Soi.....Who is pulling out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you think your child would have to stay out of school for a week? You return from your trip on Sunday, then give him an at-home covid test on Wednesday morning (i.e., three days later). He would only need to miss two days of school in that scenario (assuming the test were negative, of course).

[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?

but there’s no evidence “long covid” is a huge threat to kids, and evidence that it is not a threat. otoh pulling him out of school would be immediately harmful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you think your child would have to stay out of school for a week? You return from your trip on Sunday, then give him an at-home covid test on Wednesday morning (i.e., three days later). He would only need to miss two days of school in that scenario (assuming the test were negative, of course).

still too long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you think your child would have to stay out of school for a week? You return from your trip on Sunday, then give him an at-home covid test on Wednesday morning (i.e., three days later). He would only need to miss two days of school in that scenario (assuming the test were negative, of course).

still too long.

+1

Not for a trip that is totally Covid safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+3

Suggesting that a parent is making alarmed remarks on an anonymous forum either out of mental illness or nefarious intent is just... stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this thread was about something else.

Hahaha I did as well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+3

+4

Also, it is pandemic prawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel quarantine is for unvaxxed only.

Which is all kids under 12. Most of the school system. Why are people so obtuse?

I get that it really sucks to not be able to get younger kids vaccinated. But it also sucks for those kids to get COVID, especially given mounting evidence that the Delta variant is resulting in more, sicker kids. So the travel quarantine—which as another poster notes can be shortened via testing—seems like a reasonable way to help stem spread. Most travel is a choice, and we’re all having to make hard choices right now.

All of that said, I agree that the travel quarantine could be more refined/nuanced than it is. It is silly that you can travel to the VA-TN border, where vaccination rates are likely quite low and COVID-19 rates much higher, but not to Philadelphia or NYC or Boston, where the opposite is the case.

+1

But seems a lot of people like to complain about a rule that affects them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel quarantine is for unvaxxed only.

Which is all kids under 12. Most of the school system. Why are people so obtuse?

I get that it really sucks to not be able to get younger kids vaccinated. But it also sucks for those kids to get COVID, especially given mounting evidence that the Delta variant is resulting in more, sicker kids. So the travel quarantine—which as another poster notes can be shortened via testing—seems like a reasonable way to help stem spread. Most travel is a choice, and we’re all having to make hard choices right now.

All of that said, I agree that the travel quarantine could be more refined/nuanced than it is. It is silly that you can travel to the VA-TN border, where vaccination rates are likely quite low and COVID-19 rates much higher, but not to Philadelphia or NYC or Boston, where the opposite is the case.

+1

But seems a lot of people like to complain about a rule that affects them

? Yes, people complain about this that impact them negatively and are also likely of zero value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel quarantine is for unvaxxed only.

Which is all kids under 12. Most of the school system. Why are people so obtuse?

I get that it really sucks to not be able to get younger kids vaccinated. But it also sucks for those kids to get COVID, especially given mounting evidence that the Delta variant is resulting in more, sicker kids. So the travel quarantine—which as another poster notes can be shortened via testing—seems like a reasonable way to help stem spread. Most travel is a choice, and we’re all having to make hard choices right now.

All of that said, I agree that the travel quarantine could be more refined/nuanced than it is. It is silly that you can travel to the VA-TN border, where vaccination rates are likely quite low and COVID-19 rates much higher, but not to Philadelphia or NYC or Boston, where the opposite is the case.

+1

But seems a lot of people like to complain about a rule that affects them

? Yes, people complain about this that impact them negatively and are also likely of zero value.

*"rules" that impact them, not "this" that impact them.

[Anonymous]

I just wish all the travelers would show some respect. You could also NOT travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just wish all the travelers would show some respect. You could also NOT travel.

Listen to them. They basically believe covid doesn't exist in children. They have absolutely no problem at all letting their kids be infected and transmit to other kids. Thread after thread, they end up saying this - after calling everyone else all sorts of names and telling us to hide in basements/sign up for charter virtual, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just wish all the travelers would show some respect. You could also NOT travel.

You show respect with travel. People are hurting out there on the job front. We need the economy back. Two things are key in that 1. Vaccine prevents serious illness in all but a a very small number of cases. 2. Covid is not serious with respect to younger kids. Yes some die -- in all of the pandemic less than are killed in car accidents. There is a level of risk you need to accept in life. If you do not want to, you do you but the rest of the world is moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish all the travelers would show some respect. You could also NOT travel.

You show respect with travel. People are hurting out there on the job front. We need the economy back. Two things are key in that 1. Vaccine prevents serious illness in all but a a very small number of cases. 2. Covid is not serious with respect to younger kids. Yes some die -- in all of the pandemic less than are killed in car accidents. There is a level of risk you need to accept in life. If you do not want to, you do you but the rest of the world is moving on.

You can’t compare non-Delta, shut down schools, masks and other mitigation measures # of kids who die to car accidents and say “we will be totally fine when schools reopen with packed classrooms because so few kids died of COVID in totally different circumstances!”