Friend sent her kid to daycare after close covid contact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think their daughter has COVID, logic dictates you think you are now a close contact of someone with COVID (close contact is defined by 15 minutes, and you admit the kids were together on the playground). And yet, here you are at school, and I am guessing you did not get a PCR test. So, if you are going to be upset at her, you also have to be upset at yourself.

OP here. So their daughter is actually a close contact of a confirmed covid case. My son is a close contact of a close contact (their daughter), not a confirmed case, so he doesn't need to quarantine or test. If my friend told me her or her daughter were covid positive, yes I would have kept my son home.

Oh really? Did you phone the parent on the morning of school and confirm her child was negative before sending your child? No, you didn't. You knew you had potentially been exposed, but you didn't bother to confirm, quarantine, or test. You're as bad as everyone else OP. So save your outrage.

+1

You just "didn't yet know" whether your daughter was a close contact or not.

What? The only way anyone knows if they are a close contact is when they are told. I hope the people I associate with are responsible enough to do their diligence and contact trace if they test positive. Because my friend did tell us about the potential exposure I think it's fair to assume she would also have told us if she or her daughter subsequently tested positive.

And to the poster above you, I didn't know my son had been potentially exposed - he was a close contact of a close contact, which according to literally every public health authority is not someone who needs to quarantine, test, or isolate.

I'm not "outraged" just a little concerned. I posted here to try to gauge how reasonable my neighbor's actions were, and whether other people think it's okay. My actions in this situation are totally in line with public health guidance and I'm not sure why you're suggesting I needed to do anything differently.

You can't be outraged that the friend sent her potentially positive child to school while also being feigning ignorance that your child might also have already been exposed to the very same child OP.

1. Again, not outraged. Just concerned and trying to gauge how others would react to this.

2. Her child had a close, extended indoor contact with a confirmed covid case. She is by definition a "close contact", and since she is unvaccinated, should be required to quarantine. My child had a briefer, outdoor exposure to her child. Even if their interaction would qualify as close contact, her child is not a confirmed covid case, so my child did not have a close close contact with a confirm covid case. Only close contact with actual confirmed or suspected covid cases beget the need for others to quarantine. It's not a transitive sequence where close contacts of people who were close contacts with a covid case all need to quarantine. What is difficult to understand about this?

SO MUCH going on in this thread. To OP: Yes, that person should have quarantined their kid and tested with a PCR 5-7 days after exposure. That's what we recently had to do for our public school (kid was exposed at school). And yes, your situation is very different from your friend's. All these other posters are likely trying to justify their own irresponsible behavior by throwing their hands up and saying "everyone will get it!"

But this is where you're incorrect (I think) - I'm the AZ poster again, the one in a similar situation to the OP's friend. All our families contacted school and health department and were 100% told no one, including the unvaxed, needs to quarantine unless we have symptoms. Are different states/counties doing things differently?

YES 100% Even with our county that does it dfferent from other surrounding counties, daycares within the county approach differently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think their daughter has COVID, logic dictates you think you are now a close contact of someone with COVID (close contact is defined by 15 minutes, and you admit the kids were together on the playground). And yet, here you are at school, and I am guessing you did not get a PCR test. So, if you are going to be upset at her, you also have to be upset at yourself.

OP here. So their daughter is actually a close contact of a confirmed covid case. My son is a close contact of a close contact (their daughter), not a confirmed case, so he doesn't need to quarantine or test. If my friend told me her or her daughter were covid positive, yes I would have kept my son home.

Oh really? Did you phone the parent on the morning of school and confirm her child was negative before sending your child? No, you didn't. You knew you had potentially been exposed, but you didn't bother to confirm, quarantine, or test. You're as bad as everyone else OP. So save your outrage.

+1

You just "didn't yet know" whether your daughter was a close contact or not.

What? The only way anyone knows if they are a close contact is when they are told. I hope the people I associate with are responsible enough to do their diligence and contact trace if they test positive. Because my friend did tell us about the potential exposure I think it's fair to assume she would also have told us if she or her daughter subsequently tested positive.

And to the poster above you, I didn't know my son had been potentially exposed - he was a close contact of a close contact, which according to literally every public health authority is not someone who needs to quarantine, test, or isolate.

I'm not "outraged" just a little concerned. I posted here to try to gauge how reasonable my neighbor's actions were, and whether other people think it's okay. My actions in this situation are totally in line with public health guidance and I'm not sure why you're suggesting I needed to do anything differently.

OP, I think you are projecting. By your own standards you know that you also did the “wrong” thing so you’re trying to justify it to yourself by pointing finers at your friend.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you are being a stickler OP. But what did you do about it? Did you pull your child from school out of concern? Or did you do nothing and come to DCUM? Because if you did nothing, you are clearly not THAT concerned about the COVID status of her child! Your actions in this situation will tell you if your concern about your child's exposure overrides the inconvenience of having your child at home today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think their daughter has COVID, logic dictates you think you are now a close contact of someone with COVID (close contact is defined by 15 minutes, and you admit the kids were together on the playground). And yet, here you are at school, and I am guessing you did not get a PCR test. So, if you are going to be upset at her, you also have to be upset at yourself.

OP here. So their daughter is actually a close contact of a confirmed covid case. My son is a close contact of a close contact (their daughter), not a confirmed case, so he doesn't need to quarantine or test. If my friend told me her or her daughter were covid positive, yes I would have kept my son home.

Oh really? Did you phone the parent on the morning of school and confirm her child was negative before sending your child? No, you didn't. You knew you had potentially been exposed, but you didn't bother to confirm, quarantine, or test. You're as bad as everyone else OP. So save your outrage.

+1

You just "didn't yet know" whether your daughter was a close contact or not.

You guys aren’t getting how this works. OP’s friend’s child was a close contact on 1/1 to Patient Zero in this scenario (unvaxxed, unmasked child was indoors with unmasked Patient Zero for more than 15 minutes). Patient Zero tested positive on 1/3. OP’s child was outdoors, in the general vicinity of the other child (potential Patient 1) on 1/2, just one day after the other child had close contact with a confirmed positive case. Even if first child (potential case) had contracted Covid, he/she would not have had a high enough viral load to test positive or infect anyone else just one day after his/her own exposure. OP’s child is very unlikely to be infected from being outdoors with the first child. However, the first child (potential case) went to daycare today, 4 days after extended exposure to a confirmed positive. People usually (not always, but usually) test positive 5-7 days after exposure if they have contracted Covid. They are very contagious 1-2 before they develop symptoms/test positive. So first child (potential case) could be contagious today and tomorrow, but not develop symptoms until Friday.

OP’s situation is not comparable to her friend’s situation.

+1

WOW way to rationalize. First of all, kids absolutely play close on playgrounds. So let's not try to rationalize away the contact. Second, it is absolutely possible to infect someone a day after someone has been exposed! They are most contagious after they are symptomatic, but transmission is not exclusive during this time period. OP is concerned that the girl might have COVID but blatantly ignoring her own child's potential exposure. Either she's concerned the child is positive or she isn't. But if she is, she should be concerned about her own child's exposure at the playground too.

You’re just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in a similar situation as your friend, OP, and I'm sending my kid to school. (Albeit, he's 11 and vaxxed.) We were at a get together Saturday evening with 3 other couples. Yesterday, one family tested positive. We spoke with the school and health department, and no one, including unvaxxed and preschoolers, besides the family who tested positive, is required to quarantine. A year ago I would have paused longer and thought the responsible thing would be to stay home for a few days. Now, I realize 15 people, none with symptoms, can put life on hold, missing school/work, "just in case".

This is different because your son is vaxxed. According to the CDC fully vaxed people don't need to quarantine unless they develop symptoms. Maybe that guidance is outdated because of Omicron, but at least based on the technical current guidance you are perfectly fine here.

Yes, but of the 7 kids, 1 preschooler is unvaxxed, 2 adolescents have only 1 of their shots, 1 adolescent is less than 2 weeks out from his 2nd shot, my son is fully vaxxed, and the other 11 year old is covid positive. None of us - except the family that tested positive - is required to quarantine. Obviously if symptoms appear, we will - but as of now, all are in school/daycare.

You had a get together inside with three families, including unvaccinated kids, right before school was set to restart during the omicron wave.

You are a complete douche bag, PP, and part of the problem. So sick of people like you.

Haha, yes, how dare people move on with their lives now that those who want a vaccine can get a vaccine, even with the risk of potentially suffering a cold. No enjoyment until covid has been wiped from the face of the earth!! (Which it never will be, btw)

[Anonymous]

Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

Yes! So much of this is about optics, not actual logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

Yes! So much of this is about optics, not actual logic.

No, it’s about science. OP’s kid and her friend’s kid have very different odds of having contracted Covid. You don’t seem to understand much about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

Yes! So much of this is about optics, not actual logic.

take your concerns to the cdc

and I hope you are completely isolated because if not, you are effectively doing the same thing as OP statistically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

Yes! So much of this is about optics, not actual logic.

take your concerns to the cdc

and I hope you are completely isolated because if not, you are effectively doing the same thing as OP statistically.

That's the point. I'm just not judging others because we're all essentially doing it! I don't think OP is a horrible person, I'm just answering her question. Yes, she's being too much of a stickler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CDC identifies a close contact as have been exposed within two days prior to symptoms/positive test, so if your friend saw her brother on 1/1 and he did not develop symptoms until 1/4 then they are not required to quarantine.

This is what I was going to say. This isn’t even a close contact situation. Stop being the COVID police, this is getting out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The madness of quarantines is done. It is too wide spread now.

The only people that need to be quarantining are those that are actually sick and/or those that test positive.

Free for all for everyone else. You just have to accept that

This attitude sucks. Not that I'm advocating mass quarantining (I'm not) but this free-for-all attitude sucks. Prioritize kids in school. Essential services are being threatened by the number of adults out sick. Bus drivers, teachers, etc. need to be available for our kids to stay in school. F your parties.

Are essential services really being threatened because people are truly out sick. Or because people have been exposed or have mild symptoms that they would otherwise work through, but are being forced to stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

A lot of you have real trouble understanding probabilities and risk assessment. This thread is making it very obvious why we have done such a bad job collectively of handling this pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Our schools now have a test to stay policy, where close contacts are allowed to stay in school as long as they rapid test negative on days 2 and 5 and remain asymptomatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you OP defenders are in the Schroedinger’s Covid camp, I think. Meaning, it’s only an exposure if it’s a confirmed positive test result. The other child may or may not have Covid now (although a negative test points to NO, or at least not contagious yet), and potentially had Covid when OP was hanging out with them, (and OP knows that), but OP thinks it’s fine to pretend the child did not have Covid at the playground (because that is more convenient for OP) while also being “concerned” that now they do have covid (so OP can feel superior, presumably)? What if that kid never got tested, OP? That means your kid wasn’t exposed to Covid, right? If it’s not “confirmed” it didn’t happen! Except you’re “concerned “…

Mind boggling.

Yes! So much of this is about optics, not actual logic.

No, it’s about science. OP’s kid and her friend’s kid have very different odds of having contracted Covid. You don’t seem to understand much about this.

Yes, of course they do. Everyone here is being willfully stupid, or maybe they’re all actually just stupid.

For arguments sake, assume every close contact with a Covid case has a 50% chance of contracting Covid. Neighbor’s kid had a close contact, there’s a 50% chance they are infected. They are still in the incubation period so we don’t know yet if they got it. OP’s kid has a close contact with neighbor’s kid. OP’s kid has a 50% chance on contracting Covid from neighbors kid IF neighbor’s kid did indeed catch Covid. They’re dependent variables. 50% of 50% is 25%. OP’s kid only has a 25% chance of being infected (probably less in the real world since the kids were outside). Public health officials have decided that there is a threshold for the risk of exposure above which people need to quarantine and below which they do not. OP’s kid is below the threshold, neighbors kid is above it.