Are therapists doing unmasked therapy for kids with anxiety about covid stuff yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

[Anonymous]

If bonkers therapists are still clinging to masks, sure it’s their bodily autonomy.

Of course parents are free to walk away, but we all know parents have little choice in this tight market.

But I don’t think insurance should pay for any of these sessions. It’d be like insurance paying for snake oil.

Lastly, I think ethical practitioners who felt they could not safely deliver services with out a mask should then step out of the market. You are essentially selling snake oil that has zero proven benefit. You’re a professional so I’m not sure how you look your clients with a straight face. But I guess that’s the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

You cited CHOP. I presume you agree with them that some students and staff may continue to choose to mask, and that schools should be supportive of that choice. Right?

from your link:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If bonkers therapists are still clinging to masks, sure it’s their bodily autonomy.

Of course parents are free to walk away, but we all know parents have little choice in this tight market.

But I don’t think insurance should pay for any of these sessions. It’d be like insurance paying for snake oil.

Lastly, I think ethical practitioners who felt they could not safely deliver services with out a mask should then step out of the market. You are essentially selling snake oil that has zero proven benefit. You’re a professional so I’m not sure how you look your clients with a straight face. But I guess that’s the problem.

Where are the studies showing negative impact? ASHA addressed this. You may not like their position, but you have not refuted it. "I don't think so" is not a science-based response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If bonkers therapists are still clinging to masks, sure it’s their bodily autonomy.

Of course parents are free to walk away, but we all know parents have little choice in this tight market.

But I don’t think insurance should pay for any of these sessions. It’d be like insurance paying for snake oil.

Lastly, I think ethical practitioners who felt they could not safely deliver services with out a mask should then step out of the market. You are essentially selling snake oil that has zero proven benefit. You’re a professional so I’m not sure how you look your clients with a straight face. But I guess that’s the problem.

You’re confusing your own preference with ethics. It would be unethical for me to not provide safety precautions for ALL of my patients based on the opinions and pressure of a few. Virtual is an option on the interim. Or a different provider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If bonkers therapists are still clinging to masks, sure it’s their bodily autonomy.

Of course parents are free to walk away, but we all know parents have little choice in this tight market.

But I don’t think insurance should pay for any of these sessions. It’d be like insurance paying for snake oil.

Lastly, I think ethical practitioners who felt they could not safely deliver services with out a mask should then step out of the market. You are essentially selling snake oil that has zero proven benefit. You’re a professional so I’m not sure how you look your clients with a straight face. But I guess that’s the problem.

You seem confused. And overwrought. If the services parents are seeking are “snake oil” then, yes, parents are more than free to “walk away”. What difference does a “tight market” make for services that these parents feel are unethical anyway? Besides, SO many people feel that the therapists who choose to mask are an anomaly— vastly outnumbered by therapists who don’t choose to mask. Surely a savvy consumer and caring parent focusing SOLELY and obsessively on this one politicized point as evidence of a therapist’s competence could simply find someone who met their very limited criteria. Surely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

Dp. Are you for real? People claim that on this site daily. I’m not going to go through however many pages of posts, but I see claims all the time on this site that any negative impacts (that people rightly deduce stem from pandemic restrictions) is obviously because of pre-existing anxiety or something the parents have done wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If bonkers therapists are still clinging to masks, sure it’s their bodily autonomy.

Of course parents are free to walk away, but we all know parents have little choice in this tight market.

But I don’t think insurance should pay for any of these sessions. It’d be like insurance paying for snake oil.

Lastly, I think ethical practitioners who felt they could not safely deliver services with out a mask should then step out of the market. You are essentially selling snake oil that has zero proven benefit. You’re a professional so I’m not sure how you look your clients with a straight face. But I guess that’s the problem.

You're the one who sounds bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

Dp. Are you for real? People claim that on this site daily. I’m not going to go through however many pages of posts, but I see claims all the time on this site that any negative impacts (that people rightly deduce stem from pandemic restrictions) is obviously because of pre-existing anxiety or something the parents have done wrong.

Okay. So you can't post to anyone in this 2 day old thread we are in who has claimed this, so we can agree those people are not participating in this discussion.

You can stop referencing them as if they are a part of the conversation now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

Dp. Are you for real? People claim that on this site daily. I’m not going to go through however many pages of posts, but I see claims all the time on this site that any negative impacts (that people rightly deduce stem from pandemic restrictions) is obviously because of pre-existing anxiety or something the parents have done wrong.

Okay. So you can't post to anyone in this 2 day old thread we are in who has claimed this, so we can agree those people are not participating in this discussion.

You can stop referencing them as if they are a part of the conversation now.

Ok. I went to the first page. Page 1. Go look. Someone says it’s “all learned behavior. Stop freaking your child out”. So blaming the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

Dp. Are you for real? People claim that on this site daily. I’m not going to go through however many pages of posts, but I see claims all the time on this site that any negative impacts (that people rightly deduce stem from pandemic restrictions) is obviously because of pre-existing anxiety or something the parents have done wrong.

Okay. So you can't post to anyone in this 2 day old thread we are in who has claimed this, so we can agree those people are not participating in this discussion.

You can stop referencing them as if they are a part of the conversation now.

Ok. I went to the first page. Page 1. Go look. Someone says it’s “all learned behavior. Stop freaking your child out”. So blaming the parents.

Her child's anxiety about masks is a learned behavior, unless you are claiming that babies are born with an inherent fear of masks. (They aren't.)

As to whether masking has any effect at all on learning, I don't see anyone claiming it doesn't. But if you want to move the goalposts, by all means carry on.

[Anonymous]

Child psychologist in DC here: I don’t wear a mask in sessions anymore, haven’t for a while. But if a child/family prefers to be masked then I mask. Client’s choice.
I do have some kids whose parents are not masking and telling the child that they don’t have to, but the kids still prefer to mask. It’s a comfort in a variety of ways probably. Sometimes when we are both masked during a session because it’s the child’s preference, and I know the parent is fine with unmasked, if the child kind of fidgets with their mask and takes it off for a moment, I encourage them that if they want to leave theirs off that I will wear mine so that they can feel kind of protected but also be mask-free. Basically, I respect people‘s choices but do believe overall that moving away from masks and the anxiety around them is better. Some people have family members who are high risk or kids who are high-risk and that isn’t entirely different situation in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Child psychologist in DC here: I don’t wear a mask in sessions anymore, haven’t for a while. But if a child/family prefers to be masked then I mask. Client’s choice.
I do have some kids whose parents are not masking and telling the child that they don’t have to, but the kids still prefer to mask. It’s a comfort in a variety of ways probably. Sometimes when we are both masked during a session because it’s the child’s preference, and I know the parent is fine with unmasked, if the child kind of fidgets with their mask and takes it off for a moment, I encourage them that if they want to leave theirs off that I will wear mine so that they can feel kind of protected but also be mask-free. Basically, I respect people‘s choices but do believe overall that moving away from masks and the anxiety around them is better. Some people have family members who are high risk or kids who are high-risk and that IS entirely different situation in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. But an individual's subjective and idiosyncratic views of risk re: COVID do trump everything else -- that is, nobody is an indentured servant or can be chained to a wall to provide unmasked care.

I suppose they can be let go or fired, but they can't forcibly be made to take risks. I think you know that, though. It's basic bodily autonomy.

If your views on health risks are out of step with the rest of the country/world, and they are likely interfering with therapy, then yeah, the provider has a duty to think it through. We are almost three years into this; no more excuse for policies that compromise care (like masked speech therapy, limiting visitors in hospitals) just because it has the appearance of reducing risk.

Does "thinking it through" mean "come to the same conclusion as I do" to you?

Thinking it through means an honest assessment of the costs and benefits. I have not seen that in this discussion. Instead people deny that masking has any impact.

Anyway, CHOP in Philly just released their school year recommendations, which do NOT include masking. It's interesting that all these therapists know better than the nation's premier children's hospital.

"Unless required by health departments, schools and early childhood programs no longer need to enact masking requirements within school settings."

https://policylab.chop.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/PolicyLab-CHOP-Guidance-for-Updated-COVID-19-School-Mitigation-Plans-2022-23.pdf

Please quote the post that claims this, since you keep citing it. I don't see it.

Dp. Are you for real? People claim that on this site daily. I’m not going to go through however many pages of posts, but I see claims all the time on this site that any negative impacts (that people rightly deduce stem from pandemic restrictions) is obviously because of pre-existing anxiety or something the parents have done wrong.

Okay. So you can't post to anyone in this 2 day old thread we are in who has claimed this, so we can agree those people are not participating in this discussion.

You can stop referencing them as if they are a part of the conversation now.

Ok. I went to the first page. Page 1. Go look. Someone says it’s “all learned behavior. Stop freaking your child out”. So blaming the parents.

Her child's anxiety about masks is a learned behavior, unless you are claiming that babies are born with an inherent fear of masks. (They aren't.)

As to whether masking has any effect at all on learning, I don't see anyone claiming it doesn't. But if you want to move the goalposts, by all means carry on.

Again. I’m not reading this entire thread. I started and I find it just sad and somewhat appalling. But this site is full of people denying that pandemic restrictions have had any impact on children and their mental health. There’s even people who claim children never experienced restrictions. So the OP is rightly feeling unsupported in her search for an appropriate therapist for her child.