When can we lose masks in elementary school?

[Anonymous]

DC parents are so in the choosing-our-battles phase of the pandemic that I don’t think we’ll be tossing our masks any time soon. As a mom of a preschooler, I’m worried about language development. But it doesn’t seem like anyone is evaluating or worrying about risks beyond covid these days.

[Anonymous]

I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

That's fine. You can be furious and homeschool. There's no point in kids wearing masks when literally no one in our area has covid.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP, they may still change it. Easier to dial back.

I do hope people vaccinate children. It will help reduce the chance of circulating variants in the winter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

Except virtual is for sure going to be offered, it's just that you will need a valid reason for selecting it (like an immunocompromised kid). And it will be through a centralized set-up instead of your kids regular teacher. Which is how it should be.

Imagine if you were given no viable option for getting your kid an education. Like if the only option you were offered was virtual, for a year and a half, and your kid has a sensory processing disorder that make it hard for him to wear a mask AND hard to learn virtually, and everyone just kind of shrugged their shoulders at you for months and months because you are still waiting for your IEP to be approved and you had to go part time at your job to take over his education and every day you just died a little more inside.

Would that make you furious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP, they may still change it. Easier to dial back.

I do hope people vaccinate children. It will help reduce the chance of circulating variants in the winter.

You understand the odds of a vaccine being approved for young children before winter is basically nil, right? Maybe older elementary kids. But there is virtually no way that ECE or 1st-2nd grade kids will be able to get a vaccine in 2021, and the odds for 2022 aren't even that great.

But if 80% of adults and older kids are vaccinated, it likely won't matter. Which is one of the reasons the vaccine is likely to be approved -- it will seem to unnecessarily risky to use a relatively new vaccine on small children against a virus that exists only in very small numbers, if at all, and poses a limited risk to them. This isn't polio. All the cost/benefits of Covid are reversed from what they were during the polio crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP, they may still change it. Easier to dial back.

I do hope people vaccinate children. It will help reduce the chance of circulating variants in the winter.

You understand the odds of a vaccine being approved for young children before winter is basically nil, right? Maybe older elementary kids. But there is virtually no way that ECE or 1st-2nd grade kids will be able to get a vaccine in 2021, and the odds for 2022 aren't even that great.

But if 80% of adults and older kids are vaccinated, it likely won't matter. Which is one of the reasons the vaccine is likely to be approved -- it will seem to unnecessarily risky to use a relatively new vaccine on small children against a virus that exists only in very small numbers, if at all, and poses a limited risk to them. This isn't polio. All the cost/benefits of Covid are reversed from what they were during the polio crisis.

*which is why it is unlikely to be approved, not likely

[Anonymous]

Hopefully it will become optional as things continue to improve, but there are too many people around here who are so into virtue signaling about everything that is may take some time. Plus, you have DCPS that is not exactly rational in their decision-making - just look at the current travel policy. Best we can all do it continue to speak up.

[Anonymous]

I don't think masks are necessary for kids at this point but have just given up fighting. This last year has show that, at least at my kid's school, the school is always going to appeal to the most risk-averse teacher/family, meaning masks for all until told otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

Except virtual is for sure going to be offered, it's just that you will need a valid reason for selecting it (like an immunocompromised kid). And it will be through a centralized set-up instead of your kids regular teacher. Which is how it should be.

Imagine if you were given no viable option for getting your kid an education. Like if the only option you were offered was virtual, for a year and a half, and your kid has a sensory processing disorder that make it hard for him to wear a mask AND hard to learn virtually, and everyone just kind of shrugged their shoulders at you for months and months because you are still waiting for your IEP to be approved and you had to go part time at your job to take over his education and every day you just died a little more inside.

Would that make you furious?

OH the same thing would have happened if your child had an IEP in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the rationale for dropping masks indoors since they are not vaccinated? I agree, no masks outdoors though.

Because they are uncomfortable, interfere with teaching, and uneccesary when there’s extremely low community spread.

This is all not a big deal, also a good amount of language is body language, which masks don't cover. Kids will be fine, the only ones I'd be concerned for are those who are deaf/hard of hearing or Autistic.

Masks are a safety measure, kids aren't vaccinated. I'd rather this then MORE distance learning....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

Except virtual is for sure going to be offered, it's just that you will need a valid reason for selecting it (like an immunocompromised kid). And it will be through a centralized set-up instead of your kids regular teacher. Which is how it should be.

Imagine if you were given no viable option for getting your kid an education. Like if the only option you were offered was virtual, for a year and a half, and your kid has a sensory processing disorder that make it hard for him to wear a mask AND hard to learn virtually, and everyone just kind of shrugged their shoulders at you for months and months because you are still waiting for your IEP to be approved and you had to go part time at your job to take over his education and every day you just died a little more inside.

Would that make you furious?

OH the same thing would have happened if your child had an IEP in place.

Not true, my child is in CES and his teacher volunteered to do IPL. Not a single student could wear a mask and she told all the parents some kids couldn't wear them and she was going to allow it. If we weren't comfortable the option was simulcast...and Idk which parents in their right minds would choose that. Literally I have seen the craziest change in my child. He loves school and is always talking about his teachers. And I always hear mostly great things about how he loves to help in the classroom...even though he never wants to help me! lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The risk to young kids seems to be so, so low -- lower than flu. It makes me sad to think of these young kids in masks for another year for no reason. It's not reasonable.

The risk is not lower than flu. Get off Facebook.

The risk to young kids actually does appear to be similar to flu. There's been about 300 deaths among kids under 18 from covid, though end of May. In the last "normal" flu season before the pandemic, 2019-2020, there were 199 pediatric flu deaths in the U.S. (and that's with vaccines available, albeit generally less effective than the mRNA covid vaccines are).

Of course, you could use the same stats to argue that we should be masking during flu season, since it helped prevent spread of flu this year. But it's not unreasonable to conclude that the risk to young kids from covid is lower or equal to the flu risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be furious if virtual was no longer offered and masks were not required in the fall.

Except virtual is for sure going to be offered, it's just that you will need a valid reason for selecting it (like an immunocompromised kid). And it will be through a centralized set-up instead of your kids regular teacher. Which is how it should be.

Imagine if you were given no viable option for getting your kid an education. Like if the only option you were offered was virtual, for a year and a half, and your kid has a sensory processing disorder that make it hard for him to wear a mask AND hard to learn virtually, and everyone just kind of shrugged their shoulders at you for months and months because you are still waiting for your IEP to be approved and you had to go part time at your job to take over his education and every day you just died a little more inside.

Would that make you furious?

you do realize that immunocompromised kids existed prior to covid and no one required the entire student body to mask because of it? Is covid any more dangerous for those kids than any of the other normal school germs; its seems like it isn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. The risk to young kids seems to be so, so low -- lower than flu. It makes me sad to think of these young kids in masks for another year for no reason. It's not reasonable.

The risk is not lower than flu. Get off Facebook.

NP. No, YOU get off FB and look at the actual data, and the limitations of it, i.e. the vastly overcounted hospitalization numbers for kids.