MCPS will now send kids home for ten days based on symptoms only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says this isn't following CDC guidelines can't read, chooses not to read, or doesn't understand what they are reading.
Close contact is with anyone positive for Covid (confirmed test result) OR clinically compatible (aka having a Covid SYMPTOM).
The CDC exemption for the classroom ONLY exempts students if they are 3, 4, 5, 6 feet apart AND wearing a mask. If students are 1 foot or 2 feet apart, that is close contact even if wearing a mask. Lunch and recess is still 6 feet. It's so annoying that the loudest voices are the ones who don't understand the rules.
That said, DHHS needs to implement rapid tests for school nurses and techs to give so right away a school can know if a student with
symptoms is positive. DHHS needs to lead this work as the health experts. MCPS doesn't make health decisions, they make educational ones.

CDC say in K-12 school guidance that close contacts are those in close contact with someone who has a positive COVID test--not someone with a COVID symptom. "This allows identifying which students, teachers, and staff with positive COVID-19 test results should isolate, and which close contacts should quarantine." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#contact-tracing (see section 8, Contact Tracing in Combination with Isolation and Quarantine)

Except they also recommend regular testing and MCPS isn't doing that.

As schools go back to in-person learning, many offer free, regular COVID-19 testing for students and staff.
Regular testing, along with COVID-19 vaccination, helps protect students, staff, family members, and others who are not currently vaccinated against COVID-19 or are otherwise at risk for getting seriously sick from COVID-19.
Testing programs help keep students in the classroom and allow them to take part in the other activities they love.

Yes they are -- they have a testing program. But no way am I opting in given this, as MCPS appears focused on quarantining as many kids as possible rather than keeping them in school.

Sorry, if your child tests positive you plan on sending them in? This is why MCPS created this policy. It's kind of genius actually. Shame people into keeping their kids home. Sounds like it's the right move.

If my kids test positive, I will not send them in, but I am not having them tested at school.

That's fine but stop complaining when they quarantine based off symptoms.

If they had stuck to their original quarantine policy, I would opt in. But it's clear that they will use any excuse to quarantine entire classes (and even entire grades in one case). I'm not going to contribute to that in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 3rd grade kid in a class that was sent home. A classmate complained of a headache and got sent home. The whole class was instructed to isolate. The kid with a headache got a negative covid test so the class is allowed to return on Wednesday (Tuesday is a no school day). I think it’s too much. Kids shouldn’t be forced to isolate for symptoms only.

Without regular testing, that's the only way to do it.

FFS. No it is NOT. Send the sick kid home only. There is no reason to send hundreds of healthy kids home. None. Look at how every other school district in the world is handling this.

Yes but MoCo is so so much smarter than everyone else:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents in this county are seriously ridiculous. I’m a parent of an MCPS student as well as a teacher….all of your hysterics are solely on you. Kids don’t care about masks, they are better than the adults… no kid is stressed about going to the nurse “in fear” of sending their classmates home (nice try, smelkinson… the biggest “scientific”-fear mongerer of them all)… calm the f down

Wait, I’d like to hear more. You’re an MCPS teacher and you think this policy is a good idea? Because I’m an elementary teacher and MCPS parent too and I think it’s a terrible idea that will have half our classrooms repeatedly sent home this winter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

If you're going to take it to this extreme, then enforce a seating chart in the classroom, in the lunch room, etc. But no...as soon as a kid leaves a skidmark in his underwear, it's time to quarantine the whole class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

If you're going to take it to this extreme, then enforce a seating chart in the classroom, in the lunch room, etc. But no...as soon as a kid leaves a skidmark in his underwear, it's time to quarantine the whole class.

I would hope those are already required and in place. If not that's fix #1 that needs to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

"4-Clinically compatible case

A clinically compatible case has the medical history, signs and/or symptoms that agree with the clinical description of the disease [33], and its specific clinical criteria are included in the case classification [34]. It is a general clinical impression that this is a case of disease [26]."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034120307401

That does not mean has one symptom that could be a symptom of many other problems means you have a clinically compatible case. Perhaps sudden loss of taste or smell should qualify, but that's it--everything else on that list could be many other things. On top of that, MCPS isn't following the rest of the guidelines--for example, following the masking exemption. This is a case in which MCPS has gone at it alone, not following the guidance, taking actions to keep as many kids home as possible because it can't shut schools down without having the state on board (or those days won't count toward the required 180).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

If you're going to take it to this extreme, then enforce a seating chart in the classroom, in the lunch room, etc. But no...as soon as a kid leaves a skidmark in his underwear, it's time to quarantine the whole class.

I would hope those are already required and in place. If not that's fix #1 that needs to happen.

These are not in place. Teachers were specifically told that there are no social distancing requirements this fall. Most classroom teachers have regular required seating but kids are always separating out into groups, sitting on the rug, going to art class, going to recess, even just walking in lines in the hallway, at their cubbies, in the bathroom…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right here in the definition of close contact

Close Contact through Proximity and Duration of Exposure: Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html

Exactly - an infected person, not someone who displays a symptom of infection.

What part of Clinically Compatible Illness do you not understand. Let me put it in easy to understand worlds for you. Clinically compatible = have a symptom or symptoms of the illness. A sore throat is clinically compatible to strep throat. It's also clinically compatible to Covid. So until you know which one it is for sure, you have unvaccinated kids quarantine so it doesn't spread if there is a positive test. I'd rather my kids come home for a few days while we wait and see instead of possibly exposing others.

That is not what it says in the guidance.

That is exactly what it says in the guidance. I literally cut and pasted from the guidance. The problem is people are not reading the full guidance and the links within the guidance. That is where the details are that everyone likes to ignore. The guidance should be more clear but it is there.

It does not say that one symptom--which could be a symptom of MANY other problems--is clinically compatible.

I don't know how to explain science to you if you are so unwilling to take the time to understand. Clinically compatible means you have a symptom, ANY single symptom, of an illness.

Vomiting is clinically compatible for food positioning, gastrointestinal issues, lactose intolerance, anxiety, eating too much, stomach cancer, punctured intestine, etc. it is also clinically compatible for COVID. Until a diagnosis is made it could be any of those possibilities. Because Covid is highly transmitted, until it can be ruled out with a negative test or alternate diagnosis, those in close contact should stay home to eliminate further possible spread. Where have you all been since March 2020??

If you're going to take it to this extreme, then enforce a seating chart in the classroom, in the lunch room, etc. But no...as soon as a kid leaves a skidmark in his underwear, it's time to quarantine the whole class.

I would hope those are already required and in place. If not that's fix #1 that needs to happen.

These are not in place. Teachers were specifically told that there are no social distancing requirements this fall. Most classroom teachers have regular required seating but kids are always separating out into groups, sitting on the rug, going to art class, going to recess, even just walking in lines in the hallway, at their cubbies, in the bathroom…

As being discussed, those two frameworks are entirely incompatible. You can't have this crazy quarantine policy without seating charts unless your real plan is to be deliberately destructive of in-person. In our FCPS ES, we have seating charts for everything (class, specials, lunch)...so you may hear about a story about a table that suddenly disappeared, but that's it. I mean there's no other way to read this than MoCo/MCPS wants to go from 1,000 quarantined to 60,000 quarantined in the next couple of weeks to force DL. It's so unfair to those kids to have such irresponsible adults in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents in this county are seriously ridiculous. I’m a parent of an MCPS student as well as a teacher….all of your hysterics are solely on you. Kids don’t care about masks, they are better than the adults… no kid is stressed about going to the nurse “in fear” of sending their classmates home (nice try, smelkinson… the biggest “scientific”-fear mongerer of them all)… calm the f down

Wait, I’d like to hear more. You’re an MCPS teacher and you think this policy is a good idea? Because I’m an elementary teacher and MCPS parent too and I think it’s a terrible idea that will have half our classrooms repeatedly sent home this winter.

Who ever said it was a good idea? I’m not the pp, but I know how to read and I’m concerned an elementary teacher lacks reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents in this county are seriously ridiculous. I’m a parent of an MCPS student as well as a teacher….all of your hysterics are solely on you. Kids don’t care about masks, they are better than the adults… no kid is stressed about going to the nurse “in fear” of sending their classmates home (nice try, smelkinson… the biggest “scientific”-fear mongerer of them all)… calm the f down

Wait, I’d like to hear more. You’re an MCPS teacher and you think this policy is a good idea? Because I’m an elementary teacher and MCPS parent too and I think it’s a terrible idea that will have half our classrooms repeatedly sent home this winter.

Who ever said it was a good idea? I’m not the pp, but I know how to read and I’m concerned an elementary teacher lacks reading comprehension skills.

Yup… never said it was a good idea. All I’m saying is parents are absolutely hysterical. They are now making up fake scenarios the students would never do. There’s a difference between calling something a bad policy and just going off the rails, which is absolutely happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents in this county are seriously ridiculous. I’m a parent of an MCPS student as well as a teacher….all of your hysterics are solely on you. Kids don’t care about masks, they are better than the adults… no kid is stressed about going to the nurse “in fear” of sending their classmates home (nice try, smelkinson… the biggest “scientific”-fear mongerer of them all)… calm the f down

Wait, I’d like to hear more. You’re an MCPS teacher and you think this policy is a good idea? Because I’m an elementary teacher and MCPS parent too and I think it’s a terrible idea that will have half our classrooms repeatedly sent home this winter.

Agreeing with previous posters.. you sure you know how to read? Not confident that you’re potentially the person teaching my child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says this isn't following CDC guidelines can't read, chooses not to read, or doesn't understand what they are reading.
Close contact is with anyone positive for Covid (confirmed test result) OR clinically compatible (aka having a Covid SYMPTOM).
The CDC exemption for the classroom ONLY exempts students if they are 3, 4, 5, 6 feet apart AND wearing a mask. If students are 1 foot or 2 feet apart, that is close contact even if wearing a mask. Lunch and recess is still 6 feet. It's so annoying that the loudest voices are the ones who don't understand the rules.
That said, DHHS needs to implement rapid tests for school nurses and techs to give so right away a school can know if a student with
symptoms is positive. DHHS needs to lead this work as the health experts. MCPS doesn't make health decisions, they make educational ones.

CDC say in K-12 school guidance that close contacts are those in close contact with someone who has a positive COVID test--not someone with a COVID symptom. "This allows identifying which students, teachers, and staff with positive COVID-19 test results should isolate, and which close contacts should quarantine." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#contact-tracing (see section 8, Contact Tracing in Combination with Isolation and Quarantine)

Except they also recommend regular testing and MCPS isn't doing that.

As schools go back to in-person learning, many offer free, regular COVID-19 testing for students and staff.
Regular testing, along with COVID-19 vaccination, helps protect students, staff, family members, and others who are not currently vaccinated against COVID-19 or are otherwise at risk for getting seriously sick from COVID-19.
Testing programs help keep students in the classroom and allow them to take part in the other activities they love.

Yes they are -- they have a testing program. But no way am I opting in given this, as MCPS appears focused on quarantining as many kids as possible rather than keeping them in school.

Sorry, if your child tests positive you plan on sending them in? This is why MCPS created this policy. It's kind of genius actually. Shame people into keeping their kids home. Sounds like it's the right move.

If my kids test positive, I will not send them in, but I am not having them tested at school.

That's fine but stop complaining when they quarantine based off symptoms.

If they had stuck to their original quarantine policy, I would opt in. But it's clear that they will use any excuse to quarantine entire classes (and even entire grades in one case). I'm not going to contribute to that in any way.

Maybe if more people opted in they wouldn’t have come up with this policy. This board was full of people vowing not to opt in since before the school year started. I really don’t understand that attitude.

[Anonymous]

If they wanted to, they could do opt-out. DCPS and Baltimore have done it for spit tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents in this county are seriously ridiculous. I’m a parent of an MCPS student as well as a teacher….all of your hysterics are solely on you. Kids don’t care about masks, they are better than the adults… no kid is stressed about going to the nurse “in fear” of sending their classmates home (nice try, smelkinson… the biggest “scientific”-fear mongerer of them all)… calm the f down

Wait, I’d like to hear more. You’re an MCPS teacher and you think this policy is a good idea? Because I’m an elementary teacher and MCPS parent too and I think it’s a terrible idea that will have half our classrooms repeatedly sent home this winter.

Who ever said it was a good idea? I’m not the pp, but I know how to read and I’m concerned an elementary teacher lacks reading comprehension skills.

Ok, fair enough. I haven’t read every post in this thread so I’m not sure what she was referring to. I was responding to what seemed to be a teacher’s response that parents are overreacting to this policy. I think just as many teachers are freaking out too because it promises to be chaos.