Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.

LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.

Next, are they going to institute a widespread asymptomatic testing program??

Oh oh, maybe they could consider going virtual! Or closing on Wednesdays for deep cleaning!

I can't tell if the suggestion for an asymptomatic testing program is a joke or not. LAMB has that.

I thought DCPS still did that, too?

My school does not, no.

Are you in DCPS?

I thought this was still pretty common in the DMV. Perhaps not elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.

Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?

The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.

I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view

It's appalling to see that level of "vaccine hesitancy" at a school that is clearly also very Covid anxious. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Approx 20% is vaccine hesitancy or misinformation, and 20% is too young to vaccinate. I suspect that the 20% doesn't overlap substantially with those who want masking; people who oppose the vaccine tend to discount the severity of covid and hence also tend to not mask. So you should probably point the finger somewhere else.

Compared to those who reported positive vaccine intentions, respondents with negative vaccine intentions were significantly less likely to report that they engaged in the COVID-19 prevention behaviors of wearing masks (aOR = 0.53, CI = 0.37–0.76) and social distancing (aOR = 0.22, CI = 0.12–0.42). Citation

But the city can reduce the number of unvaccinated students by requiring covid vaccines of all age-eligible students.

I 100 percent agree that is the case nationwide, but we have seen that is not the case in DC. There is a definite vaccine-resistant but pro-mask crowd.

Mayor Bowser's actions throughout the past year demonstrated this as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For these charters, what’s the end game with COVID? Next school year when there’s a vaccine mandate so all the hold outs will have had to get the shot?

I doubt the vaccine will make it out of EUA. It’s basically useless in stopping transmission after a month. My kids are eligible vaccinated (and had COVID) but I don’t see how it’s reasonable to mandate it and to have different rules for vaccinated and unvaccinated kids.

Anonymous wrote:For these charters, what’s the end game with COVID? Next school year when there’s a vaccine mandate so all the hold outs will have had to get the shot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For these charters, what’s the end game with COVID? Next school year when there’s a vaccine mandate so all the hold outs will have had to get the shot?

I'd imagine it will be continued masking, just more of the same. Or we'll all just vote on which things to do or not.

DC still suggests that the vaccine mandate will apply if the vax is out of EUA. That applies to all schools (private and public, including charter), so charters don't have a say over that.

I don't think DC is going to enforce that. But even if they do, continuing masking at charters is widespread and it doesn't seem to have much to do with the vaccination rates at the schools. There's just always going to be another reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For these charters, what’s the end game with COVID? Next school year when there’s a vaccine mandate so all the hold outs will have had to get the shot?

I'd imagine it will be continued masking, just more of the same. Or we'll all just vote on which things to do or not.

DC still suggests that the vaccine mandate will apply if the vax is out of EUA. That applies to all schools (private and public, including charter), so charters don't have a say over that.

Anonymous wrote:For these charters, what’s the end game with COVID? Next school year when there’s a vaccine mandate so all the hold outs will have had to get the shot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.

LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.

Next, are they going to institute a widespread asymptomatic testing program??

Oh oh, maybe they could consider going virtual! Or closing on Wednesdays for deep cleaning!

I can't tell if the suggestion for an asymptomatic testing program is a joke or not. LAMB has that.

I thought DCPS still did that, too?

My school does not, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.

LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.

Next, are they going to institute a widespread asymptomatic testing program??

Oh oh, maybe they could consider going virtual! Or closing on Wednesdays for deep cleaning!

I can't tell if the suggestion for an asymptomatic testing program is a joke or not. LAMB has that.

I thought DCPS still did that, too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking you to keep your healthy kid home from school, which goes against all public health advice, is nonsense and should not be allowed. Total BS, especially because everyone at LAMB still has to mask.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Asking you to keep your healthy kid home from school, which goes against all public health advice, is nonsense and should not be allowed. Total BS, especially because everyone at LAMB still has to mask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.

LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.

Next, are they going to institute a widespread asymptomatic testing program??

Oh oh, maybe they could consider going virtual! Or closing on Wednesdays for deep cleaning!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.

LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.

Next, are they going to institute a widespread asymptomatic testing program??