Last minute plan B if schools don’t open?

[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:Sooo... there is nothing that says that the increased virulence is magically restricted to adults.

Remember when we were reading that children could magically never be infected? Or be ill? Or when we read that they magically never could transmit?

This poor NYTimes article came out many long long hours before the WaPo game-changing article on CDC's new understanding of the pandemic.

No, no one said that children couldn't be infected or be ill or transmit. Yes, it is still true that children are less likely to get, be ill from, and (probably) transmit alpha covid.

Yes, delta is being shown to be more transmissible, and that is true for children, as reflected in the articles cited above.

No, you haven't seen anything that says that delta is worse than alpha for kids who contract it.

Yes, there are more cases of delta in children than alpha, because it is more transmissible. Yes, that means that the overall number of kids who get sick from covid (delta) will be higher.

Why don't we....idk....wait for data before losing our minds?

Ohh, you're *that* kind of guy.
The kind that denies the prior batch of untrue placating bullshit, feeds a new fresh heaping, and when that doesn't work, suggests we wait before losing our minds.

DP. Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that kids "magically" could not be infected, get ill, or transmit. Maybe there were some posters of that ilk here on DCUM as well, but why do you think the PP was among them? That's quite an assumption on an anonymous forum. What sane people here and elsewhere have been emphasizing all along is what you can read in the PP's follow up post - that kids are very unlikely to get severely ill (still true with delta), and less likely than adults to get infected and transmit (probably still true with delta, but maybe less so).

You do sound panicked though, so any nuance in arguments may just have gotten scrambled in your mind.

Just like a year from now you might say "Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that long-covid didn't exist in children." What many are saying on here amounts to the same thing though. They're saying that it's largely hypothetical, and so rare it should be irrelevant to parenting decisions and policy decisions.

You can speculate all you want about what I or some other anonymous poster might say a year from now. Your assumptions change nothing about the veracity of my post.

LOL. Somebody just said it one thread over.

"It'd be a lot better and easier to just mandate the vaccine for public employees. We have to start getting back to normal. Kid to kid transmission is very unlikely." Only the dumbest of Trumpers, eh? Even I didn't think people believed that 'ish in 2021. I was reeling about when they said it in 2020.

I didn't post that comment, but in 2020, kid to kid transmission in schools, especially when masks were worn but even without, has proved to be indeed very unlikely. When there have been cases in schools and close contacts were tested, here and abroad, these cases usually proved to be isolated.

It remains to be seen to what extent that changes with delta.

Could we do the math now? It is 1000x more transmissable and lives in the nose (which kids like to pick). They said it's more contagious than ebola. Would you sit in a closed classroom with 20 cloth-masked children who might have ebola for 8 hours a day?

No, but they would happily send their kids to do it so they could have "socialization."

Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

1000x transmissibility vs the actual 50% higher transmissibility makes a huge difference and pointing it out is not petty.

To be precise, I should say that delta is 50% more transmissible than the previously widespread alpha, which was 50% more contagious than the original strain. So that makes delta 225% more contagious than the original SARS-Cov-2, i.e. 2.25x. Very far from 1000x.

[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:Sooo... there is nothing that says that the increased virulence is magically restricted to adults.

Remember when we were reading that children could magically never be infected? Or be ill? Or when we read that they magically never could transmit?

This poor NYTimes article came out many long long hours before the WaPo game-changing article on CDC's new understanding of the pandemic.

No, no one said that children couldn't be infected or be ill or transmit. Yes, it is still true that children are less likely to get, be ill from, and (probably) transmit alpha covid.

Yes, delta is being shown to be more transmissible, and that is true for children, as reflected in the articles cited above.

No, you haven't seen anything that says that delta is worse than alpha for kids who contract it.

Yes, there are more cases of delta in children than alpha, because it is more transmissible. Yes, that means that the overall number of kids who get sick from covid (delta) will be higher.

Why don't we....idk....wait for data before losing our minds?

Ohh, you're *that* kind of guy.
The kind that denies the prior batch of untrue placating bullshit, feeds a new fresh heaping, and when that doesn't work, suggests we wait before losing our minds.

DP. Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that kids "magically" could not be infected, get ill, or transmit. Maybe there were some posters of that ilk here on DCUM as well, but why do you think the PP was among them? That's quite an assumption on an anonymous forum. What sane people here and elsewhere have been emphasizing all along is what you can read in the PP's follow up post - that kids are very unlikely to get severely ill (still true with delta), and less likely than adults to get infected and transmit (probably still true with delta, but maybe less so).

You do sound panicked though, so any nuance in arguments may just have gotten scrambled in your mind.

Just like a year from now you might say "Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that long-covid didn't exist in children." What many are saying on here amounts to the same thing though. They're saying that it's largely hypothetical, and so rare it should be irrelevant to parenting decisions and policy decisions.

You can speculate all you want about what I or some other anonymous poster might say a year from now. Your assumptions change nothing about the veracity of my post.

LOL. Somebody just said it one thread over.

"It'd be a lot better and easier to just mandate the vaccine for public employees. We have to start getting back to normal. Kid to kid transmission is very unlikely." Only the dumbest of Trumpers, eh? Even I didn't think people believed that 'ish in 2021. I was reeling about when they said it in 2020.

I didn't post that comment, but in 2020, kid to kid transmission in schools, especially when masks were worn but even without, has proved to be indeed very unlikely. When there have been cases in schools and close contacts were tested, here and abroad, these cases usually proved to be isolated.

It remains to be seen to what extent that changes with delta.

Could we do the math now? It is 1000x more transmissable and lives in the nose (which kids like to pick). They said it's more contagious than ebola. Would you sit in a closed classroom with 20 cloth-masked children who might have ebola for 8 hours a day?

No, but they would happily send their kids to do it so they could have "socialization."

Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

1000x transmissibility vs the actual 50% higher transmissibility makes a huge difference and pointing it out is not petty.

To be precise, I should say that delta is 50% more transmissible than the previously widespread alpha, which was 50% more contagious than the original strain. So that makes delta 225% more contagious than the original SARS-Cov-2, i.e. 2.25x. Very far from 1000x.

Since the PP above was speaking of doing the math…

[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:Sooo... there is nothing that says that the increased virulence is magically restricted to adults.

Remember when we were reading that children could magically never be infected? Or be ill? Or when we read that they magically never could transmit?

This poor NYTimes article came out many long long hours before the WaPo game-changing article on CDC's new understanding of the pandemic.

No, no one said that children couldn't be infected or be ill or transmit. Yes, it is still true that children are less likely to get, be ill from, and (probably) transmit alpha covid.

Yes, delta is being shown to be more transmissible, and that is true for children, as reflected in the articles cited above.

No, you haven't seen anything that says that delta is worse than alpha for kids who contract it.

Yes, there are more cases of delta in children than alpha, because it is more transmissible. Yes, that means that the overall number of kids who get sick from covid (delta) will be higher.

Why don't we....idk....wait for data before losing our minds?

Ohh, you're *that* kind of guy.
The kind that denies the prior batch of untrue placating bullshit, feeds a new fresh heaping, and when that doesn't work, suggests we wait before losing our minds.

DP. Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that kids "magically" could not be infected, get ill, or transmit. Maybe there were some posters of that ilk here on DCUM as well, but why do you think the PP was among them? That's quite an assumption on an anonymous forum. What sane people here and elsewhere have been emphasizing all along is what you can read in the PP's follow up post - that kids are very unlikely to get severely ill (still true with delta), and less likely than adults to get infected and transmit (probably still true with delta, but maybe less so).

You do sound panicked though, so any nuance in arguments may just have gotten scrambled in your mind.

Just like a year from now you might say "Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that long-covid didn't exist in children." What many are saying on here amounts to the same thing though. They're saying that it's largely hypothetical, and so rare it should be irrelevant to parenting decisions and policy decisions.

You can speculate all you want about what I or some other anonymous poster might say a year from now. Your assumptions change nothing about the veracity of my post.

LOL. Somebody just said it one thread over.

"It'd be a lot better and easier to just mandate the vaccine for public employees. We have to start getting back to normal. Kid to kid transmission is very unlikely." Only the dumbest of Trumpers, eh? Even I didn't think people believed that 'ish in 2021. I was reeling about when they said it in 2020.

I didn't post that comment, but in 2020, kid to kid transmission in schools, especially when masks were worn but even without, has proved to be indeed very unlikely. When there have been cases in schools and close contacts were tested, here and abroad, these cases usually proved to be isolated.

It remains to be seen to what extent that changes with delta.

Could we do the math now? It is 1000x more transmissable and lives in the nose (which kids like to pick). They said it's more contagious than ebola. Would you sit in a closed classroom with 20 cloth-masked children who might have ebola for 8 hours a day?

No, but they would happily send their kids to do it so they could have "socialization."

Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

oh ffs. If you can’t tell the difference between 50% and 1000x, maybe you should not be opining at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

1000x transmissibility vs the actual 50% higher transmissibility makes a huge difference and pointing it out is not petty.

To be precise, I should say that delta is 50% more transmissible than the previously widespread alpha, which was 50% more contagious than the original strain. So that makes delta 225% more contagious than the original SARS-Cov-2, i.e. 2.25x. Very far from 1000x.

I don't know that these figures are up-to-date.
Yesterday's news about the CDC report says delta is as contagious as chickenpox.
The R0 of chickenpox is 8.5
The R0 of the original covid was estimated at 2.5

That's an enormous difference.
It would be like saying "The earthquake was 10 on the Richter scale, not 11, fear-monger!" As exponential a difference that is, who GAF 10 or 11, a city's flattened, that's really bad. It's so bad that we can't even visualize how effing bad it is.
Same here. An R0 of 8.5 is so effing bad. Who cares that some anonymous rando confused the 1000x more virus produced with the difference in how contagious they are? That mistake has been everywhere for days.

[Anonymous]

No one knows math or risk and I give up. I’m glad you aren’t the ones in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one knows math or risk and I give up. I’m glad you aren’t the ones in charge.

+1

what is 1000 x .0001

omg what if that becomes 2000 x .0001

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

think this previous quote puts it all in perspective:

[i]Out of about 3.5 million cases of Covid-19 in children in the United States, the National Center for Health Statistics has reported, as of July 28, that 519 children have died from Covid-19 (fewer than 0.015 percent), including 346 children 5 to 17 years of age, and 173 children 4 or younger. Children with underlying medical conditions are the most likely to be hospitalized. Black and Hispanic children also had higher rates of hospitalization, although overall risk remained low."
...
"While any death of a child is devastating, it may help parents to think about other risks to childhood health compared to Covid-19. The C.D.C. estimates there were 480 deaths among children from influenza during the 2018-19 school year. Injury is the leading cause of death among children — about 12,000 children and young adults 1 to 19 years of age die in accidents each year, including more than 4,000 deaths in car crashes, 900 drowning accidents and 761 unintentional poisonings or drug overdoses.

+1. The risk to children isn't nothing, of course. But it's on par with other risks that we know about and manage as part of navigating the world. If you are personally at higher risk from anything, you put measures in place. I'm more vigilant with groceries because my youngest has unusual food allergies. In DC, we've seen 0% mortality for anyone under age 19 due to Covid, and maybe 10 deaths across all age groups in the last two months. (Needless to say, zero would be better. But we're in a very different place than last year.)

We tend to talk about "school" like it's intrinsically risky or safe. But it's how you handle it. You can open school with no safeguards, and have a real problem. You can open a school with careful planning and multiple safeguards, and do very well. Both the data and the experience from schools who were open all last year indicate the same.

1. Death is not the only outcome as a parent that I want to avoid. Would very much like to avoid serious illness, thank you very much.

2. I’m a Latina parent of a child with an underlying medical issue, so your quote isn’t so reassuring for me and my family. I didn’t request a medical waiver because the numbers looked okay and my child hated virtual school, but now I’m second-guessing myself.

3. “Careful planning” would seemingly include backup plans for shifting to virtual if the numbers get worse in schools, and yet here we are with no plans whatsoever.

[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:Sooo... there is nothing that says that the increased virulence is magically restricted to adults.

Remember when we were reading that children could magically never be infected? Or be ill? Or when we read that they magically never could transmit?

This poor NYTimes article came out many long long hours before the WaPo game-changing article on CDC's new understanding of the pandemic.

No, no one said that children couldn't be infected or be ill or transmit. Yes, it is still true that children are less likely to get, be ill from, and (probably) transmit alpha covid.

Yes, delta is being shown to be more transmissible, and that is true for children, as reflected in the articles cited above.

No, you haven't seen anything that says that delta is worse than alpha for kids who contract it.

Yes, there are more cases of delta in children than alpha, because it is more transmissible. Yes, that means that the overall number of kids who get sick from covid (delta) will be higher.

Why don't we....idk....wait for data before losing our minds?

Ohh, you're *that* kind of guy.
The kind that denies the prior batch of untrue placating bullshit, feeds a new fresh heaping, and when that doesn't work, suggests we wait before losing our minds.

DP. Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that kids "magically" could not be infected, get ill, or transmit. Maybe there were some posters of that ilk here on DCUM as well, but why do you think the PP was among them? That's quite an assumption on an anonymous forum. What sane people here and elsewhere have been emphasizing all along is what you can read in the PP's follow up post - that kids are very unlikely to get severely ill (still true with delta), and less likely than adults to get infected and transmit (probably still true with delta, but maybe less so).

You do sound panicked though, so any nuance in arguments may just have gotten scrambled in your mind.

Just like a year from now you might say "Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that long-covid didn't exist in children." What many are saying on here amounts to the same thing though. They're saying that it's largely hypothetical, and so rare it should be irrelevant to parenting decisions and policy decisions.

You can speculate all you want about what I or some other anonymous poster might say a year from now. Your assumptions change nothing about the veracity of my post.

LOL. Somebody just said it one thread over.

"It'd be a lot better and easier to just mandate the vaccine for public employees. We have to start getting back to normal. Kid to kid transmission is very unlikely." Only the dumbest of Trumpers, eh? Even I didn't think people believed that 'ish in 2021. I was reeling about when they said it in 2020.

I didn't post that comment, but in 2020, kid to kid transmission in schools, especially when masks were worn but even without, has proved to be indeed very unlikely. When there have been cases in schools and close contacts were tested, here and abroad, these cases usually proved to be isolated.

It remains to be seen to what extent that changes with delta.

Could we do the math now? It is 1000x more transmissable and lives in the nose (which kids like to pick). They said it's more contagious than ebola. Would you sit in a closed classroom with 20 cloth-masked children who might have ebola for 8 hours a day?

No, but they would happily send their kids to do it so they could have "socialization."

Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

1000x transmissibility vs the actual 50% higher transmissibility makes a huge difference and pointing it out is not petty.

To be precise, I should say that delta is 50% more transmissible than the previously widespread alpha, which was 50% more contagious than the original strain. So that makes delta 225% more contagious than the original SARS-Cov-2, i.e. 2.25x. Very far from 1000x.

You do understand that 225% more contagious is quite a lot and that that’s not good, right? Just checking.

[Anonymous]

Can I just remind people that this disease isn’t that bad for children? It’s not.

Do you send your kids to school during flu outbreaks? Your kid with underlying medical conditions? You probably do, although from now on you may not because everyone is suddenly afraid of every child being at all ever sick.

Keep reminding yourself this, because it’s not going away.

[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:Sooo... there is nothing that says that the increased virulence is magically restricted to adults.

Remember when we were reading that children could magically never be infected? Or be ill? Or when we read that they magically never could transmit?

This poor NYTimes article came out many long long hours before the WaPo game-changing article on CDC's new understanding of the pandemic.

No, no one said that children couldn't be infected or be ill or transmit. Yes, it is still true that children are less likely to get, be ill from, and (probably) transmit alpha covid.

Yes, delta is being shown to be more transmissible, and that is true for children, as reflected in the articles cited above.

No, you haven't seen anything that says that delta is worse than alpha for kids who contract it.

Yes, there are more cases of delta in children than alpha, because it is more transmissible. Yes, that means that the overall number of kids who get sick from covid (delta) will be higher.

Why don't we....idk....wait for data before losing our minds?

Ohh, you're *that* kind of guy.
The kind that denies the prior batch of untrue placating bullshit, feeds a new fresh heaping, and when that doesn't work, suggests we wait before losing our minds.

DP. Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that kids "magically" could not be infected, get ill, or transmit. Maybe there were some posters of that ilk here on DCUM as well, but why do you think the PP was among them? That's quite an assumption on an anonymous forum. What sane people here and elsewhere have been emphasizing all along is what you can read in the PP's follow up post - that kids are very unlikely to get severely ill (still true with delta), and less likely than adults to get infected and transmit (probably still true with delta, but maybe less so).

You do sound panicked though, so any nuance in arguments may just have gotten scrambled in your mind.

Just like a year from now you might say "Nobody except the dumbest Trumpers ever said that long-covid didn't exist in children." What many are saying on here amounts to the same thing though. They're saying that it's largely hypothetical, and so rare it should be irrelevant to parenting decisions and policy decisions.

You can speculate all you want about what I or some other anonymous poster might say a year from now. Your assumptions change nothing about the veracity of my post.

LOL. Somebody just said it one thread over.

"It'd be a lot better and easier to just mandate the vaccine for public employees. We have to start getting back to normal. Kid to kid transmission is very unlikely." Only the dumbest of Trumpers, eh? Even I didn't think people believed that 'ish in 2021. I was reeling about when they said it in 2020.

I didn't post that comment, but in 2020, kid to kid transmission in schools, especially when masks were worn but even without, has proved to be indeed very unlikely. When there have been cases in schools and close contacts were tested, here and abroad, these cases usually proved to be isolated.

It remains to be seen to what extent that changes with delta.

Could we do the math now? It is 1000x more transmissable and lives in the nose (which kids like to pick). They said it's more contagious than ebola. Would you sit in a closed classroom with 20 cloth-masked children who might have ebola for 8 hours a day?

No, but they would happily send their kids to do it so they could have "socialization."

Please note that PP‘s claim of thousandfold transmissibility is faults.

*false not faults. Voice recognition

I'm the first quoted PP on this, and I didn't make the 1000x claim or give the Ebola classroom image.
But at this point the increased transmissibility of delta in comparison to the original covid is stated by officials to be entirely game-changing, so the number doesn't make so much of a difference - outside of the petty scorekeeping of whether falsities are shared by either 'side' of the classroom-cramming debate.

1000x transmissibility vs the actual 50% higher transmissibility makes a huge difference and pointing it out is not petty.

To be precise, I should say that delta is 50% more transmissible than the previously widespread alpha, which was 50% more contagious than the original strain. So that makes delta 225% more contagious than the original SARS-Cov-2, i.e. 2.25x. Very far from 1000x.

You do understand that 225% more contagious is quite a lot and that that’s not good, right? Just checking.

it’s a lot less bad than 1000X!

look, we HAD successful in-person school with alpha all Term 3 and 4 and that included a considerable time span prior to widespread vaccination in DC. It went FINE. Now most adults are vaccinated and Delta is 50% more contagious population-wide. There’s no reason to believe that there will be widespread covid in schools. quarantines will be annoying. but it is better than DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I just remind people that this disease isn’t that bad for children? It’s not.

Do you send your kids to school during flu outbreaks? Your kid with underlying medical conditions? You probably do, although from now on you may not because everyone is suddenly afraid of every child being at all ever sick.

Keep reminding yourself this, because it’s not going away.

I do because I get my kid vaccinated for flu. I can’t for COVID because he’s under 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I just remind people that this disease isn’t that bad for children? It’s not.

Do you send your kids to school during flu outbreaks? Your kid with underlying medical conditions? You probably do, although from now on you may not because everyone is suddenly afraid of every child being at all ever sick.

Keep reminding yourself this, because it’s not going away.

Oklahoma pediatric ICUs are now full and are diverting to other states.

[Anonymous]

LUNCH IN THE CAFETERIA IS THE PROBLEM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I just remind people that this disease isn’t that bad for children? It’s not.

Do you send your kids to school during flu outbreaks? Your kid with underlying medical conditions? You probably do, although from now on you may not because everyone is suddenly afraid of every child being at all ever sick.

Keep reminding yourself this, because it’s not going away.

I do because I get my kid vaccinated for flu. I can’t for COVID because he’s under 12.

fine, Friendship Online Charter is for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I just remind people that this disease isn’t that bad for children? It’s not.

Do you send your kids to school during flu outbreaks? Your kid with underlying medical conditions? You probably do, although from now on you may not because everyone is suddenly afraid of every child being at all ever sick.

Keep reminding yourself this, because it’s not going away.

Oklahoma pediatric ICUs are now full and are diverting to other states.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-children-risk-of-covid-19-death-or-serious-illness-remain-extremely-low-new-studies-find-11625785260?mod=djemalertNEWS