Anonymous wrote:They are paying a consultant $130/hour to advice them on public relations related to the pandemic. Perhaps they should pay a public health expert to advise on actual pandemic strategies.

+1 (but I'm sure it's +1,000,000)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

why would you keep a vaccinated child enrolled in surveillance testing? There’s no upside to that.

How do you disenroll?

Clearly MCPS thinks there is upside because the program is at high schools too where the vast majority of kids are vaccinated.

What’s good for MCPS isn’t necessarily good for your children.

You disenroll by contacting the principal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

why would you keep a vaccinated child enrolled in surveillance testing? There’s no upside to that.

How do you disenroll?

Clearly MCPS thinks there is upside because the program is at high schools too where the vast majority of kids are vaccinated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

Clearly there is more to your story as your child had had a very close contact.

PP here my kid wasn’t a full 14 days post 2nd vax (only 10 days at the time) therefore she wasn’t “fully vaxxed” and they don’t make exceptions. Or try to find ways to keep kids in school. She was one of several who ended up in this situation. I know it has happened to other kids at other schools as well. Test to stay would have prevented all these kids from quarantining according to the mcps flow chart. The goal should be to keep kids in school and not quarantine unless absolutely necessary.

Never mind that logically she was effectively vaccinated - it’s not like ppl go from 0% protected to 100% at the 14 day mark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

why would you keep a vaccinated child enrolled in surveillance testing? There’s no upside to that.