Soi.....Who is pulling out?

[Anonymous]

I thought this thread was about something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that there is more information on what the future school year might look like, including the 10 day quarantine for outside travel, is anyone pulling out?
What impact does that have on the schools?

Where does one find a printed copy of the rules?

Travel rules:
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/Approved_Consolidated%20School%20FAQs_07.2.21.pdf

So, why is everyone flipping over the travel thing?? It still clearly says for domestic you can opt to get a covid test 3-5 after you turn and if it is negative you can go back to school.
Yeah international travel is 7 days & a covid test which probably means no international travel for Christmas but it could change by then.
It isn't like there are that many long breaks in the fall term for big trips anyway. If you travel the last week of August you kids miss a few days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that there is more information on what the future school year might look like, including the 10 day quarantine for outside travel, is anyone pulling out?
What impact does that have on the schools?

Where does one find a printed copy of the rules?

Travel rules:
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/Approved_Consolidated%20School%20FAQs_07.2.21.pdf

So, why is everyone flipping over the travel thing?? It still clearly says for domestic you can opt to get a covid test 3-5 after you turn and if it is negative you can go back to school.
Yeah international travel is 7 days & a covid test which probably means no international travel for Christmas but it could change by then.
It isn't like there are that many long breaks in the fall term for big trips anyway. If you travel the last week of August you kids miss a few days.

because if I take my kid to see relatives in NY or PA for a long weekend, he has to stay out of school for a whole week. Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really want to understand the risk of Long Covid to a kid who gets regular, mild Covid. My (limited) research has not found me answers.

there is research, and it finds that “long covid” isn’t really a concern for kids.

Please share this research.

“ This study found a low prevalence of symptoms compatible with long COVID in a randomly selected cohort of children assessed 6 months after serologic testing”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782164

This study is interesting, but, it is small (just 100 positives in the group); it does not add much to the limited research.

The authors note, “Although long COVID exists in children, estimates of the prevalence of persisting symptoms based on scarce literature range from 0% to 27%.”

The picture is still inconclusive. Maybe it’s tiny; maybe it’s not.

And what is a “small” number if virtually all unvaccinated kids get Covid?

+1 to each of your 4 points, and emphasis on the bolded.

Same old goal-post moving and fear mongering.

You ask for research- I give you research
You say research proves nothing; therefore we can’t be sure of anything and must keep schools closed.

LOL. You didn’t learn critical analysis in school, did you?

Believe me, I want my kids back in school, in-person, full-time. And I don’t want them to suffer for the rest if their lives from getting a stupid, avoidable virus. That’s unlikely, but possible. The current likelihood is smallish but unknown.

I’m not going to to hide in the basement, but we shouldn’t be reckless just because we are all fed up. I mean, I make my kids wear seat belts and bike helmets; don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing to consider is that school starts in 5 weeks. The way delta is spreading, I can't even imagine what it might look like. My kids are ready to go back to school.

I don't see in person happening in elementary with a virus that is 1000 more contagious and so many unvaccinated folks in DC who will aid the spread. Also, DC did so very little to improve physical.plants. I think we are all looking at 2022 once those who will (get vaccinated), do.

How, with the Delta spreading, will it be possible to stop it at the elementary school gates in 5 weeks? Do you think the spring measures were enough? If so , why? If not, what will be different?

Please be wrong, I don’t want to have to move temporarily again!

they are wrong. WTU is in active negotiations with DCPS right now so we can expect rumors and fearmongering to pick up here and elsewhere.

Hmmm, this is interesting. I've been wondering about the "delta variants" hysteria in this forum. It seems out of place, as these forums go (e.g., probably better to be discussed in the health and medicine forum). Bringing it here, to the DC Schools thread, certainly seems suspect.

Or, just maybe it’s because the Delta variant is know the predominant source of Covid in the US, and it is significantly more contagious than the original version, putting the unvaccinated (ie, our kids) at risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really want to understand the risk of Long Covid to a kid who gets regular, mild Covid. My (limited) research has not found me answers.

there is research, and it finds that “long covid” isn’t really a concern for kids.

Please share this research.

“ This study found a low prevalence of symptoms compatible with long COVID in a randomly selected cohort of children assessed 6 months after serologic testing”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782164

This study is interesting, but, it is small (just 100 positives in the group); it does not add much to the limited research.

The authors note, “Although long COVID exists in children, estimates of the prevalence of persisting symptoms based on scarce literature range from 0% to 27%.”

The picture is still inconclusive. Maybe it’s tiny; maybe it’s not.

And what is a “small” number if virtually all unvaccinated kids get Covid?

+1 to each of your 4 points, and emphasis on the bolded.

Same old goal-post moving and fear mongering.

You ask for research- I give you research
You say research proves nothing; therefore we can’t be sure of anything and must keep schools closed.

LOL. You didn’t learn critical analysis in school, did you?

Believe me, I want my kids back in school, in-person, full-time. And I don’t want them to suffer for the rest if their lives from getting a stupid, avoidable virus. That’s unlikely, but possible. The current likelihood is smallish but unknown.

I’m not going to to hide in the basement, but we shouldn’t be reckless just because we are all fed up. I mean, I make my kids wear seat belts and bike helmets; don’t you?

NP. Exactly. So let’s wear masks in school and open the windows. Reasonable precautions. That’s where your seatbelt analogy takes me. Not to measures that will impede full time school in an effort to eliminate all risk. You do know that car rides are still risky despite seatbelts, right? Yet we don’t lower the speed limit to the point where it interferes with normal life, even though that would save a lot of lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really want to understand the risk of Long Covid to a kid who gets regular, mild Covid. My (limited) research has not found me answers.

there is research, and it finds that “long covid” isn’t really a concern for kids.

Please share this research.

“ This study found a low prevalence of symptoms compatible with long COVID in a randomly selected cohort of children assessed 6 months after serologic testing”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782164

This study is interesting, but, it is small (just 100 positives in the group); it does not add much to the limited research.

The authors note, “Although long COVID exists in children, estimates of the prevalence of persisting symptoms based on scarce literature range from 0% to 27%.”

The picture is still inconclusive. Maybe it’s tiny; maybe it’s not.

And what is a “small” number if virtually all unvaccinated kids get Covid?

+1 to each of your 4 points, and emphasis on the bolded.

Same old goal-post moving and fear mongering.

You ask for research- I give you research
You say research proves nothing; therefore we can’t be sure of anything and must keep schools closed.

LOL. You didn’t learn critical analysis in school, did you?

Believe me, I want my kids back in school, in-person, full-time. And I don’t want them to suffer for the rest if their lives from getting a stupid, avoidable virus. That’s unlikely, but possible. The current likelihood is smallish but unknown.

I’m not going to to hide in the basement, but we shouldn’t be reckless just because we are all fed up. I mean, I make my kids wear seat belts and bike helmets; don’t you?

NP. Exactly. So let’s wear masks in school and open the windows. Reasonable precautions. That’s where your seatbelt analogy takes me. Not to measures that will impede full time school in an effort to eliminate all risk. You do know that car rides are still risky despite seatbelts, right? Yet we don’t lower the speed limit to the point where it interferes with normal life, even though that would save a lot of lives.

I never said anything about closing schools (the responding PP claimed that was my view). My kids desperately need school.

I don’t know the right answer. I imagine it’s somewhere in the middle between (1) close schools and (2$ let’s go totally back to normal and act like masks are some horrendous torture device. Sure would be nice if the next few weeks clear up some unknowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really want to understand the risk of Long Covid to a kid who gets regular, mild Covid. My (limited) research has not found me answers.

there is research, and it finds that “long covid” isn’t really a concern for kids.

Please share this research.

“ This study found a low prevalence of symptoms compatible with long COVID in a randomly selected cohort of children assessed 6 months after serologic testing”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782164

This study is interesting, but, it is small (just 100 positives in the group); it does not add much to the limited research.

The authors note, “Although long COVID exists in children, estimates of the prevalence of persisting symptoms based on scarce literature range from 0% to 27%.”

The picture is still inconclusive. Maybe it’s tiny; maybe it’s not.

And what is a “small” number if virtually all unvaccinated kids get Covid?

+1 to each of your 4 points, and emphasis on the bolded.

Same old goal-post moving and fear mongering.

You ask for research- I give you research
You say research proves nothing; therefore we can’t be sure of anything and must keep schools closed.

LOL. You didn’t learn critical analysis in school, did you?

Believe me, I want my kids back in school, in-person, full-time. And I don’t want them to suffer for the rest if their lives from getting a stupid, avoidable virus. That’s unlikely, but possible. The current likelihood is smallish but unknown.

I’m not going to to hide in the basement, but we shouldn’t be reckless just because we are all fed up. I mean, I make my kids wear seat belts and bike helmets; don’t you?

NP. Exactly. So let’s wear masks in school and open the windows. Reasonable precautions. That’s where your seatbelt analogy takes me. Not to measures that will impede full time school in an effort to eliminate all risk. You do know that car rides are still risky despite seatbelts, right? Yet we don’t lower the speed limit to the point where it interferes with normal life, even though that would save a lot of lives.

I never said anything about closing schools (the responding PP claimed that was my view). My kids desperately need school.

I don’t know the right answer. I imagine it’s somewhere in the middle between (1) close schools and (2$ let’s go totally back to normal and act like masks are some horrendous torture device. Sure would be nice if the next few weeks clear up some unknowns.

I didn’t mention closing schools either. But what can we do beyond masks and ventilation that doesn’t impede full time school? Distancing and cohorting requirements would do that, as we have seen this spring. And if school is hybrid, we won’t be safer because most kids will mingle with other cohorts in alternative childcare situations. Deep cleaning does nothing. Hand washing is good, mostly for other infections. Testing is one thing but Comes with serious downsides, such as unnecessary quarantines as false positives and non infectious positives are highly likely in low prevalence populations.

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

1. it's spelled non-sequitur;
2. it's at least 3 of us, because I saw others '+1'-ing each other;
3. Just because you don't want to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are pontificating on what happened at their school in May 2020, which is. not. relevant. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are "putting their foot down" saying things like "enough is enough, it is time to [drop the mask/return to 2019 life/stop with the pandemic pr*n]"
4. "delta is here and it's more contagious'' is becoming the biggest platitude and yet you a) want to pretend delta isn't here and spring 2020 data / anecdotes are relevant and b) are building the most inane conspiracy theories about why posters are bringing it up in the threads you frequent. You're being ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

1. it's spelled non-sequitur;
2. it's at least 3 of us, because I saw others '+1'-ing each other;
3. Just because you don't want to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are pontificating on what happened at their school in May 2020, which is. not. relevant. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are "putting their foot down" saying things like "enough is enough, it is time to [drop the mask/return to 2019 life/stop with the pandemic pr*n]"
4. "delta is here and it's more contagious'' is becoming the biggest platitude and yet you a) want to pretend delta isn't here and spring 2020 data / anecdotes are relevant and b) are building the most inane conspiracy theories about why posters are bringing it up in the threads you frequent. You're being ridiculous!

Thank you for correcting my spelling.

You realize "+1" can be written by the same person who wrote the original post, right?

I'm glad you are admitting that you aren't making the connection explicitly in the threads in which you are writing. You are expecting others to do it. But often, there isn't any simple connection. On a thread about whether people are pulling their kids out next year, a post says something like "delta is 1,000 percent more transmissible!!!!" Full stop. What's the connection? When asked, you respond "Why aren't you taking delta seriously?" I mean, you can say "delta is more transmissible and therefore I'm worried and am not sending my kids to in-person school this year." As it is, you seem like you are interested in inducing fear.

No one is pretending delta isn't something to think about. It's just we are measuring risk to understand how worrisome. Questioning unsupported claims about its danger is not ignoring it, but that's the narrative you are leaping to. That's either a panic response on your part, or is something you are doing to instill panic.

Also, what is "pr*n"? Prawns? Porn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really want to understand the risk of Long Covid to a kid who gets regular, mild Covid. My (limited) research has not found me answers.

there is research, and it finds that “long covid” isn’t really a concern for kids.

Please share this research.

“ This study found a low prevalence of symptoms compatible with long COVID in a randomly selected cohort of children assessed 6 months after serologic testing”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782164

This study is interesting, but, it is small (just 100 positives in the group); it does not add much to the limited research.

The authors note, “Although long COVID exists in children, estimates of the prevalence of persisting symptoms based on scarce literature range from 0% to 27%.”

The picture is still inconclusive. Maybe it’s tiny; maybe it’s not.

And what is a “small” number if virtually all unvaccinated kids get Covid?

+1 to each of your 4 points, and emphasis on the bolded.

Same old goal-post moving and fear mongering.

You ask for research- I give you research
You say research proves nothing; therefore we can’t be sure of anything and must keep schools closed.

LOL. You didn’t learn critical analysis in school, did you?

Believe me, I want my kids back in school, in-person, full-time. And I don’t want them to suffer for the rest if their lives from getting a stupid, avoidable virus. That’s unlikely, but possible. The current likelihood is smallish but unknown.

I’m not going to to hide in the basement, but we shouldn’t be reckless just because we are all fed up. I mean, I make my kids wear seat belts and bike helmets; don’t you?

Sources that say long covid is "for the rest of their lives"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

1. it's spelled non-sequitur;
2. it's at least 3 of us, because I saw others '+1'-ing each other;
3. Just because you don't want to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are pontificating on what happened at their school in May 2020, which is. not. relevant. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are "putting their foot down" saying things like "enough is enough, it is time to [drop the mask/return to 2019 life/stop with the pandemic pr*n]"
4. "delta is here and it's more contagious'' is becoming the biggest platitude and yet you a) want to pretend delta isn't here and spring 2020 data / anecdotes are relevant and b) are building the most inane conspiracy theories about why posters are bringing it up in the threads you frequent. You're being ridiculous!

Thank you for correcting my spelling.

You realize "+1" can be written by the same person who wrote the original post, right?

I'm glad you are admitting that you aren't making the connection explicitly in the threads in which you are writing. You are expecting others to do it. But often, there isn't any simple connection. On a thread about whether people are pulling their kids out next year, a post says something like "delta is 1,000 percent more transmissible!!!!" Full stop. What's the connection? When asked, you respond "Why aren't you taking delta seriously?" I mean, you can say "delta is more transmissible and therefore I'm worried and am not sending my kids to in-person school this year." As it is, you seem like you are interested in inducing fear.

No one is pretending delta isn't something to think about. It's just we are measuring risk to understand how worrisome. Questioning unsupported claims about its danger is not ignoring it, but that's the narrative you are leaping to. That's either a panic response on your part, or is something you are doing to instill panic.

Also, what is "pr*n"? Prawns? Porn?

TBabbly;DR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

1. it's spelled non-sequitur;
2. it's at least 3 of us, because I saw others '+1'-ing each other;
3. Just because you don't want to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are pontificating on what happened at their school in May 2020, which is. not. relevant. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are "putting their foot down" saying things like "enough is enough, it is time to [drop the mask/return to 2019 life/stop with the pandemic pr*n]"
4. "delta is here and it's more contagious'' is becoming the biggest platitude and yet you a) want to pretend delta isn't here and spring 2020 data / anecdotes are relevant and b) are building the most inane conspiracy theories about why posters are bringing it up in the threads you frequent. You're being ridiculous!

Thank you for correcting my spelling.

You realize "+1" can be written by the same person who wrote the original post, right?

I'm glad you are admitting that you aren't making the connection explicitly in the threads in which you are writing. You are expecting others to do it. But often, there isn't any simple connection. On a thread about whether people are pulling their kids out next year, a post says something like "delta is 1,000 percent more transmissible!!!!" Full stop. What's the connection? When asked, you respond "Why aren't you taking delta seriously?" I mean, you can say "delta is more transmissible and therefore I'm worried and am not sending my kids to in-person school this year." As it is, you seem like you are interested in inducing fear.

No one is pretending delta isn't something to think about. It's just we are measuring risk to understand how worrisome. Questioning unsupported claims about its danger is not ignoring it, but that's the narrative you are leaping to. That's either a panic response on your part, or is something you are doing to instill panic.

Also, what is "pr*n"? Prawns? Porn?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that there's at least one person running around saying non-sequiter and alarming things about delta. They don't generally offer any support for their alarming statements (and when asked say "just google it").

That suggests the person's aim is to either

1) just freak out on DCUM in some sort of attempt to seek others who agree with them (I'm not saying this is bad -- I've done it)
2) spread alarmist info in the attempt to....what? They don't really say what they are hoping to achieve. This suggests it's possibly because they are just trying to freak people out.

Note: There are other people who are saying "delta is worrisome so we should wear masks", or "delta is worrisome so we should require vaccinations of those who can get one." That's different than what the non-sequiter poster is doing.

1. it's spelled non-sequitur;
2. it's at least 3 of us, because I saw others '+1'-ing each other;
3. Just because you don't want to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are pontificating on what happened at their school in May 2020, which is. not. relevant. People butt in to bring up delta, when others are "putting their foot down" saying things like "enough is enough, it is time to [drop the mask/return to 2019 life/stop with the pandemic pr*n]"
4. "delta is here and it's more contagious'' is becoming the biggest platitude and yet you a) want to pretend delta isn't here and spring 2020 data / anecdotes are relevant and b) are building the most inane conspiracy theories about why posters are bringing it up in the threads you frequent. You're being ridiculous!

Thank you for correcting my spelling.

You realize "+1" can be written by the same person who wrote the original post, right?

I'm glad you are admitting that you aren't making the connection explicitly in the threads in which you are writing. You are expecting others to do it. But often, there isn't any simple connection. On a thread about whether people are pulling their kids out next year, a post says something like "delta is 1,000 percent more transmissible!!!!" Full stop. What's the connection? When asked, you respond "Why aren't you taking delta seriously?" I mean, you can say "delta is more transmissible and therefore I'm worried and am not sending my kids to in-person school this year." As it is, you seem like you are interested in inducing fear.

No one is pretending delta isn't something to think about. It's just we are measuring risk to understand how worrisome. Questioning unsupported claims about its danger is not ignoring it, but that's the narrative you are leaping to. That's either a panic response on your part, or is something you are doing to instill panic.

Also, what is "pr*n"? Prawns? Porn?

+1

+2