Charters: When is yours dropping the outdoor mask mandate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

Does there need to be science to support an individual case, given that there's no science at all (because the experiment isn't over)? (that's a real question, I'm not being facetious)

Regardless, it looks kind of bad if you've got a school saying that any sort of learning issue potentially caused by masks is not real, or isn't important, because FEELINGS.

Does it matter that the intervention (masks) is done without science to support it?

[Anonymous]

Plus LAMB has basically stated that they've got no science to back themselves up, and are just doing this on the basis of feelings. Can you harm individual children on the basis of community feelings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plus LAMB has basically stated that they've got no science to back themselves up, and are just doing this on the basis of feelings. Can you harm individual children on the basis of community feelings?

Doesn't this song and dance ever get old to you? It sure gets old hearing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus LAMB has basically stated that they've got no science to back themselves up, and are just doing this on the basis of feelings. Can you harm individual children on the basis of community feelings?

Doesn't this song and dance ever get old to you? It sure gets old hearing it.

The song and dance of harming children because of feelings? Is that a funny haha dance to you?

Also, you know you don't need to read DCUM, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

All of the obliviously (sic) not a lawyer comments were ignorant AF last time around but keep it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus LAMB has basically stated that they've got no science to back themselves up, and are just doing this on the basis of feelings. Can you harm individual children on the basis of community feelings?

Doesn't this song and dance ever get old to you? It sure gets old hearing it.

Still can't believe those CLOWNS in congress passed a law requiring you to click on every thread here no matter how tedious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

Actually, the CDC now says that screening testing of students (not sure if you know the difference between that and test-to-stay) is unnecessary in communities with low transmission, which applies to DC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#screening-testing

But keep trying to insult perfectly reasonable people as "nutters" to make yourself feel better.