Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is gong to be a while before all the teachers are able to be fully vaccinated.

In FCPS, at least, isn't this supposed to be the last week of first doses? So 5 weeks from Friday (3 weeks between doses plus 2 days for everything to take effect, which is considered the maximum possibly needed) FCPS teachers should largely be good to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we can’t have nice things. The CDC and Fauci have told us why we can’t just get vaccinated and stop following the guidance. It’s been all over the news.

And then they started walking it back and saying, "oh wait, when you're vaccinated you probably WON'T be a silent COVID spreader."

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/dr-anthony-fauci-answers-educator-questions-about-covid-19

"We will be doing quantitative studies of this and what I believe we will see is that the level of virus in people who were vaccinated but are infected without symptoms will be very low and it will be unlikely that they can transmit this disease. But until we know that, wear a mask. "

I read that as, "we don't know for sure, but I think we're going to soon know"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who kept arguing that the CDC says opening schools is safe with mitigation are now demanding that schools be open without regard to CDC mitigation. They are not interested in safety. They just want their kids in school. I am done listening the the open schools advocates around here. They aren’t rational. And, I support opening with recommended mitigation.

They assumed it was unvaccinated teachers who were keeping them closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccinating teachers only ensures safety for teachers. The problem is that many parents and grandparents have not been vaccinated yet so if a kid gets COVID at school and brings it home, they may be infecting a multi-generational household (some that may be high risk).

Then those kids can stay virtual. I don't have those concerns for my children.

This is what all of the UMC families I know are saying. They've been with their kids for almost an entire year. They are done!

EVERYONE has been home with their kids for almost a year. Everyone is ready for this stupid virus to go away so that kids can safely be in school, and so that their loved ones will stop dying.

I’m not UMC, but my family has been very very fortunate the past year. I’m not ready for my actions or my selfishness to contribute to any more spread in communities that have been harder hit.

Actually, EVERYONE hasn’t.

—Signed, healthcare worker who has lost a family member (and many patients) to Covid, and thinks schools can open without contributing to spread.

Fortunately, I know that it’s not “selfishness” that spreads viral illness, no matter how much we all love that narrative.

Do you support what this thread is about, which is full opening with no distancing and cohorting? Or do you support following the CDC guidelines?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccinating teachers only ensures safety for teachers. The problem is that many parents and grandparents have not been vaccinated yet so if a kid gets COVID at school and brings it home, they may be infecting a multi-generational household (some that may be high risk).

Then those kids can stay virtual. I don't have those concerns for my children.

This is what all of the UMC families I know are saying. They've been with their kids for almost an entire year. They are done!

EVERYONE has been home with their kids for almost a year. Everyone is ready for this stupid virus to go away so that kids can safely be in school, and so that their loved ones will stop dying.

I’m not UMC, but my family has been very very fortunate the past year. I’m not ready for my actions or my selfishness to contribute to any more spread in communities that have been harder hit.

Actually, EVERYONE hasn’t.

—Signed, healthcare worker who has lost a family member (and many patients) to Covid, and thinks schools can open without contributing to spread.

Fortunately, I know that it’s not “selfishness” that spreads viral illness, no matter how much we all love that narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me the idea is that I don't want teachers, who are more susceptible to the virus, to die. But I'd also prefer if kids kept apart from one another and stayed as safe as possible so that unsymptomatic kids who have Covid do not transmit the disease overmuch to one another and to their own households, spreading the disease even more.

This seems very simple to me, not sure what you're not understanding. We shouldn't have all kids back at school right away or the distance and safety regs will absolutely not be in force and transmission rates will increase.

Exactly this. I would prefer not to catch COVID from my asymptomatic (or symptomatic but unlikely to be seriously ill) teenager. This is why distancing and masks will still be necessary. What is it that people don't understand about this?

Anonymous wrote:For me the idea is that I don't want teachers, who are more susceptible to the virus, to die. But I'd also prefer if kids kept apart from one another and stayed as safe as possible so that unsymptomatic kids who have Covid do not transmit the disease overmuch to one another and to their own households, spreading the disease even more.

This seems very simple to me, not sure what you're not understanding. We shouldn't have all kids back at school right away or the distance and safety regs will absolutely not be in force and transmission rates will increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccinating teachers only ensures safety for teachers. The problem is that many parents and grandparents have not been vaccinated yet so if a kid gets COVID at school and brings it home, they may be infecting a multi-generational household (some that may be high risk).

Then those kids can stay virtual. I don't have those concerns for my children.

This is what all of the UMC families I know are saying. They've been with their kids for almost an entire year. They are done!

What does UMC stand for?

It stands for rich.

Lower class and middle class families are the ones who have born the brunt of this pandemic. We're the ones scared for our loved ones, because we live together, and because many of us have already experienced loss. We're also the ones aware that our kids will be potential spreaders because we're exposed at work.

But by all means, let's come up with a plan that prioritizes rich kids, who have private school options and large houses with yards to play in. Because they're done.

DP. So then, you think ALL kids should remain virtual because you want YOUR kids to? Um, no. Feel free to keep your kids DL. The rest of us do not have to.

Anonymous wrote:The kids need to be protected too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people who kept arguing that the CDC says opening schools is safe with mitigation are now demanding that schools be open without regard to CDC mitigation. They are not interested in safety. They just want their kids in school. I am done listening the the open schools advocates around here. They aren’t rational. And, I support opening with recommended mitigation.

I completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccinating teachers only ensures safety for teachers. The problem is that many parents and grandparents have not been vaccinated yet so if a kid gets COVID at school and brings it home, they may be infecting a multi-generational household (some that may be high risk).

Then those kids can stay virtual. I don't have those concerns for my children.

This is what all of the UMC families I know are saying. They've been with their kids for almost an entire year. They are done!

EVERYONE has been home with their kids for almost a year. Everyone is ready for this stupid virus to go away so that kids can safely be in school, and so that their loved ones will stop dying.

I’m not UMC, but my family has been very very fortunate the past year. I’m not ready for my actions or my selfishness to contribute to any more spread in communities that have been harder hit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccinating teachers only ensures safety for teachers. The problem is that many parents and grandparents have not been vaccinated yet so if a kid gets COVID at school and brings it home, they may be infecting a multi-generational household (some that may be high risk).

Then those kids can stay virtual. I don't have those concerns for my children.

This is what all of the UMC families I know are saying. They've been with their kids for almost an entire year. They are done!

What does UMC stand for?

It stands for rich.

Lower class and middle class families are the ones who have born the brunt of this pandemic. We're the ones scared for our loved ones, because we live together, and because many of us have already experienced loss. We're also the ones aware that our kids will be potential spreaders because we're exposed at work.

But by all means, let's come up with a plan that prioritizes rich kids, who have private school options and large houses with yards to play in. Because they're done.

If you have chosen virtual, it really doesn't affect you whether or not the in person kids go more than 2 days.