deaths for 0-4, 644 for 5-18 throughout the entire pandemic.

Unless you have a very skewed view of risk, the risk for kids ages 0-4 is minimal.

"At risk of complications from COVID" is not equivalent to deaths from COVID. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Data shows that the number of truly at-risk kids under age 5 is incredibly low, but somehow everyone on the internet has one. Weird.

Please share the data on this.

Obvioulsy you have a skewed sample on the internet because those who care about this issue are the ones posting about it.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3

296 deaths for 0-4, 644 for 5-18 throughout the entire pandemic.

Unless you have a very skewed view of risk, the risk for kids ages 0-4 is minimal.

"At risk of complications from COVID" is not equivalent to deaths from COVID. Try again.

Ok, define the complications that you're worried about as well as their prevalence.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst case, it’s just over two weeks until we find out which kids have completely antisocial, self-absorbed parents, and therefore are best avoided.

Yep - just look for the kids wearing masks and then you will know who has parents like that !

You know that kid or someone in their household could’ve medically fragile and therefore have strong reason for needing the mask, especially as your kid goes without, right?

This article nails it so well: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/weve-never-protected-the-vulnerable/619981/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR15DA6nTNIthIUjDAArj_7CuRgD6fdeg7PkIcptLEkjgr8EuoX6uTZr6Ow

From the article:

Now, as more and more people get vaccinated, much of the country is returning to normal. Some people point to decreased hospitalization and mortality rates among the immunized, or argue that COVID-19 is here to stay but manageable and that restrictions are unnecessary. Some further argue that most who aren’t vaccinated have chosen that path, and so if risk remains, it’s on them.

Such thinking ignores a third, not-insignificant group: those who would like to be immune but aren’t. Some people are still at risk because they can’t yet be vaccinated or because vaccines don’t work for them. They hope that their fellow Americans will take care of them. They hope that the rest of us will agree to sensible precautions or protections to keep them safe until they, too, can be immunized, or until the danger from exposure eventually subsides.

Much of the public is refusing. That’s not new, though. In America, it’s always been like this.

…

Part of my job, both as a writer and as a chief health officer, is to explain how much less-risky most activities are now compared with last year. Many of the people I talk with, though, have others in their life who aren’t yet safe, and they are horrified that we can’t create exceptions or come up with policies to protect their vulnerable loved ones. I share their frustration, but I’m puzzled by their surprise. America has never cared enough. People just didn’t notice before.

At some point - something has to give and we have to give those who want it - school with no masks. Those who don’t want that are going to have to do something like apply for Virtual VA for school next year.

You’ve got it backward. Your maskless kids can apply for virtual. Makes more sense. Masks in public. None at home.

Nope sorry honey - you have it backwards. Why would 99% of folks change their behavior to accommodate the 1% versus the 1% making the necessary adjustments they need to make? You are so friggin selfish it's disgusting.

You must not be in APS. The majority of parents want to keep masks. Even that silly informal poll showed so.

Have you been to any youth basketball games in Arlington, seen and Arlington Soccer or Lax teams playing at St. James, seen their swim teams competing in meets? There are plenty of Arlington parents perfectly fine with their kids indoors unmasked. Heck, just look at any resteraunt and you'll see plenty of families.

I am comfortable allowing my fully vaccinated children unmask indoors. If the vast majority of Arlington families want to continue masking then there should be very little change from the status quo by lifting the mandate. Stop making kids protect the unvaccinated and the vulnerable while the rest of society continues on w/o restrictions. It is not okay.

The problem you are identifying is that the rest of society isn't doing what it can and should to protect vulnerable people. You know, the kids with chronic health conditions at risk for covid complications who are too young for a vaccine.

If anyone were talking about the reality that there are some kids (like hearing impaired) who have legitimate, serious problems wearing masks, then I would hope we could come up with some clear exceptions to mask mandates. I suspect we're talking pretty small numbers here. (which isn't to say that those kids are unimportant, simply that I think unmasking kids who have legitimate need to be unmasked would be a small increase in transmission risk). But where is that line? Parents, such as myself, who support masks in school to protect my under 5 with a COVID health risk, aren't trying to harm other kids. The problem is I hear too many parents screaming that they're tired of wearing a mask, they're tired of not living their life the way they want to. Its all about them, them, them and what they want. The parents complainign they're just tired of masks, and they are done looking out for other people are the problem. The trouble is defining what is and is not a legit need to unmask in school. Parents of kids at risk for COVID complications and parents of kids with legitimate problems wearing masks have a lot in common.

Except that the fight seems to be only for one group (kids at risk for Covid complications) and not for the other (kids who legitimately have issues from masking).

Did you know the CDC defined all primary grade kids learning to read as being potentially at risk from masking?

The conversation is all masks or none at all. This is a problem. Parents with at risk under 5s vs. whiny parents who are just tired of covid AND parents with kids who have legitimate issues with masks. Parents with at risk under 5s don't trust this second group because it includes whiny parents who want zero limitations on who can be maskless. Parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks don't trust the other side to ever have an off ramp, and don't trust a limitation on who can be maskless because they fear it won't include their child. I do think the biggest problem is the whiny parents who are just tired of COVID. They're the ones screaming loudest for zero restrictions anywhere. They know they don't have a legitimate medical basis for their kids to take off their masks. Kids I know with legitimate issues with masks also have some other challenges, so their parents are all too familiar with the world not being as available to them as it is to everyone else. I'm not saying that is right. I'm simply saying in my limited experience these are NOT the families throwing tantrums demanding they be allowed to take masks off just because they feel like it. I don't know how to solve this, I'm simply pointing out that two groups with a lot in common (parents with at risk under 5s and parents with kids who have legit issues with masks) are getting wedged apart by a very loud and selfish group of people.

In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Not in my experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

As far as legitimate need, I know at least one parent with a child with a medical exemption in my school district. I don't know how easy they are to get, but they are an option.

I don't think we're disagreeing, just sharing different anecdotal experiences.

What district are you in? If medical exemptions are already an option for kids to opt out of masks then I'm wondering why people on here claim they are parents of kids with desperately need to take the masks off (again, thinking hearing impaired kids, and I'm sure there are others). I don't think APS has this opt out option, but I could be wrong.

I'm in FCPS.

I actually worked as staff at a school with a DHOH program last year and had DHOH kids in the class I was working with. Having the hearing impaired kid unmask doesn't help their hearing, and while the staff specifically in the DHOH program were given and used clear masks that is only partial. The classroom teachers didn't tend to use clear masks and definitely classmates don't. That means regular classroom time (the bulk of many these kids days, thankfully) and social issues still have hearing impairment problems. They need everyone else to be able to take the masks off. Even clear masks, while they help to see faces, make it somewhat harder to understand emotions because they block the set of the cheeks and stuff. Plus they fog. I'm not saying all parents of hearing impaired parents want their kids or their kids classmates to unmask at all. I'm just saying in their case it's actually the universal masking that is part of the problem.

And I also don't know how easy it is to get these opt-outs. The parent I know who got one in FCPS is incredibly feisty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, less than 3% of Fall Church PS parents have opted out of masking, as they now are able to. Anti-maskers thinking they are in the majority are in actuality in some crazy echo chamber.

I don't plan on opting out my kids, but I plan on telling them that they can take it off if they want to. If I get a call from the school, I'll tell them my children are opting out. Nothing in the text of the bill requires a specific form or even a written election.

Such strange behavior. What are you trying to prove?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst case, it’s just over two weeks until we find out which kids have completely antisocial, self-absorbed parents, and therefore are best avoided.

Yep - just look for the kids wearing masks and then you will know who has parents like that !

You know that kid or someone in their household could’ve medically fragile and therefore have strong reason for needing the mask, especially as your kid goes without, right?

This article nails it so well: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/weve-never-protected-the-vulnerable/619981/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR15DA6nTNIthIUjDAArj_7CuRgD6fdeg7PkIcptLEkjgr8EuoX6uTZr6Ow

From the article:

Now, as more and more people get vaccinated, much of the country is returning to normal. Some people point to decreased hospitalization and mortality rates among the immunized, or argue that COVID-19 is here to stay but manageable and that restrictions are unnecessary. Some further argue that most who aren’t vaccinated have chosen that path, and so if risk remains, it’s on them.

Such thinking ignores a third, not-insignificant group: those who would like to be immune but aren’t. Some people are still at risk because they can’t yet be vaccinated or because vaccines don’t work for them. They hope that their fellow Americans will take care of them. They hope that the rest of us will agree to sensible precautions or protections to keep them safe until they, too, can be immunized, or until the danger from exposure eventually subsides.

Much of the public is refusing. That’s not new, though. In America, it’s always been like this.

…

Part of my job, both as a writer and as a chief health officer, is to explain how much less-risky most activities are now compared with last year. Many of the people I talk with, though, have others in their life who aren’t yet safe, and they are horrified that we can’t create exceptions or come up with policies to protect their vulnerable loved ones. I share their frustration, but I’m puzzled by their surprise. America has never cared enough. People just didn’t notice before.

At some point - something has to give and we have to give those who want it - school with no masks. Those who don’t want that are going to have to do something like apply for Virtual VA for school next year.

You’ve got it backward. Your maskless kids can apply for virtual. Makes more sense. Masks in public. None at home.

Nope sorry honey - you have it backwards. Why would 99% of folks change their behavior to accommodate the 1% versus the 1% making the necessary adjustments they need to make? You are so friggin selfish it's disgusting.

You must not be in APS. The majority of parents want to keep masks. Even that silly informal poll showed so.

Have you been to any youth basketball games in Arlington, seen and Arlington Soccer or Lax teams playing at St. James, seen their swim teams competing in meets? There are plenty of Arlington parents perfectly fine with their kids indoors unmasked. Heck, just look at any resteraunt and you'll see plenty of families.

I am comfortable allowing my fully vaccinated children unmask indoors. If the vast majority of Arlington families want to continue masking then there should be very little change from the status quo by lifting the mandate. Stop making kids protect the unvaccinated and the vulnerable while the rest of society continues on w/o restrictions. It is not okay.

The problem you are identifying is that the rest of society isn't doing what it can and should to protect vulnerable people. You know, the kids with chronic health conditions at risk for covid complications who are too young for a vaccine.

If anyone were talking about the reality that there are some kids (like hearing impaired) who have legitimate, serious problems wearing masks, then I would hope we could come up with some clear exceptions to mask mandates. I suspect we're talking pretty small numbers here. (which isn't to say that those kids are unimportant, simply that I think unmasking kids who have legitimate need to be unmasked would be a small increase in transmission risk). But where is that line? Parents, such as myself, who support masks in school to protect my under 5 with a COVID health risk, aren't trying to harm other kids. The problem is I hear too many parents screaming that they're tired of wearing a mask, they're tired of not living their life the way they want to. Its all about them, them, them and what they want. The parents complainign they're just tired of masks, and they are done looking out for other people are the problem. The trouble is defining what is and is not a legit need to unmask in school. Parents of kids at risk for COVID complications and parents of kids with legitimate problems wearing masks have a lot in common.

Except that the fight seems to be only for one group (kids at risk for Covid complications) and not for the other (kids who legitimately have issues from masking).

Did you know the CDC defined all primary grade kids learning to read as being potentially at risk from masking?

The conversation is all masks or none at all. This is a problem. Parents with at risk under 5s vs. whiny parents who are just tired of covid AND parents with kids who have legitimate issues with masks. Parents with at risk under 5s don't trust this second group because it includes whiny parents who want zero limitations on who can be maskless. Parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks don't trust the other side to ever have an off ramp, and don't trust a limitation on who can be maskless because they fear it won't include their child. I do think the biggest problem is the whiny parents who are just tired of COVID. They're the ones screaming loudest for zero restrictions anywhere. They know they don't have a legitimate medical basis for their kids to take off their masks. Kids I know with legitimate issues with masks also have some other challenges, so their parents are all too familiar with the world not being as available to them as it is to everyone else. I'm not saying that is right. I'm simply saying in my limited experience these are NOT the families throwing tantrums demanding they be allowed to take masks off just because they feel like it. I don't know how to solve this, I'm simply pointing out that two groups with a lot in common (parents with at risk under 5s and parents with kids who have legit issues with masks) are getting wedged apart by a very loud and selfish group of people.

In my experience the parents of kids who have legitimate issues with masks are highly favorable of simply mask optional for everyone, which is also what parents of kids who are simply mask haters want. Nobody is asking for a return to 2019 where masks are illegal to wear in Virginia and schools also prohibit them.

I suspect that is the case because there isn't a clear way to define who has legitimate issues with masks and parents fear their kid will be left out. A child development or medical professional could probably come up with one. I just think parents of kids with legitimate issues with masks and parents of at risk kids under 5 have a lot in common. We have kids with "extra" needs and its our job to protect them. We're not trying to hurt other kids. I think we gravitate to the all or nothing extremes because there are so many people in the middle who are acting selfishly.

Not in my experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

As far as legitimate need, I know at least one parent with a child with a medical exemption in my school district. I don't know how easy they are to get, but they are an option.

I don't think we're disagreeing, just sharing different anecdotal experiences.

What district are you in? If medical exemptions are already an option for kids to opt out of masks then I'm wondering why people on here claim they are parents of kids with desperately need to take the masks off (again, thinking hearing impaired kids, and I'm sure there are others). I don't think APS has this opt out option, but I could be wrong.

I'm in FCPS.

I actually worked as staff at a school with a DHOH program last year and had DHOH kids in the class I was working with. Having the hearing impaired kid unmask doesn't help their hearing, and while the staff specifically in the DHOH program were given and used clear masks that is only partial. The classroom teachers didn't tend to use clear masks and definitely classmates don't. That means regular classroom time (the bulk of many these kids days, thankfully) and social issues still have hearing impairment problems. They need everyone else to be able to take the masks off. Even clear masks, while they help to see faces, make it somewhat harder to understand emotions because they block the set of the cheeks and stuff. Plus they fog. I'm not saying all parents of hearing impaired parents want their kids or their kids classmates to unmask at all. I'm just saying in their case it's actually the universal masking that is part of the problem.

And I also don't know how easy it is to get these opt-outs. The parent I know who got one in FCPS is incredibly feisty.

Parent of an HOH child here and yes, a medical exemption for an HOH kid makes no sense because everyone else around them is still wearing masks. You can't force teachers or classmates to unmask. I can't imagine asking others to do this for my child though I'm sure there are some parents out there who want that. Honestly I don't think masking has had much of an impact on my child. They are still young and have literally never been to school without a mask. They are on track with hearing peers in terms of phonological awareness, and it's not really something we explicitly work on at home. So it's not a given that HOH kids will struggle in this environment. I'm sure the ability to adapt to masking depends on the child just like it does for other conditions.

I kind of think some parents of kids who are not doing well with speech and language are blaming the masks because it's an easy place to put their worries and frustrations. In reality no one knows if a young kid would be struggling even with no masks.

[Anonymous]

That she is riddled with irrational fear like a responsible subject should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

He was elected to do this. Parents of at-risk students will have the option to mask their child.

(funny that the governor won't put his OWN kids in a school that don't require masks...clearly he doesn't think masks are the child abuse that many of his supporters think...)

* I'm for losing the masks within the next few weeks, by the way....but the hypocrisy here just kills me....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, less than 3% of Fall Church PS parents have opted out of masking, as they now are able to. Anti-maskers thinking they are in the majority are in actuality in some crazy echo chamber.

I mean, it's been a day. Give it time.

Also, why is everyone so scared of a small percentage of the school population being unmasked?

Because they want their own kid to mask and they are afraid they are going to have to deal with the blowback of that when other kids are not masking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, less than 3% of Fall Church PS parents have opted out of masking, as they now are able to. Anti-maskers thinking they are in the majority are in actuality in some crazy echo chamber.

I mean, it's been a day. Give it time.

Also, why is everyone so scared of a small percentage of the school population being unmasked?

Exactly. If so few people choose to unmask then doesn’t that prove it should be mask optional? That allows the families whose kids are not doing well with masking to opt out and barely moves the needle. Of course, the reality is that most parents are afraid of being socially ostracized for wanting masks off their kids, but everyone can see which way the wind is blowing and it will soon be socially acceptable to go mask free. At that point the mask always crowd will have FOMO.

Well I support Universal masking but I'm not having my kid mask if others in their classes are not showing them the same courtesy. I'm happy to participate in a group mitigation effort but not planning to give a special priviledge to a whiny subset of people that only cares about themselves.

That... doesn't make sense. You're in favor of masking unless someone else doesn't have to, in which case you don't believe in masking? Sounds like you aren't actually that into masking after all.

Agree. If you believe masks provide significant benefit, wouldn't those that are masked have the special privilege?

My mask protects you, your mask protects me. Surely you’ve heard that. It’s a collective action.

The new info is one person in a KN95 has more protection than two in surgical masks. It's 2022 - not 2020 anymore.