Anonymous wrote:You may want to pick new messengers.

I don't want to hear anything from angry dad bros who have shown us how entitled and irrational they are over the last two years.

I can't believe that you are actually responding to the material at hand, or the people in this thread. Monica Ghandi and Tracy Hoeg? Entitled dad bros?

You may want to pick new messengers.

I don't want to hear anything from angry dad bros who have shown us how entitled and irrational they are over the last two years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

Who is saying that?

Like people already said, schools are open. Sure, there have been some temporary switches to virtual for outbreaks but there's seemingly no threat of all-virtual all the time.

I read through this packet yesterday and it didn't seem to offer anything new.

If we're talking about what we'd like to see discussed - where's the support for masks being harmful? That's what I expected to see in this toolkit because a lot of people seem to be making that claim. But the toolkit authors simply say, "Potential harms from long-term masking are poorly understood, and reports on mask removal have noted social and emotional benefits for students."

That's very similar to the language used to evaluate masks effectiveness, which is more or less a big shrug.

So, again, what's new here?

They're proposing transitioning to optional masking by February 15.

I'm most interested in the issue of masking children under 6, who aren't masked anywhere else in the world. That fact alone is the best evidence of its harms. Literally every other public agency in the world has considered the evidence on child development and concluded, through each sure and variant, that it's inappropriate to mask children under 6 in care/school. Many have never masked kids under 12, with no obvious adverse impacts.

Masking our youngest children is not a benign intervention. Children need to see full faces (https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fdev0000750) during the forty hours they spend in daycare each week in order to learn (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/article/abs/attention-to-the-mouth-and-gaze-following-in-infancy-predict-language-development/209AED7224CC2D4C42D72A4109F00918) to speak (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022096517303028?via%3Dihub), process emotions (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535221001221#bib6), read social cues (https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00885.x), and build the foundation for literacy (https://archive.md/yM9cv). Even the CDC’s masking webpage acknowledges the costs of masking around young children (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/types-of-masks.html#masks-situations).

Some argue that there is “no known evidence” that masks are harmful to children’s development. This is because obvious ethical concerns (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535221001221#bib6) preclude any review board from approving a controlled study to quantify the developmental impacts of masking young children. Yet longitudinal (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34401887/) studies and other relevant research (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257740) are emerging that measures those harms:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33891614/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7462459/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.669432/full

Point of note: the phrase "off ramp" wrt masking is the phrase used in Moco's recent discussions, so it only conveys that someone has engaged in a certain public dialogue, not a specific side of the issues.

E.g., https://wtop.com/maryland/2022/01/despite-misgivings-md-lawmakers-approve-off-ramps-from-school-mask-mandate/

Anonymous wrote:ugh "off ramping" why are these loons so transparent.

Why are you opposed to 1) science, 2) research, 3) reading the linked material?

These are well-established public health and infectious disease specialists, not "loons."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

Who is saying that?

Like people already said, schools are open. Sure, there have been some temporary switches to virtual for outbreaks but there's seemingly no threat of all-virtual all the time.

I read through this packet yesterday and it didn't seem to offer anything new.

If we're talking about what we'd like to see discussed - where's the support for masks being harmful? That's what I expected to see in this toolkit because a lot of people seem to be making that claim. But the toolkit authors simply say, "Potential harms from long-term masking are poorly understood, and reports on mask removal have noted social and emotional benefits for students."

That's very similar to the language used to evaluate masks effectiveness, which is more or less a big shrug.

So, again, what's new here?

DP. One of the primary things they are saying is that *for the sake of children* that we de-escalate our fear mongering around schools. At least in my DMV neck of the woods, there are still people that believe that not masking at school is an automatic death sentence for teachers. That kind of language is not founded in reality, and hurts children.

Next, what's different is that they are proposing an off-ramp for masking in schools. See slides 18-20. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e5afd7a33d334ec9f84595/t/61f1468d2b827306c0bea391/1643202191267/Urgency+of+Normal+Toolkit.pdf

Finally, at least here in DC, there are STILL people trying to shift schools to virtual. They are an increasing minority, but they have the ear of one Council member, so it's not just some useless fringe group with no power.

Again. Fear mongering is what you are doing when you say there are people out there that say the not-masking is an "automatic death sentence for teachers"... nobody has said that. But the number of teachers in FLA for example that have died is unfathomable.

I'm saying that people are fear-mongering about the recent proposals for kids not wearing masks in VA schools. I have people in my facebook feed that are saying that "teachers will die" because of it.

You can say "nobody says that" but consider that your experience is just your own.

Anonymous wrote:ugh "off ramping" why are these loons so transparent.

Lol are you that person from the other thread who thinks commonly-used phrases are all anti-vax dog whistles?

ugh "off ramping" why are these loons so transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

Who is saying that?

Like people already said, schools are open. Sure, there have been some temporary switches to virtual for outbreaks but there's seemingly no threat of all-virtual all the time.

I read through this packet yesterday and it didn't seem to offer anything new.

If we're talking about what we'd like to see discussed - where's the support for masks being harmful? That's what I expected to see in this toolkit because a lot of people seem to be making that claim. But the toolkit authors simply say, "Potential harms from long-term masking are poorly understood, and reports on mask removal have noted social and emotional benefits for students."

That's very similar to the language used to evaluate masks effectiveness, which is more or less a big shrug.

So, again, what's new here?

DP. One of the primary things they are saying is that *for the sake of children* that we de-escalate our fear mongering around schools. At least in my DMV neck of the woods, there are still people that believe that not masking at school is an automatic death sentence for teachers. That kind of language is not founded in reality, and hurts children.

Next, what's different is that they are proposing an off-ramp for masking in schools. See slides 18-20. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e5afd7a33d334ec9f84595/t/61f1468d2b827306c0bea391/1643202191267/Urgency+of+Normal+Toolkit.pdf

Finally, at least here in DC, there are STILL people trying to shift schools to virtual. They are an increasing minority, but they have the ear of one Council member, so it's not just some useless fringe group with no power.

Again. Fear mongering is what you are doing when you say there are people out there that say the not-masking is an "automatic death sentence for teachers"... nobody has said that. But the number of teachers in FLA for example that have died is unfathomable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

Who is saying that?

Like people already said, schools are open. Sure, there have been some temporary switches to virtual for outbreaks but there's seemingly no threat of all-virtual all the time.

I read through this packet yesterday and it didn't seem to offer anything new.

If we're talking about what we'd like to see discussed - where's the support for masks being harmful? That's what I expected to see in this toolkit because a lot of people seem to be making that claim. But the toolkit authors simply say, "Potential harms from long-term masking are poorly understood, and reports on mask removal have noted social and emotional benefits for students."

That's very similar to the language used to evaluate masks effectiveness, which is more or less a big shrug.

So, again, what's new here?

DP. One of the primary things they are saying is that *for the sake of children* that we de-escalate our fear mongering around schools. At least in my DMV neck of the woods, there are still people that believe that not masking at school is an automatic death sentence for teachers. That kind of language is not founded in reality, and hurts children.

Next, what's different is that they are proposing an off-ramp for masking in schools. See slides 18-20. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e5afd7a33d334ec9f84595/t/61f1468d2b827306c0bea391/1643202191267/Urgency+of+Normal+Toolkit.pdf

Finally, at least here in DC, there are STILL people trying to shift schools to virtual. They are an increasing minority, but they have the ear of one Council member, so it's not just some useless fringe group with no power.

Anonymous wrote:
I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

Who is saying that?

Like people already said, schools are open. Sure, there have been some temporary switches to virtual for outbreaks but there's seemingly no threat of all-virtual all the time.

I read through this packet yesterday and it didn't seem to offer anything new.

If we're talking about what we'd like to see discussed - where's the support for masks being harmful? That's what I expected to see in this toolkit because a lot of people seem to be making that claim. But the toolkit authors simply say, "Potential harms from long-term masking are poorly understood, and reports on mask removal have noted social and emotional benefits for students."

That's very similar to the language used to evaluate masks effectiveness, which is more or less a big shrug.

So, again, what's new here?

We are back in person, so this seems a little delayed.

One of my children is in one of the 16 virtual schools. It is a total of 4 school days and done because there were too many staff to run the school safely. I’d prefer this then having to close schools or warehouse my child in the auditorium for babysitting. It could have happened with the flu or anything else.

But we all have in person education. They are not going back to virtual.

Thank you!!! I sent it to the MCPS BOE, acting superintendent, and relevant folks on the county council, DHHS, etc.

I’d really appreciate folks who disagree that in-person education for kids is a priority providing substantive evidence to support that position. So far, I’ve seen none. If I’m missing it, I want to see.

The other point that I think that a lot of people either don’t know or ignore is that chronic stress is really, really not good for kids. Childhood (including through adolescence) is a unique developmental time. Chronic stress isn’t good for adults, but it’s differently bad for kids, and can lead to myriad negative outcomes throughout life.

"We are a group of scientists and pediatric, infectious disease, emergency, and ICU doctors concerned that COVID-19 mitigation measures for children are doing more harm than good. Health must be viewed holistically— yet school policymakers have narrowly defined “safety” as the mere absence of COVID, putting children into a loop of mitigation measures that are uncoupled from actual risk. After two years of living with one disruption after another, the toll on children’s mental and physical health is increasingly evident and alarming. To protect them, an urgent return to fully normal schooling is needed.

We have created this advocacy toolkit to support that shift, along with guidance on how to use this toolkit. We’ve distilled the raw data so that parents, students, and school decision makers at all levels can understand not just COVID-19, but the harms of two years of pandemic life to children’s health and wellbeing. As scientists and physicians, our goal is to provide accurate data and nuanced guidance—to help people frame decisions and balance risk—not to make decisions for you."

https://www.urgencyofnormal.com/

More examples of shifting expert thinking on school/childcare policies:

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)'s Policy Lab suggested K-12 guidance: https://policylab.chop.edu/tools-and-memos/guidance-person-education-k-12-educational-settings

CHOP's childcare guidance: https://policylab.chop.edu/tools-and-memos/guidance-managing-covid-19-and-other-seasonal-viruses-early-care-and-education?fbclid=IwAR1tWPwWcnMbZn2FNKeMKmr2szDumtej3qeugAw4quZe3mq4Mtk_ZzaYoiQ

Looking forward to a kind and respectful discussion.