Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how we can be sure there are no long term effects for kids. The vaccine for under 12 should be out in a couple of months (wish Biden would speak to that/show urgency). Can't we be protective until then, and after that transition to school for all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

See you in a month when multiple DC kids are dead from COVID, and we can revisit the cost/benefit of some UMC white kids being a little sad.

WTF is wrong with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

See you in a month when multiple DC kids are dead from COVID, and we can revisit the cost/benefit of some UMC white kids being a little sad.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how we can be sure there are no long term effects for kids. The vaccine for under 12 should be out in a couple of months (wish Biden would speak to that/show urgency). Can't we be protective until then, and after that transition to school for all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

See you in a month when multiple DC kids are dead from COVID, and we can revisit the cost/benefit of some UMC white kids being a little sad.

If you hadn’t destroyed public education for the past 1.5 years with your fearmongering we wouldn’t be in this position where the harms of keeping school closed longer far outweighs the harms of covid. Congrats!

600,000+ dead Americans say hi.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how we can be sure there are no long term effects for kids. The vaccine for under 12 should be out in a couple of months (wish Biden would speak to that/show urgency). Can't we be protective until then, and after that transition to school for all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

See you in a month when multiple DC kids are dead from COVID, and we can revisit the cost/benefit of some UMC white kids being a little sad.

If you hadn’t destroyed public education for the past 1.5 years with your fearmongering we wouldn’t be in this position where the harms of keeping school closed longer far outweighs the harms of covid. Congrats!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

See you in a month when multiple DC kids are dead from COVID, and we can revisit the cost/benefit of some UMC white kids being a little sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

But it’s not a risk to under 12 kids’ lives, and 12+ can get vaccinated such that it’s not a risk to theirs either. And if you have a medical condition that does make it a risk to your under 12 life, then you can get approved for virtual. The risk to under 12 kids is less than the flu. We don’t close schools for the flu, we shouldn’t allow virtual for Covid. The risks of virtual are exponentially too high, including a much higher risk to their lives. First of, mental health is a very serious thing and the risk to mental health is huge with another year of virtual as seen from last year. Second, when looking at DC data in particular, virtual led to significant numbers of too young to care for themselves children left home all day and resulted in a lot of kids on dangerous streets all day doing drugs and getting involved in gun violence. Do you have any idea how much gun violence impacting kids skyrocketed last year. Schools keeps kids in our most disadvantaged neighborhoods safe

Anonymous wrote:The reason we need a virtual option this year is to allow parents to make their own risk assessments. Putting your child in a DCPS this year, given what we know about delta so far and what little effort DCPS is making to mitigate risk, is literally gambling with your child’s physical health, and perhaps the health of household members depending on their health status. I understand that virtual learning also poses other non-physical-health risks to children, and in some or many cases these risks win out. But for a school system to tell parents that the only way to receive a public education this year is by risking their kid’s health is unconscionable. Especially when dcps is large enough to offer a district-wide option.

And before someone says it, yes I have asked my school for specifics and gave been met with silence. Article after article written by public health experts advise us to weigh our individual risk factors carefully, and encourages parents of unvaccinated children to be particularly cautious. Yet we are told that in order to receive a public education in dc we need to subject our children to more covid exposure in one day than a lot of us probably experience in a month or more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like she's just workshopping different arguments to see how they fly. Now we are onto "we should all be able to satisfy our own risk assessments and the school system should appeal to each individual's specific preferences."

I know this won’t fit your narrative of “one hysterical parent” so you can blindly send your kids into schools to get COVID, but this is multiple people posting.

Point taken.

It can be 100 hysterical parents and it doesn't matter. This isn't a democracy - we all have to follow DCPS and their policies.

That is hilarious coming from the parents who screamed themselves hoarse in temper tantrums about DL all last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO because virtual school is sh!t and it just made our entire family crazy.

Cool beans for you. Our kids did great. So?

Anonymous wrote:NO because virtual school is sh!t and it just made our entire family crazy.