Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The CDC told people not to wear masks and killed thousands of people. The government wants women to skip mammograms until they are 50 and not do checks for lumps. Just because some group states their own agenda does not mean humanity will not suffer because of it. Sure going to school five days a week is good for kids. But wearing masks 7 hours a day is bad for kids too. Bringing home the virus and killing their parents is bad for kids too. No group is above their own agenda even if they claim to be not bias.
First of all, biasED.
Second of all, kids don’t infect adults with this. They just don’t. And we don’t know if wearing masks all day is bad for kids but we know having no school is bad for kids, their parents, the economy, and the future. It is so disruptive that we need to be sure that it helps, and we aren’t, so we shouldn’t do it.
Anonymous wrote:Schools aren't about kids - they're about teachers. And the teachers unions are not going to sllow this.
Anonymous wrote:The CDC told people not to wear masks and killed thousands of people. The government wants women to skip mammograms until they are 50 and not do checks for lumps. Just because some group states their own agenda does not mean humanity will not suffer because of it. Sure going to school five days a week is good for kids. But wearing masks 7 hours a day is bad for kids too. Bringing home the virus and killing their parents is bad for kids too. No group is above their own agenda even if they claim to be not bias.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They say schools should try to open in person... if it can be done so safely.
I think we all agree on that?
The problem isn't the kids getting sick - we all know this. The problem is the kids transmitting the disease to adults. I love the AAP, but what's great for kids isn't going to be necessarily great for adults.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They say schools should try to open in person... if it can be done so safely.
I think we all agree on that?
Exactly. People keep citing this report as if we don't all agree and, more relevantly, as if it doesn't include the social distancing measures which are THE VERY REASON why school systems are opting for hybrid and distance learning.
We ALL believe it would be better for schools to open full-time and in person. But since the schools (well certainly FCPS, which is over capacityall over the place) can not follow any of the AAP's recommendations, then following AAP's logic, they should not open.
Anonymous wrote:They say schools should try to open in person... if it can be done so safely.
I think we all agree on that?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The AAP isn't saying schools should open in person because it's safe. They are saying that the goal should be to open in person because they think that's what's best for kids. It's goal-oriented reasoning. They aren't epidemiologists, they're pediatricians. So their input about kids and child development is probably great, but their input about novel infectious diseases is less compelling.
No, they're basing it on the available data on how the virus spreads among kids:
"SARS-CoV-2 appears to behave differently in children and adolescents than other common respiratory viruses, such as influenza, on which much of the current guidance regarding school closures is based. Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2. Although many questions remain, the preponderance of evidence indicates that children and adolescents are less likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have severe disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection."
“In addition, children MAY be less likely to become infected and to spread infection.” Now, that’s a reassuring statement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The AAP isn't saying schools should open in person because it's safe. They are saying that the goal should be to open in person because they think that's what's best for kids. It's goal-oriented reasoning. They aren't epidemiologists, they're pediatricians. So their input about kids and child development is probably great, but their input about novel infectious diseases is less compelling.
No, they're basing it on the available data on how the virus spreads among kids:
"SARS-CoV-2 appears to behave differently in children and adolescents than other common respiratory viruses, such as influenza, on which much of the current guidance regarding school closures is based. Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2. Although many questions remain, the preponderance of evidence indicates that children and adolescents are less likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have severe disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, children may be less likely to become infected and to spread infection."
Anonymous wrote:The AAP isn't saying schools should open in person because it's safe. They are saying that the goal should be to open in person because they think that's what's best for kids. It's goal-oriented reasoning. They aren't epidemiologists, they're pediatricians. So their input about kids and child development is probably great, but their input about novel infectious diseases is less compelling.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Cool, so why is my pediatrician's office still encouraging virtual appointments right now and requiring temp checks before you're allowed into the waiting room?
Because by definition lots of those kids are sick??