Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.

How is the worst over when Hogan just said that the worst is yet to come

Mcps is waiting for Hogan to shut them down, which will not happen.

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

This exactly. I am personally ok with either in-school or virtual for two weeks but MCPS leadership’s handling of this has been a debacle. DCPS is way ahead of us and this never used to be the case. MCPS is sinking and I am extremely concerned about the next few years. We need new leadership

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.

How is the worst over when Hogan just said that the worst is yet to come

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me crystallize this - the current policy position that is unspoken, but how we are clearly operating if you can read between the lines or just see what is in front of you is that we all get it. The wave will be "over" when it has interacted with nearly all of us, skipping or maybe asymptomatically touching some recent vax'd people.

You can choose *maybe* when you get it, but not if you get it. Closing schools just may change the when, not the if. So my position is that schools should not close if the only movement closure does is shift the "when" to a different point.

Those who are pushing school closures at this point really only have a few defensible positions:

1. Hospital capacity - local health dept can insist on school and other closures if needed. Should not be BOE driven and school should not be only thing closed.
2. School staffing - too many teachers, busses, etc out to function. (Sidenote- how much COVID leave exists and how much is that driving the total days out per positive test)


Anything else, really shouldn't drive schools to be closed. Too many kids out? That stinks, but we are in a pandemic, increased absences due to illness are to be expected. Dangerous environment? I hate to say it, but refer to the if / when analysis I posited above. The dangerous environment theory was better suited for waves that wouldn't hit everyone as there was a chance of missing the wave. Waiting for meds, sub 5 vaccines, etc? We would need a clear public health assessment of the goals, the benchmarks and what closure of school would achieve to get engagement to close for these things. I don't think there is the will or capability for this at this stage, and if there were, it should not be led by schools closing before other businesses.

This is not inevitable, it is a result of decisions like, say, forcing kids into schools at a time of high spread. If they are home until things calm down, they will be much less likely to catch covid. If you're in a school of 1000 where probably 20 people are contagious with not-yet-known covid, you're much more likely to catch it than if you go back a few weeks later and only 2 or 3 people are contagious.

"When things calm down" is when the wave passes and it runs out of hosts to infect. I'm not a COVID denier, and I wasn't saying this re: any of the other variants, but with Omicron and with our current national response, I don't see a lot of other REALISTIC options. I see options, I just don't find them particularly realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.

You can't say don't start the paranoid shit because that's implicit to all this. MCPS clearly changes its mind all the time. After a virtual pivot, it would be so easy for them to say "we invested quite a bit of ramp-up time into successful DL...it's going so well right now and the kids are happy and learning...cases are still a bit high around the country...we've made the decision to stay with it until Spring Break". In what world is this not a very likely outcome? I bet a lot of people here could stomach two weeks of virtual. But after the last 1.5 years (and various flip flopping since then), they know that it's not going to stop there.

I'm not that PP, but just because you can dream up a scenario in your quoted text doesn't mean it's reality.

I'll fully concede it's a thing that could happen.

But I won't concede it's a "very likely outcome"

As long as we're dreaming up scenarios that confirm our biases, I could have said say it would be "so easy" for MCPS to say, "Well, since like every school went red? ummmmm maybe we won't so much use that as a metric anymore and keep schools open with really high community spread?" Actually, I did say that, and it may be happening, so bad example.

ANYWAY

Why aren't people addressing that this could happen anyway if all or most schools go virtual after reopening?

I'll concede that maybe all schools won't go virtual as I expected-- though I always ceded the possibility that they wouldn't if MCPS changed their metrics, which they may be doing. And I'm sure these snow days helped.

But going on the information we had a week ago, I still do not understand the response that if we let them take 2 weeks, they would take 3 months or more. Again, fine, let's say that's true. How is that different if they took 2 weeks as of Jan 3, than if they take 2 weeks as of Jan 10?

Even 2 rolling weeks, depending on schools (which sounds like a nightmare for both admins and parents with kids in more than one school)...? In addition to the logistical nightmares, how does that prevent MCPS from deciding they want to stay in virtual longer?

I guess it MAY make some difference now, if it's actually true that they're not going to pivot that many schools to virtual at once. Some difference. Although I never thought they'd turn 2-4 weeks into 3-6 months, so if they don't do it now, will people crow that they were right not to support a pre-emptive 2-4 weeks? Even though many schools will end up with 2-4 weeks of virtual anyway?

Like...

"I don't think MCPS will stay virtual for 3-6 months if they proactively go virtual for 2-4 weeks."

*this sh!tshow happens, and many schools do go virtual for 2-4 weeks anyway*

"See! MCPS didn't go virtual for 3-6 months! That's because we didn't let them go proactively virtual for 2-4 weeks! Thank goodness! Or else they totally would have, because I had already decided they totally would have."

Sigh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me crystallize this - the current policy position that is unspoken, but how we are clearly operating if you can read between the lines or just see what is in front of you is that we all get it. The wave will be "over" when it has interacted with nearly all of us, skipping or maybe asymptomatically touching some recent vax'd people.

You can choose *maybe* when you get it, but not if you get it. Closing schools just may change the when, not the if. So my position is that schools should not close if the only movement closure does is shift the "when" to a different point.

Those who are pushing school closures at this point really only have a few defensible positions:

1. Hospital capacity - local health dept can insist on school and other closures if needed. Should not be BOE driven and school should not be only thing closed.
2. School staffing - too many teachers, busses, etc out to function. (Sidenote- how much COVID leave exists and how much is that driving the total days out per positive test)


Anything else, really shouldn't drive schools to be closed. Too many kids out? That stinks, but we are in a pandemic, increased absences due to illness are to be expected. Dangerous environment? I hate to say it, but refer to the if / when analysis I posited above. The dangerous environment theory was better suited for waves that wouldn't hit everyone as there was a chance of missing the wave. Waiting for meds, sub 5 vaccines, etc? We would need a clear public health assessment of the goals, the benchmarks and what closure of school would achieve to get engagement to close for these things. I don't think there is the will or capability for this at this stage, and if there were, it should not be led by schools closing before other businesses.

You can also choose how many times you get it. Do you want to get it when there is a new variant of concern or do you just want to get as few as possible? Each time is a systemic attack to cardiovascular, neurological, endocrine systems. Not sure how many people can stay healthy after few years of repeated infections.

How would you choose how you get Omicron or not? I posit there is one way - near perfect isolation for several months right now. Absent that, I don't think there is a lot of choice with this variant.

Anonymous wrote:Let me crystallize this - the current policy position that is unspoken, but how we are clearly operating if you can read between the lines or just see what is in front of you is that we all get it. The wave will be "over" when it has interacted with nearly all of us, skipping or maybe asymptomatically touching some recent vax'd people.

You can choose *maybe* when you get it, but not if you get it. Closing schools just may change the when, not the if. So my position is that schools should not close if the only movement closure does is shift the "when" to a different point.

Those who are pushing school closures at this point really only have a few defensible positions:

1. Hospital capacity - local health dept can insist on school and other closures if needed. Should not be BOE driven and school should not be only thing closed.
2. School staffing - too many teachers, busses, etc out to function. (Sidenote- how much COVID leave exists and how much is that driving the total days out per positive test)


Anything else, really shouldn't drive schools to be closed. Too many kids out? That stinks, but we are in a pandemic, increased absences due to illness are to be expected. Dangerous environment? I hate to say it, but refer to the if / when analysis I posited above. The dangerous environment theory was better suited for waves that wouldn't hit everyone as there was a chance of missing the wave. Waiting for meds, sub 5 vaccines, etc? We would need a clear public health assessment of the goals, the benchmarks and what closure of school would achieve to get engagement to close for these things. I don't think there is the will or capability for this at this stage, and if there were, it should not be led by schools closing before other businesses.

This is not inevitable, it is a result of decisions like, say, forcing kids into schools at a time of high spread. If they are home until things calm down, they will be much less likely to catch covid. If you're in a school of 1000 where probably 20 people are contagious with not-yet-known covid, you're much more likely to catch it than if you go back a few weeks later and only 2 or 3 people are contagious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.

Aaaaand thank you again. I'm going to imagine you are the similarly like-minded person who wrote the first PP here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so happy to see this update! Upgrade your masks everyone and go to school!

Only complete idiots think this is good news. Enjoy your kid’s subpar education for the remainder of the year, stuffed into auditoriums with no teachers. But they are socializing! (If you actually talked to your kid, you’d know the kids are absolutely miserable in the buildings right now)

This is what I’m hearing. And not even enough teachers to stuff them in the auditorium. It’s fundamentally unsafe.

They don't talk to their kids. They just want them out of their hair.

I talk to my kids a lot. They want to be in school.
I also work out of the house. So no one is ever “in my hair.”

Don’t you get sick of trotting out the same stupid line over and over again?

That's cool. As another parent, I've had my kid's friends over who tell me flat out they are too scared to tell their parents how they really about things, including how school is going this year because their parents are some THOSE parents. Also, had some tell me they have told their parents how the feel only to see their parents lying about their experience on social media to prove their narrative. Just because they are telling you something, doesn't necessarily make it true.

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

Thank you, yes, that's what I've been banging my drum about all week.

Anonymous wrote:Let me crystallize this - the current policy position that is unspoken, but how we are clearly operating if you can read between the lines or just see what is in front of you is that we all get it. The wave will be "over" when it has interacted with nearly all of us, skipping or maybe asymptomatically touching some recent vax'd people.

You can choose *maybe* when you get it, but not if you get it. Closing schools just may change the when, not the if. So my position is that schools should not close if the only movement closure does is shift the "when" to a different point.

Those who are pushing school closures at this point really only have a few defensible positions:

1. Hospital capacity - local health dept can insist on school and other closures if needed. Should not be BOE driven and school should not be only thing closed.
2. School staffing - too many teachers, busses, etc out to function. (Sidenote- how much COVID leave exists and how much is that driving the total days out per positive test)


Anything else, really shouldn't drive schools to be closed. Too many kids out? That stinks, but we are in a pandemic, increased absences due to illness are to be expected. Dangerous environment? I hate to say it, but refer to the if / when analysis I posited above. The dangerous environment theory was better suited for waves that wouldn't hit everyone as there was a chance of missing the wave. Waiting for meds, sub 5 vaccines, etc? We would need a clear public health assessment of the goals, the benchmarks and what closure of school would achieve to get engagement to close for these things. I don't think there is the will or capability for this at this stage, and if there were, it should not be led by schools closing before other businesses.

You can also choose how many times you get it. Do you want to get it when there is a new variant of concern or do you just want to get as few as possible? Each time is a systemic attack to cardiovascular, neurological, endocrine systems. Not sure how many people can stay healthy after few years of repeated infections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.

You can't say don't start the paranoid shit because that's implicit to all this. MCPS clearly changes its mind all the time. After a virtual pivot, it would be so easy for them to say "we invested quite a bit of ramp-up time into successful DL...it's going so well right now and the kids are happy and learning...cases are still a bit high around the country...we've made the decision to stay with it until Spring Break". In what world is this not a very likely outcome? I bet a lot of people here could stomach two weeks of virtual. But after the last 1.5 years (and various flip flopping since then), they know that it's not going to stop there.

Let me crystallize this - the current policy position that is unspoken, but how we are clearly operating if you can read between the lines or just see what is in front of you is that we all get it. The wave will be "over" when it has interacted with nearly all of us, skipping or maybe asymptomatically touching some recent vax'd people.

You can choose *maybe* when you get it, but not if you get it. Closing schools just may change the when, not the if. So my position is that schools should not close if the only movement closure does is shift the "when" to a different point.

Those who are pushing school closures at this point really only have a few defensible positions:

1. Hospital capacity - local health dept can insist on school and other closures if needed. Should not be BOE driven and school should not be only thing closed.
2. School staffing - too many teachers, busses, etc out to function. (Sidenote- how much COVID leave exists and how much is that driving the total days out per positive test)


Anything else, really shouldn't drive schools to be closed. Too many kids out? That stinks, but we are in a pandemic, increased absences due to illness are to be expected. Dangerous environment? I hate to say it, but refer to the if / when analysis I posited above. The dangerous environment theory was better suited for waves that wouldn't hit everyone as there was a chance of missing the wave. Waiting for meds, sub 5 vaccines, etc? We would need a clear public health assessment of the goals, the benchmarks and what closure of school would achieve to get engagement to close for these things. I don't think there is the will or capability for this at this stage, and if there were, it should not be led by schools closing before other businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so happy to see this update! Upgrade your masks everyone and go to school!

Only complete idiots think this is good news. Enjoy your kid’s subpar education for the remainder of the year, stuffed into auditoriums with no teachers. But they are socializing! (If you actually talked to your kid, you’d know the kids are absolutely miserable in the buildings right now)

This is what I’m hearing. And not even enough teachers to stuff them in the auditorium. It’s fundamentally unsafe.

They don't talk to their kids. They just want them out of their hair.

I talk to my kids a lot. They want to be in school.
I also work out of the house. So no one is ever “in my hair.”

Don’t you get sick of trotting out the same stupid line over and over again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'know, I really want my kid in in-person school. She's vaccinated, we're boosted, the whole family is going to get COVID eventually, and I'm not too worried about us. What I DON'T want is to watch the slow but accelerating collapse of our educational infrastructure for reasons that were completely predictable and obvious, and it feels like that's what's happening.

Because of an "unexpected" (seriously?) lack of bus drivers, you've got kids who live too far to walk whose shift worker parents couldn't scramble to find a carpool last minute getting - not in-person learning, not virtual learning - nothing. MCPS dropped the ball and now those kids are getting nothing. You've got other kids who live with young, unvaccinated siblings or frail, elderly grandparents who are being forced to risk their family's well-being for the privilege of sitting in a cafeteria all day doing asynchronous busy-work.

Meanwhile staffing shortages continue to grow, so we're barreling toward closures and virtual anyway, but in the most chaotic and disruptive way possible. (The new quarantine guidelines might help, won't be it fun to see if that can outrun the exponential spread of Omicron before it flames out? I can't wait!)

I would have taken 2-weeks of virtual to slow the spread over this (although we all know half of y'all would have gone to the Bahamas and ruined it for us anyway). I would have taken DCPS' test-to-stay program over this - in fact I'd still take it! Instead we got a terrible "case-by-case assessment" of schools once they reach 5% that backfired spectacularly because it didn't account for the exponential spread of the virus that we all knew was happening.

And now we get, "Oh...don't worry...we're doing something else...we won't tell you exactly what, just that it's definitely not what we were doing yesterday, BOY do we have terrible ideas sometimes, lol! Also no, we won't release positivity data anymore, because then you'd know how bad our idea was." I mean...Jesus. I get wanting in-person. I want in-person. But HOW can anyone think this is an acceptable way to run things?

The "exponential" spread part is over. It's been leveling out in MoCo and regionally. It'll likely grow (and recede), but it's already ripped through a lot of the public over December. You're not going to get multiple days of "doubling" (or more) on an extended basis.

DP. Fingers crossed that you are right. But this also means that we could’ve switched to DL for two weeks and don’t start the paranoid shit about not ever coming back.