MCPS will now send kids home for ten days based on symptoms only

[Anonymous]

You guys should watch this:

https://southpark.cc.com/episodes/0ncw71/south-park-south-parq-vaccination-special-season-24-ep-2

[Anonymous]

Within 6 feet outside? Now in addition to an entire class of kids, it’s the entire grade level outside for recess? They have no way to determine that a student wasn’t in fact a close contact with the child with a symptom. So will they just presume everyone is a potential contact?
If this is the guidance, then what are schools doing to minimize risk of exposure? They would need to cohort students at all times while inside and out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Within 6 feet outside? Now in addition to an entire class of kids, it’s the entire grade level outside for recess? They have no way to determine that a student wasn’t in fact a close contact with the child with a symptom. So will they just presume everyone is a potential contact?
If this is the guidance, then what are schools doing to minimize risk of exposure? They would need to cohort students at all times while inside and out.

14:59 minute recesses I guess.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

That 'regardless of mask use' clause is interesting. The way it's written, it basically says that outdoors is more dangerous than indoors since a close contact is 3-feet or less indoors and 6-feet or less outdoors. I appreciate that it's written by MCPS so it's going to be inherently flawed and make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

Oh, an actual mask denier. I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has no interest in being a school system and just wants to virtue signal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

Oh, an actual mask denier. I don't get it.

The PP is pointing out that MCPS is the ultimate mask denier because they're saying masking has no bearing on whether you're quarantined or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

That 'regardless of mask use' clause is interesting. The way it's written, it basically says that outdoors is more dangerous than indoors since a close contact is 3-feet or less indoors and 6-feet or less outdoors. I appreciate that it's written by MCPS so it's going to be inherently flawed and make no sense.

That has been in the cdc definition for nearly a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the dumbest policy in a long line of many. Allergies, asthma, chronic headaches, cold season coming up. It's utter nonsense. Seriously, how stupid can people be and feel like they need to one up the CDC and state officials?

+1 I feel for you ES parents.

my kids are in MS/HS, but DC gets migraines, have had them since 6 yrs old, DC also has asthma. Other DC has terrible allergies, including in the fall.

I have stated before.. MoCo leadership, including the BOE are waaaay too conservative and are driven by fear rather than science.

My kid has chronic migraines. No medical professional on the face of the earth says to go get a COVID test, let alone quarantine a class and take away their ability for in person education and socialization, if he gets a headache. I feel awful for his class if they do that when he gets one in school. He knows when it is a migraine as opposed to sick. They need to clarify. Limiting it to "severe" doesn't help because it is severe. Actually, it's more severe than when he is sick. And it got worse with all the screen time and virtual. So MCPS made worse the problem that is now a quarantine symptom. Self fulfilling prophecy.

The policy talks about clearance from a doctor. Just work it out with the school nurse in advance. Chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. It looks like they read the new mask study and realized, despite what the press reported, that no evidence that masks help with kids. That's the only way the "regardless of mask use" provision makes any sense, since it is explicitlu in conflict with CDC guidance. Presumably that means they'll be rescinding the mask mandate tomorrow.

That 'regardless of mask use' clause is interesting. The way it's written, it basically says that outdoors is more dangerous than indoors since a close contact is 3-feet or less indoors and 6-feet or less outdoors. I appreciate that it's written by MCPS so it's going to be inherently flawed and make no sense.

That has been in the cdc definition for nearly a year.

Not the distinction between indoors and outdoors. MCPS is saying, in their painfully finite wisdom, that outdoors is more dangerous than indoors.

[Anonymous]

Wait. So if I keep my kid home with a cold for a couple days I have to quarantine for 10 days?! Or until I get a negative test?

This policy seems to encourage parents to send sick kids to school. If I do the right thing and keep them home I definitely have to quarantine. If I send them to school it’s a gamble. Nothing to lose!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wait. So if I keep my kid home with a cold for a couple days I have to quarantine for 10 days?! Or until I get a negative test?

This policy seems to encourage parents to send sick kids to school. If I do the right thing and keep them home I definitely have to quarantine. If I send them to school it’s a gamble. Nothing to lose!

Or tell the school you have a 2-day dentist appointment. Nobody is going to tell the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wait. So if I keep my kid home with a cold for a couple days I have to quarantine for 10 days?! Or until I get a negative test?

This policy seems to encourage parents to send sick kids to school. If I do the right thing and keep them home I definitely have to quarantine. If I send them to school it’s a gamble. Nothing to lose!

Except the esteem of any other parents of kids in the class, who would also be quarantined!

[Anonymous]

From Kate Ryan from WTOP. If it's true that 1,000 students + staff are in quarantine, that's not a lot for a system with about 165K students and 25K staff. Of course, that number will go up with this new policy, though it sounds like some schools were already operating under these new guidelines before they sent it out this afternoon.

https://twitter.com/KateRyanWTOP/status/1433944220725923842?s=20