Anonymous wrote:The loudest voices will decide whether we have school vaccine mandates.

Hasn’t this already been decided?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

Sorry I meant 12-15. Safety and efficacy have been established for 16-17 and vaccines should absolutely be required for them

This. There should be no mandate for kids before full approval. We have lost our minds if we think that is ok for a virus that is of extremely low risk for kids.

+1

I am opposed to any required EUA vaccine for young kids, especially for a disease that is not statistically shown to result in hospitalization. I do think a lot of parents will be up in arms about requiring a vaccine for under 11s right after EUA. And I do think DCPS will have to cave because the optics will be really negative for them.

And I think you are crazy. The optics for not requiring vaccines and bowing to crazy people that think kids don't get sick are nuts... People in other countries are still waiting for days for life saving vaccines...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

Sorry I meant 12-15. Safety and efficacy have been established for 16-17 and vaccines should absolutely be required for them

This. There should be no mandate for kids before full approval. We have lost our minds if we think that is ok for a virus that is of extremely low risk for kids.

+1

risks of this disease for children aren't zero, but damn near it. Risks for the vaccine are extremely small as well, but higher than the risks to this youngest age group. Why does US take such a different stance from the UK, for example, which is only giving one dose to children 12-16 due to the risk of myocarditis? BTW, we will be the first in line to get this for the younger children because I have a kid who is immunocompromised. So we will be relieved when our other kid can get the shot, but yet I stop short of wanting to force other parents to do this before its full approval. I will say that I'm glad the FDA forced the manufacturers to widen the trials - the younger kids will have been better studied than the other kids and hopefully we won't be waiting until post marketing to see some of the AEs.

Umm.. that risk is only for boys 16-29 and the ISS self resolves. So, you science information is off or intentionally miss representing the facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

Kids are already required to have a number of vaccines to attend school. They aren't making a new rule they are adding additional vaccines current policy. So, yes it is enforceable DCPS just has a history of letting WAY TOO MANY families "slip through the cracks" on vaccines and annual health screenings. They need to invest in the free clinic or Mary's center etc having a mobile unit that can give exams and vaccines at schools and rec centers throughout the city. Much like the free dental exam many title 1 schools offer. DCPS could also provide a social worker or nurse to help making appointments at clinics, bus passes if families need them.

Either way it is enforceable if they want to act on it. And NO DCPS does NOT have to provide you a separate public educational option if you refuse to not get vaccinated. There are a few, very few medical reasons a childs medical team might advise against a vaccine like they have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy. Short of that get vaccinated or home school.

Good! We’re never getting rid of masks if people are not forced to vaccinate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

Sorry I meant 12-15. Safety and efficacy have been established for 16-17 and vaccines should absolutely be required for them

This. There should be no mandate for kids before full approval. We have lost our minds if we think that is ok for a virus that is of extremely low risk for kids.

+1

risks of this disease for children aren't zero, but damn near it. Risks for the vaccine are extremely small as well, but higher than the risks to this youngest age group. Why does US take such a different stance from the UK, for example, which is only giving one dose to children 12-16 due to the risk of myocarditis? BTW, we will be the first in line to get this for the younger children because I have a kid who is immunocompromised. So we will be relieved when our other kid can get the shot, but yet I stop short of wanting to force other parents to do this before its full approval. I will say that I'm glad the FDA forced the manufacturers to widen the trials - the younger kids will have been better studied than the other kids and hopefully we won't be waiting until post marketing to see some of the AEs.

Anonymous wrote:I guess we are moving. And will see you all in news crying in few years!

Literally no one cares if you move.

I guess we are moving. And will see you all in news crying in few years!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

Sorry I meant 12-15. Safety and efficacy have been established for 16-17 and vaccines should absolutely be required for them

This. There should be no mandate for kids before full approval. We have lost our minds if we think that is ok for a virus that is of extremely low risk for kids.

+1

I am opposed to any required EUA vaccine for young kids, especially for a disease that is not statistically shown to result in hospitalization. I do think a lot of parents will be up in arms about requiring a vaccine for under 11s right after EUA. And I do think DCPS will have to cave because the optics will be really negative for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

Sorry I meant 12-15. Safety and efficacy have been established for 16-17 and vaccines should absolutely be required for them

This. There should be no mandate for kids before full approval. We have lost our minds if we think that is ok for a virus that is of extremely low risk for kids.

Anonymous wrote:This is situation where they can probably just make your life so difficult if you are unvaccinated through quarantines and testing it would not be necessary to actually "mandate" it.

well, for some people.

Some people don't care about their kids' education.

This is situation where they can probably just make your life so difficult if you are unvaccinated through quarantines and testing it would not be necessary to actually "mandate" it.

I think a sufficient incentive is if you are vaxed you only have to test and not quarantine if exposed.

The loudest voices will decide whether we have school vaccine mandates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is it will be unenforceable in public schools. Most kids will not get it this school year and DC will be unable to just kick them out without a virtual option which they clearly don’t have. Next school year, for sure.

Why do you think it wouldn't be enforceable in public school?

You cannot kick half of DC kids (the vast majority of which based on current vaccine rates will be low SES, POC, and otherwise at risk kids) without any alternate public school option. And you similarly cannot physically force an injection on someone. It’s common sense that this will not be enforceable this school year and even next year will be very difficult though they will have better odds

LOL kids have to get vaccines to get into school. So indeed you can 'force' an injection on someone. (I support mandatory vaccines, btw)

They are fully approved. There is a big difference. The FDA EXPLICITLY said that neither safety nor efficacy has been established for the 12-17 vaccines (EUA). The same will be true for 5-11. Also, people go into a school year knowing that - you can pull and homeschool, go virtual at Friendship, or move to another state. You do not have at least the first two options and the third is likely impractical at a drop of a hat in the middle of the school year. You cannot just deprive a RIGHT without reasonable notice and ability to take other options. This is exactly why California conditioned their state wide requirement on full approval and made it only to start next school year

The Council doesn't care if you pull your kids or keep them home or whatever. They didn't last year, so I can't see why they'd care about that upheaval in the middle of the year. They are letting people just stay home until January if they want. They deprived all schoolkids of standard education (if we agree that it a RIGHT) last year, so I don't see how they would think school is sacrosanct.