McKnight's discussion with health officer about in-person learning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize they just ended the presser, but where is the information in writing? Seems like they should get that out ASAP to avoid misinterpretation and rumor mill confusion....

They just put out this press release:

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=12567&type=&startYear=&pageNumber=&mode=

Here is the key paragraph:

The following parameter will require the consideration of individual school closures.
To ensure the safety of students and staff, MCPS will be following DHHS guidance around individual school outbreaks as defined by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). Beginning in January, if 5 percent or more of unrelated students/teachers/staff (minimum of 10 unrelated students/teachers/staff) test positive in a 14-day period, then DHHS and MCPS will work together to determine if the school should be closed for 14 days and the students would transition to virtual learning.

As always there is something unclear in what MCPS says. What exactly does unrelated mean? That they are not biologically related or live in the same household? Or that they are in different classrooms? Such a shame these are the people teaching our children to think and express themselves clearly.

This is what it says in Bethesda Magazine:

The “unrelated” label for the school population means there is spread throughout various activities and/or parts of the building, he added.

This doesn't make sense to me. If the students and staff who test positive are in different classrooms and activities, couldn't that also support that COVID is from outside and not spreading in school? Seems like a logical fallacy to say if kids in different classes have it, it is spreading in school. If the students and staff were related, that would seem more to support spreading in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

Over the course of 14 days, 110 kids isn't a huge number. I'm in PGCPS and at our elementary school we went from 2 kids reported positive to 15 and then 42 in just three days. Personally I think it spread on a bus. Once it starts to spread the cases will be there quickly.

It'll peak and wane quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

Over the course of 14 days, 110 kids isn't a huge number. I'm in PGCPS and at our elementary school we went from 2 kids reported positive to 15 and then 42 in just three days. Personally I think it spread on a bus. Once it starts to spread the cases will be there quickly.

It'll peak and wane quickly.

Fauci hinted at the scenario on the today show. Hopefully it will go as fast as it came.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

Sacrifice lives? Everyone at risk of anything even remotely serious should be vaccinated and boosted. No excuses at this point. The rate of hospitalization for people under 65 who are fully vaxxed is extremely low. The rate of death for the fully vaxxed is virtually nil. You need to be clinically neurotic and/or innumerate to be so scared of this that you are willing to shut down schools again. And if you really are that concerned, it's probably best you home school your kids, which is always an option.

This. This is why people are angry and frustrated. We all just got our kids vaccinated and boosted ourselves and took a deep breath. It seems MCPS is just looking for ways for schools to go virtual. Posters will say but it's the virus. No, really, it's our policies. The data clearly bear out this virus is not a major threat to vaccinated children and adults. Where does it end? At some point we really do have to stop using cases as a metric. The thought of having school closures looming for the duration of my children's education is really defeating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

I think a threshold of 110 cases in a 2,200 student high school is completely reasonable.

The teachers should be vaccinated and boostered. Everyone aged 16+ in high school should be vaccinated and either boostered or at low risk of severe disease. Everyone aged 5-11 should have just gotten vaccinated. Everyone aged 12-15 should be vaccinated and can be boostered if at high risk. So why are you talking about "sacrificing lives"?

I believe its also over the course of 2 weeks, so it'll actually be pretty easy to hit that threshold

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

Sacrifice lives? Everyone at risk of anything even remotely serious should be vaccinated and boosted. No excuses at this point. The rate of hospitalization for people under 65 who are fully vaxxed is extremely low. The rate of death for the fully vaxxed is virtually nil. You need to be clinically neurotic and/or innumerate to be so scared of this that you are willing to shut down schools again. And if you really are that concerned, it's probably best you home school your kids, which is always an option.

This. This is why people are angry and frustrated. We all just got our kids vaccinated and boosted ourselves and took a deep breath. It seems MCPS is just looking for ways for schools to go virtual. Posters will say but it's the virus. No, really, it's our policies. The data clearly bear out this virus is not a major threat to vaccinated children and adults. Where does it end? At some point we really do have to stop using cases as a metric. The thought of having school closures looming for the duration of my children's education is really defeating.

I think it's great that MCPS is looking for ways to protect our children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

I think a threshold of 110 cases in a 2,200 student high school is completely reasonable.

The teachers should be vaccinated and boostered. Everyone aged 16+ in high school should be vaccinated and either boostered or at low risk of severe disease. Everyone aged 5-11 should have just gotten vaccinated. Everyone aged 12-15 should be vaccinated and can be boostered if at high risk. So why are you talking about "sacrificing lives"?

I believe its also over the course of 2 weeks, so it'll actually be pretty easy to hit that threshold

Why does the PP want to sacrifice lives? Is it for their personal convenience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

Over the course of 14 days, 110 kids isn't a huge number. I'm in PGCPS and at our elementary school we went from 2 kids reported positive to 15 and then 42 in just three days. Personally I think it spread on a bus. Once it starts to spread the cases will be there quickly.

A lot of the big outbreaks in schools happen outside of school- sports, activities, parties. I think you're right that 100 cases really isn't very many. With the holidays, I think we'll see a spike in testing and a spike in cases, leading to a lot of school closures. But hopefully it comes and goes hard and quickly. By mid-January testing will decrease, as will cases from increased acquired immunity.

What happens with surveillance testing is a big question, though. You'll pick up a lot of old or non-contagious cases through regular PCR testing. Families shouldn't opt-in for random testing until and unless mcps moves to antigen tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

Sacrifice lives? Everyone at risk of anything even remotely serious should be vaccinated and boosted. No excuses at this point. The rate of hospitalization for people under 65 who are fully vaxxed is extremely low. The rate of death for the fully vaxxed is virtually nil. You need to be clinically neurotic and/or innumerate to be so scared of this that you are willing to shut down schools again. And if you really are that concerned, it's probably best you home school your kids, which is always an option.

This. This is why people are angry and frustrated. We all just got our kids vaccinated and boosted ourselves and took a deep breath. It seems MCPS is just looking for ways for schools to go virtual. Posters will say but it's the virus. No, really, it's our policies. The data clearly bear out this virus is not a major threat to vaccinated children and adults. Where does it end? At some point we really do have to stop using cases as a metric. The thought of having school closures looming for the duration of my children's education is really defeating.

It is a pandemic. There is a new variant. Vaccines were not made for this variant. You are defeated. The rest of us will keep our families safe and emerge strong with resilient children who have learned how to cope and survive adversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

I think a threshold of 110 cases in a 2,200 student high school is completely reasonable.

The teachers should be vaccinated and boostered. Everyone aged 16+ in high school should be vaccinated and either boostered or at low risk of severe disease. Everyone aged 5-11 should have just gotten vaccinated. Everyone aged 12-15 should be vaccinated and can be boostered if at high risk. So why are you talking about "sacrificing lives"?

I believe its also over the course of 2 weeks, so it'll actually be pretty easy to hit that threshold

Why does the PP want to sacrifice lives? Is it for their personal convenience?

That’s ridiculous. We don’t say we’re “sacrificing lives” by driving, despite the large number of vehicular fatalities each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

Sacrifice lives? Everyone at risk of anything even remotely serious should be vaccinated and boosted. No excuses at this point. The rate of hospitalization for people under 65 who are fully vaxxed is extremely low. The rate of death for the fully vaxxed is virtually nil. You need to be clinically neurotic and/or innumerate to be so scared of this that you are willing to shut down schools again. And if you really are that concerned, it's probably best you home school your kids, which is always an option.

This. This is why people are angry and frustrated. We all just got our kids vaccinated and boosted ourselves and took a deep breath. It seems MCPS is just looking for ways for schools to go virtual. Posters will say but it's the virus. No, really, it's our policies. The data clearly bear out this virus is not a major threat to vaccinated children and adults. Where does it end? At some point we really do have to stop using cases as a metric. The thought of having school closures looming for the duration of my children's education is really defeating.

It is a pandemic. There is a new variant. Vaccines were not made for this variant. You are defeated. The rest of us will keep our families safe and emerge strong with resilient children who have learned how to cope and survive adversity.

Well good for you. There's more than one way to skin a cat, though. My family will continue to be out as much as possible over the holidays and beyond. Just like we have over the past two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

I think a threshold of 110 cases in a 2,200 student high school is completely reasonable.

The teachers should be vaccinated and boostered. Everyone aged 16+ in high school should be vaccinated and either boostered or at low risk of severe disease. Everyone aged 5-11 should have just gotten vaccinated. Everyone aged 12-15 should be vaccinated and can be boostered if at high risk. So why are you talking about "sacrificing lives"?

I believe its also over the course of 2 weeks, so it'll actually be pretty easy to hit that threshold

The metrics were manufactured to ensure the desired outcome. It's just a way for them to go virtual without saying that made the decision across the board. The thing is they cannot justify these decisions anymore. Why 5%? Why not 10%? Why not 3%? Even more so no one can tell us why this is necessary when everyone is vaxxed and boosted and at very very low risk of severe outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

I think a threshold of 110 cases in a 2,200 student high school is completely reasonable.

The teachers should be vaccinated and boostered. Everyone aged 16+ in high school should be vaccinated and either boostered or at low risk of severe disease. Everyone aged 5-11 should have just gotten vaccinated. Everyone aged 12-15 should be vaccinated and can be boostered if at high risk. So why are you talking about "sacrificing lives"?

I believe its also over the course of 2 weeks, so it'll actually be pretty easy to hit that threshold

Why does the PP want to sacrifice lives? Is it for their personal convenience?

That’s ridiculous. We don’t say we’re “sacrificing lives” by driving, despite the large number of vehicular fatalities each year.

Ignore the PP. It's the "Inconvenience Troll". They slip that word into every post as if they're making a point. It's a crutch to cover up lack of critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, they've put metrics around when an individual school may move to 14 days of virtual, but no system wide closure.

Now the health dept guys is lecturing about hand-washing.

Thank you for the summary, PP, which I really really hope is accurate!

The metrics are 5% or more unrelated cases within 14 days, or minimum of 10 in a classroom. Pretty reasonable I think.

5% is huge. My son’s school has 2200 kids so they wait until they have 110 cases confirmed before doing anything. We know lots of kids at that point are carriers and a symptomatic so the number is really higher. I bet they’ll be at the 5% after the holidays but have no idea because the reporting system is flawed.

They are basically saying that they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of lives before doing anything. It’s crazy. Our teacher shortages is about to get a lot worse too.

MCPS is acting like we live in some backward districts in Florida or Texas.

Sacrifice lives? Everyone at risk of anything even remotely serious should be vaccinated and boosted. No excuses at this point. The rate of hospitalization for people under 65 who are fully vaxxed is extremely low. The rate of death for the fully vaxxed is virtually nil. You need to be clinically neurotic and/or innumerate to be so scared of this that you are willing to shut down schools again. And if you really are that concerned, it's probably best you home school your kids, which is always an option.

This. This is why people are angry and frustrated. We all just got our kids vaccinated and boosted ourselves and took a deep breath. It seems MCPS is just looking for ways for schools to go virtual. Posters will say but it's the virus. No, really, it's our policies. The data clearly bear out this virus is not a major threat to vaccinated children and adults. Where does it end? At some point we really do have to stop using cases as a metric. The thought of having school closures looming for the duration of my children's education is really defeating.

It is a pandemic. There is a new variant. Vaccines were not made for this variant. You are defeated. The rest of us will keep our families safe and emerge strong with resilient children who have learned how to cope and survive adversity.

The vaccines work fine against the new variant. There’s good data showing that the vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness. That’s what the vaccines are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great news. I could get 100% behind McKnight in general if this is the plan.

Winner winner. She is doing this to win over parents she doesnt care about student or staff safety

She wins me if this is the plan. Staying home isn't a long-term answer for anything.

She wins me over also. And I am a loud MCPS critic on this board, especially with how they handled Covid closures and quarantines.

I’m comfortable with this plan if it is correct! Hopeful this is the direction DHHS goes.

Agreed. Not sure why more vocal critics can't admit when she does something right? When you can't do so it undermines everything else you may disagree about.