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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is plenty of literature showing that masks interfere with emotion recognition. If you can’t see how masks interfere with speech therapy, I really cannot help you.

ASHA’s position is far from “science based.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, just curious, of course babies aren’t inherently “afraid” of masks. But would you disagree that babies are born with an inherent need to see the faces of the people who care for them? Who soothe them? Who are teaching them emotion, communication, speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again please explain how you know better than the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again please explain how you know better than the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia?

The same CHOP that states --- in that linked document -- very clearly that schools MUST respect individual student's and staff's choice to continue to mask?

[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

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:

(Since you might have missed it)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody in this thread is claiming that there is no impact on children and there mental health. I mean, a learned behavior is an impact.

So don't you think you can take that strawman argument to a thread where it is actually happening, since you believe there are so many of them?

[Anonymous]

"their mental health"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You might go back and skim to see that no one said there aren’t issues with masks. Simply find a provider who’s use of them matches your own needs and preferences. Several suggestions of mask free or mask adaptable/flexible therapists have been offered or chimed in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine that any therapist worth half her salt can't get through to a kid without traumatizing the kid that a mask on both is a good idea, no matter how anxious the kid is. If you're telling me that that's not possible with your kid, then al I can say is maybe your kid needs more than outpatient treatment.

But the whole point is to reduce the child’s covid anxiety. Mask theater to deliver psychotherapy to a child with covid anxiety is just really, really twisted. In OP’s shoes I would likely go to Virginia where they are more likely to find an unmasked therapist.

The child wants to mask and op will not let the child. Covid is not why this child is struggling.

Yes, surely you, an internet rando, know the OP’s child better than the OP.

[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

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:

(Since you might have missed it)

The guidance doesn’t discuss speech therapy/autism but makes clear that kids can be unmasked. it’s a start.

[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

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:

(Since you might have missed it)

The guidance doesn’t discuss speech therapy/autism but makes clear that kids can be unmasked. it’s a start.

And makes it clear that schools MUST respect students and staff who chose to continue to mask. It's a good policy, and I trust that the PP who endorsed it supports all of it, including the parts they didn't quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We haven't had any real restrictions. If your child's mental health is that fragile stop blaming the pandemic already...OP is trying to bully others into not masking.

Most everything has been back to full normal for the last year and a half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We haven't had any real restrictions. If your child's mental health is that fragile stop blaming the pandemic already...OP is trying to bully others into not masking.

Most everything has been back to full normal for the last year and a half.

If you think the op is bullying anyone, perhaps you need to reread the original post. Perhaps you are triggered..

DC hasn’t been anywhere near normal until the present day. Go read the DC schools forum and see what restrictions are still being mandated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You might go back and skim to see that no one said there aren’t issues with masks. Simply find a provider who’s use of them matches your own needs and preferences. Several suggestions of mask free or mask adaptable/flexible therapists have been offered or chimed in.

Of course people on this thread are denying issues with masks. Like, there are people who are suggesting that the Op doesn’t know their child. It’s sad, particularly in a forum for issues for SN kids. Surely many parents of SN kids have heard that the problems our kids struggle with are not real or all due to poor parenting. And yet here you have those parents doing the same thing to a similar parent.

[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: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.

You might go back and skim to see that no one said there aren’t issues with masks. Simply find a provider who’s use of them matches your own needs and preferences. Several suggestions of mask free or mask adaptable/flexible therapists have been offered or chimed in.

Of course people on this thread are denying issues with masks. Like, there are people who are suggesting that the Op doesn’t know their child. It’s sad, particularly in a forum for issues for SN kids. Surely many parents of SN kids have heard that the problems our kids struggle with are not real or all due to poor parenting. And yet here you have those parents doing the same thing to a similar parent.

On the OP, I am fine with trying to find a maskless therapy option in the abstract. My question about the OP is that her comments suggest the OP is pushing an anti-mask approach on a child who is anxious about Covid. Specifically, she wrote about frustration about her child’s reluctance to enter a store without a mask. I see no reason to push your child to go into a public indoor store without a mask. While I don’t want to downplay the concerns about the child’s anxiety, there are suggestions in OP’s comments that OP is in part pushing her child to give up concerns about Covid that are reasonable.