Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Hi Jeff. Can we get some sources on your assertions? Can you point us to the specific language in WTU's collective bargaining agreement that prevents the city from imposing a vaccine mandate on teachers? Also, doctors will tell you that almost no one has a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated. Those are rare.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

How have there been five separate comments re: the vaccine mandate when I explicitly stated I take no issue with the vax mandate.

Because you also made comments about giving up "basic rights" and "all workers rights." Those are the parts people are taking issue with.

I take umbrage with someone saying schools are not an employment agency when of course they are. They have pay scales, performance reviews, contracted hours, job descriptions, etc…
The indoctrination of the martyr complex didn’t start here (thanks TFA), but the parents of DCUM do an excellent job of promoting the idea that teachers should treat their job as life 24/7/365 rather than the 8 hr day it actually is

That's a strawman. You did actually say the stuff about basic rights and workers rights. That's the issue.

“What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.”

Schools are there to teach students. If you’re mad at teachers bc they want basic rights to teach these children then your issue is with the educational complex and not with teachers or strawmen. If all you care about is vax mandates then thankfully we see eye to eye

Did you somehow literally forget that you said the stuff about giving up basic rights, etc?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

They are saying the best protection we can give unvaccinated children is for the adults in the household to be vaccinated. The same would apply to protecting 12-17 year olds. Adults should vaccinate now.

An even better way to protect 12-17 year olds is for them to get vaxxed themselves. In a situation in which less than 10% of them are vaccinated, focusing on the adults who -- even in the worse case -- are 3 times more likely to be vaxxed is not the most effective strategy.

Please do not feed into these arguments. It is important for every single eligible person age 12-17 and all adults 18 and older to get vaccinated. There is no sense in arguing which is more preferred. This is an all hands on deck moment in history.

It is not us vs. them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Hi Jeff. Can we get some sources on your assertions? Can you point us to the specific language in WTU's collective bargaining agreement that prevents the city from imposing a vaccine mandate on teachers? Also, doctors will tell you that almost no one has a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated. Those are rare.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

So now allowing anti-vaxxers to reject vaccines needed to end a public health emergency is now a "workplace protection"? That is some Alice in Wonderland sh*t. These people are endangering everyone else.

+1

And treating it as though no one has ever been under a vaccine mandate before.

Children had a right to an education, but teachers trampled all over that (even as schools elsewhere stayed open). Strange how the pandemic is serious enough to cancel school for more than a year, but not serious enough to require nutty anti-vaxxers to stop putting everyone else at risk.

And you just can’t wait to shove your kids into school for 8 hours a day with the very teachers whom you clearly despise. Very perplexing!

Weird, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, scientists have consistently found, throughout the pandemic, that schools have far lower coronavirus transmission rates than the surrounding communities. If you're somewhere where there's a lot of coronavirus, it turns out that schools are about the safest places you can be.

Also, not to point out the obvious, but kids and teachers and school staffs interact with adults outside their schools all the time so, yes, the fact that there is a huge number of unvaccinated adults in the area does matter, even if those people themselves don't physically step into a school.

You are clearly arguing just for the sake of arguing and you have long since passed the point of making any sense at all. Just think for a minute. All adults in schools will either be vaccinated or tested weekly. None of the under 12s will be vaccinated -- at least in the beginning -- and we will be lucky if even half of the 12 and overs are vaxxed. Moreover, there are considerably more children than adults in schools. So it is obvious to everyone other than you that children will be the most likely vector for the virus in schools.

Yes, it would be nice if adults in all wards, not just 7 and 8, were vaxxed at higher rates. But trying to argue that the problem facing DC schools is the vax rate of adults in wards where only 10% of the children are vaxxed is really being obtuse.

You should run your theories by a doctor. I think you will be hard pressed to find one who agrees with you.

LOL. What doctor is going to think that adults who are either vaxxed or tested weekly are more likely to spread a virus than unvaxxed children who exponentially outnumber them?

there’s plenty of research on this. adults spread more than children. 50+ plus cases in DCPS are adults, despite the fact that there are many more kids than adults. it’s the adults.

Onnnnnce again, we are not talking about LAST SCHOOL YEAR. We are talking about Delta now, which is much more transmissible in general and IS being transmitted by kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people are confused about Weingarten’s statement, apparently made on a TV show. unclear what AFT’s position actually is about mandatory vax.

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1424392084472094722

Only you are confused. As I just said, the AFT supports negotiating mandates. This has been the case all along.

A mandate involves more than just shots in arms. What are the ramifications for those who can't or won't vaccinate? Will vaccination status be made public? Will sick leave be allowed for anyone who suffers from vaccine side effects? Will the mandate apply to potential booster shots? Etc. etc. All of that has to be worked out.

But a mandate is black and white, there should be zero negotiation. If you can’t or won’t get vaccinated, you no longer have employment in education. By throwing in “… we’ll what about people that…” isn’t a mandate, it’s a choice. And considering that teachers in this area were pushed to the front of the line in February, if they don’t have vaccines now, they need to drop everything and get a shot -CVS, Walgreens etc.- are open very late, some open 24 hours. Get it now or get your resume together because you will no longer be employed.

Sadly for you, I guess, life is a bit more complex than your imagination. In reality, some folks have medical reasons not to be vaccinated. Moreover, employment contracts cannot simply be broken on a whim. Thankfully, both the Bowser administration and the WTU took a more serious approach than what you are advocating and were able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

Hi Jeff. Can we get some sources on your assertions? Can you point us to the specific language in WTU's collective bargaining agreement that prevents the city from imposing a vaccine mandate on teachers? Also, doctors will tell you that almost no one has a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated. Those are rare.

I am quite sure that the DC government could have imposed a mandate. I am similarly sure that if the mandate included penalties affecting employment, it would have been challenged in court and would have been essentially worthless. But, not having a copy of the contract on hand, I can't provide you the specific language. This reality has been clear to anyone paying attention to the ongoing discussions.

I have no idea how common medical exemptions are and I really don't care. Nor do I care about religious exemptions which I personally find even more absurd. But just about every mandate includes such exemptions so there is no reason for DC to be different. If those claiming exemptions want to get tested weekly for the indefinite future, that's their choice I guess. Personally, I'd do a different cost-benefit analysis.

Cool, cool. So tell me this, Loudoun County is trying to mandate that staff have to use a student's preferred pronouns, so I'm going to guess you are fine with exemptions to that mandate since the world is far more nuanced. I would say protecting the public with vaccines is far more important that pronouns, but maybe that is just me.
What has been lost in all of this is that schools are there to teach students, not be an employment agency. Get vaxxed or get a new job.

Why do you believe that schools should have an exemption from basic employment rights? I’m fine with the vax and pronoun mandates you’ve referenced, but take major issue with your presupposition that anyone who chooses to go into education should expect to abdicate all workers rights

Mandatory vaccination, as happens in many places (and for schoolchildren) is not the equivalent of "all workers rights." Don't be dramatic.

I don’t think it’s dramatic to bring up that once again people are asking teachers to not expect the same workplace protections that any other company would have. Did you know that DCPS has a full HR department, like any other employment agency. I’m not sure why people have the attitude on this site that teachers should be exempt from basic rights bc they choose to work with children

It is not a workplace protection that everyone has. That's the dramatic part. Being free of vaccination and holding a particular job is not a "basic right." This has already been decided in courts. And I can't see any reason why adults holding a position voluntarily would deserve "more" protection than a child who is required to be vaccinated to go to school.

Did you miss where I said I fully support the vax mandate?

And that's fine, great even. The rest of your arguments were not based in reality.

Have you seen the thread on lunches where parents told teachers they were breaking the education system bc they wouldn’t give up their lunch breaks? The general vibe on this site is that teachers should do whatever parents want bc kids and that’s just a recipe for burnout and turnover. Start treating them with respect and you might get a partnership instead of this antagonistic relationship

well, they kind of are.

Tough crap. They are under no obligation to give up their lunch break for your kids. Feel free to homeschool, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, actually, scientists have consistently found, throughout the pandemic, that schools have far lower coronavirus transmission rates than the surrounding communities. If you're somewhere where there's a lot of coronavirus, it turns out that schools are about the safest places you can be.

Also, not to point out the obvious, but kids and teachers and school staffs interact with adults outside their schools all the time so, yes, the fact that there is a huge number of unvaccinated adults in the area does matter, even if those people themselves don't physically step into a school.

You are clearly arguing just for the sake of arguing and you have long since passed the point of making any sense at all. Just think for a minute. All adults in schools will either be vaccinated or tested weekly. None of the under 12s will be vaccinated -- at least in the beginning -- and we will be lucky if even half of the 12 and overs are vaxxed. Moreover, there are considerably more children than adults in schools. So it is obvious to everyone other than you that children will be the most likely vector for the virus in schools.

Yes, it would be nice if adults in all wards, not just 7 and 8, were vaxxed at higher rates. But trying to argue that the problem facing DC schools is the vax rate of adults in wards where only 10% of the children are vaxxed is really being obtuse.

You should run your theories by a doctor. I think you will be hard pressed to find one who agrees with you.

LOL. What doctor is going to think that adults who are either vaxxed or tested weekly are more likely to spread a virus than unvaxxed children who exponentially outnumber them?

there’s plenty of research on this. adults spread more than children. 50+ plus cases in DCPS are adults, despite the fact that there are many more kids than adults. it’s the adults.

Onnnnnce again, we are not talking about LAST SCHOOL YEAR. We are talking about Delta now, which is much more transmissible in general and IS being transmitted by kids.

Given that, maybe WTU could finally tell us how many teachers are vaccinated. Strange they've refused to release that information...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

They are saying the best protection we can give unvaccinated children is for the adults in the household to be vaccinated. The same would apply to protecting 12-17 year olds. Adults should vaccinate now.

An even better way to protect 12-17 year olds is for them to get vaxxed themselves. In a situation in which less than 10% of them are vaccinated, focusing on the adults who -- even in the worse case -- are 3 times more likely to be vaxxed is not the most effective strategy.

Please do not feed into these arguments. It is important for every single eligible person age 12-17 and all adults 18 and older to get vaccinated. There is no sense in arguing which is more preferred. This is an all hands on deck moment in history.

It is not us vs. them.

This. I am perplexed by this move to blame children in order to deflect from adults not getting vaxed, particularly the adults that are around children (parents and school workers). It's that same argument that "it doesn't matter if teachers don't get vaxxed because there will be children in the room that aren't vaxxed." It makes no sense from a logic perspective, and no sense from a public health perspective.

[Anonymous]

In the context of discussing teacher and school workforce vaccinations, what is the goal of saying "well what about kids' vaccinations"? Is it just a pure whataboutism? Or am I missing something?

Yes, teachers should be vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of their coworkers, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, kids who can be vaccinated should get vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of people they are around, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, parents should be vaccinated for public health,...you get the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

They are saying the best protection we can give unvaccinated children is for the adults in the household to be vaccinated. The same would apply to protecting 12-17 year olds. Adults should vaccinate now.

An even better way to protect 12-17 year olds is for them to get vaxxed themselves. In a situation in which less than 10% of them are vaccinated, focusing on the adults who -- even in the worse case -- are 3 times more likely to be vaxxed is not the most effective strategy.

Please do not feed into these arguments. It is important for every single eligible person age 12-17 and all adults 18 and older to get vaccinated. There is no sense in arguing which is more preferred. This is an all hands on deck moment in history.

It is not us vs. them.

This. I am perplexed by this move to blame children in order to deflect from adults not getting vaxed, particularly the adults that are around children (parents and school workers). It's that same argument that "it doesn't matter if teachers don't get vaxxed because there will be children in the room that aren't vaxxed." It makes no sense from a logic perspective, and no sense from a public health perspective.

+1

[Anonymous]

There's only two policies that the schools can do: 1) school workforce vax mandates (or vax/test protocol), and 2) kid vax mandates (or maybe someone will argue a vax/test protocol there, too).

There literally is no policy discussion at present regarding mandatory covid vaccinations for kids 12+. So obviously the FOCUS is on the policy under discussion, which is a school workforce mandate. That's why we are talking about the school workforce more than kids' vaccinations.

Plus the schools have no ability to require parental vaccination, so the policy focus isn't there either.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:In the context of discussing teacher and school workforce vaccinations, what is the goal of saying "well what about kids' vaccinations"? Is it just a pure whataboutism? Or am I missing something?

Yes, teachers should be vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of their coworkers, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, kids who can be vaccinated should get vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of people they are around, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, parents should be vaccinated for public health,...you get the point.

This is a schools forum. As such, what we are discussing is covid transmission in schools. This thread has the title, "Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students". By mid-September, all teachers and staff will either be vaccinated or tested weekly. So, mission accomplished. But, what about the "eligible students" part of the subject line? A whole lot of posters in this thread want to ignore them and jump to blaming adults in Wards 7 and 8. The vaccination situation in those wards is not great, but for adults over 50 it is not horrible. For adults between 40 and 50, it is concerning, but again not horrible. For children between 12 and 17, it is horrible. Less than 10%. There are going to be a lot more of those unvaxxed 12-17 years olds in the schools then there are adults from those wards (and the adults will either be vaxxed or tested). This is not to blame the children, but simply to explain why blaming adults in those two wards is misplaced (that is, if your concern is the heath and safety of our school children).

If your point is that everyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should be vaccinated, I could not agree more. But, this discussion started with a poster explicitly focusing on adults in Wards 7 and 8. My point is only to say that for schools, it is the children of the wards -- and to some extend the children of other wards -- whose vaccination status is more concerning. You will never solve a problem if you do not correctly identify the problem. Those who are focusing on the adults of Ward 7 and 8 are not correctly identifying the problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Given that, maybe WTU could finally tell us how many teachers are vaccinated. Strange they've refused to release that information...

By mid-September, all teachers and staff will either be vaccinated or tested weekly.

[Anonymous]

Being tested weekly is not prevention.

Vaccine is more effective at prevention.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Being tested weekly is not prevention.

Vaccine is more effective at prevention.

I agree. But the reality is that this is the best we are going to get. It would be very difficult to get rid of medical and religious exemptions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the context of discussing teacher and school workforce vaccinations, what is the goal of saying "well what about kids' vaccinations"? Is it just a pure whataboutism? Or am I missing something?

Yes, teachers should be vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of their coworkers, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, kids who can be vaccinated should get vaccinated for public health, for the protection of children who can't be vaccinated, for the protection of people they are around, and for smoother operating of schools during a pandemic.

Yes, parents should be vaccinated for public health,...you get the point.

This is a schools forum. As such, what we are discussing is covid transmission in schools. This thread has the title, "Mandatory vaccines for teachers/staff and eligible students". By mid-September, all teachers and staff will either be vaccinated or tested weekly. So, mission accomplished. But, what about the "eligible students" part of the subject line? A whole lot of posters in this thread want to ignore them and jump to blaming adults in Wards 7 and 8. The vaccination situation in those wards is not great, but for adults over 50 it is not horrible. For adults between 40 and 50, it is concerning, but again not horrible. For children between 12 and 17, it is horrible. Less than 10%. There are going to be a lot more of those unvaxxed 12-17 years olds in the schools then there are adults from those wards (and the adults will either be vaxxed or tested). This is not to blame the children, but simply to explain why blaming adults in those two wards is misplaced (that is, if your concern is the heath and safety of our school children).

If your point is that everyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should be vaccinated, I could not agree more. But, this discussion started with a poster explicitly focusing on adults in Wards 7 and 8. My point is only to say that for schools, it is the children of the wards -- and to some extend the children of other wards -- whose vaccination status is more concerning. You will never solve a problem if you do not correctly identify the problem. Those who are focusing on the adults of Ward 7 and 8 are not correctly identifying the problem.

I read the lower rates of adult vaccination in Wards 7 and 8, as well as the very low rates of 12-17 vax in those wards, as a suggestion that parents are less likely to vax in those wards. So I don't care so much about rando adults that aren't around kids, I care about parents. Most transmission to kids has been via the home, and that's been true whether there is IPL or not. So unvaccinated parents are indeed something we need to focus on if we value the safety of the school children too young to be vaccinated and the smoother operation of schools. Add in that kids under a certain age don't have the ability to vax themselves even if they are over 12, and yeah, their parents are again a problem. We can believe that unvaxxed parents are more likely to have unvaxxed kids.

If you look at parent-age (18-64, broadly) vax rates, Wards 7 and 8 are lagging a bit compare to the other wards (they are 30% versus the other wards are like 40-50%, if I remember correctly). So yeah those wards are worse in that sense but I'd agree they aren't THAT much worse. The unvaxxed kids rates in Wards 7 and 8 are WAY behind the other wards, though, which suggests more unvaxxed parents in those wards. (Like, does a 10% kid vax rate mean that only 10% of parents are vaxxed? I don't know.)

My personal stance on this is that there are probably a whole lot of unvaxxed parents in every ward (and unvaxxed 12+ kids), and that needs to be remedied. There's probably a racist undercurrent to some people's focus on Wards 7 and 8, when you've still only got half of parent-age people (and kids) in other wards vaccinated.

Aside from a vax mandate for kids 12+ I'm not sure what to do. I wonder how that would work politically in DC -- I think it wouldn't go over well, based on the racial dynamics of covid vaccine hesistancy.