I actually choose NOT to go those routes ( german, british, etc.) for a more robust cultural exchange!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you are invoking racism, ask yourself why you only prefer German, Swedish, or British APs. I'll wait....

Well, I do note the/your racism - but I would never have an AP from Germany, Sweden, or the UK,

We prefer them because they typically have higher english fluency, stricter driving license requirements and return to their countries at a higher rate than other south american country aupairs.

If you were wondering.....

Anonymous wrote:To those of you are invoking racism, ask yourself why you only prefer German, Swedish, or British APs. I'll wait....

Well, I do note the/your racism - but I would never have an AP from Germany, Sweden, or the UK,

To those of you are invoking racism, ask yourself why you only prefer German, Swedish, or British APs. I'll wait....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Last time I checked, many au pairs are White European???

What does this have to do with racism? If anything, nannies around here are more likely to be from countries that experience racism and I fully support them getting the vacciine!

Well, APs are statistically coming from the same or similar countries as most nannies. And, yes, a lot of the rhetoric/rage against APs is b/c most of them are WOC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Last time I checked, many au pairs are White European???

Ummmm. Overwhelmingly NOT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Many states did do carve outs. Florida currently only allows teachers, police, and fire to be vaccinated if they are over 50. Nannies and APs are not eligible; I got my vaccine by joining a waitlist for canceled appointments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Last time I checked, many au pairs are White European???

What does this have to do with racism? If anything, nannies around here are more likely to be from countries that experience racism and I fully support them getting the vacciine!

It's an au pair forum and the initial post was about au pairs - who are not the same as nanny's. Nanny's go home to their own families, typically have more experience, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Last time I checked, many au pairs are White European???

What does this have to do with racism? If anything, nannies around here are more likely to be from countries that experience racism and I fully support them getting the vacciine!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Last time I checked, many au pairs are White European???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

A lot of these stereotypes about APs are rooted deeply in racism and sexism. So gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

The APs want it so they can go #vaccinated on instagram. It's such a social status symbol

Well... that's not fair either. Some of them are looking at possibly returning to countries where the virus is running rampant and with no chance of getting a vaccine for possibly months to years. They may have family telling them they have to get it before they leave the US.

But you cannot compare an au pair to a teacher or someone in a daycare. It's apples and oranges. My au pair has far less risk than the vast majority of working adults -- other than risk she brings on herself by going out or wanting to travel. Much like those teleworking, most au pairs rarely must leave the house. I do feel for au pairs that have host parents in high-risk jobs (i.e. the medical field).

Either way, at this point, don't worry about it. It's out of your hands. If it makes you feel better, help a senior navigate the crazy online systems and see if you can help someone else get a shot that does qualify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

The APs want it so they can go #vaccinated on instagram. It's such a social status symbol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.

The APs want it so they can go #vaccinated on instagram. It's such a social status symbol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone take a deep breath. There was at least one agency that told au pairs to look into the child-care provider angle. And... I am sure some jurisdictions are too busy trying to vaccinate people to worry about stipulating every carve out so... many, many au pairs got the shot(s), including my own. I was frustrated at first. Her main goal was to be able to go on her travel month while others are afraid of dying, but... the hope is that is one less person spreading it and closer to herd immunity at large. The number of shots will be increasing greatly in the coming weeks. We'll have more worries about people deciding not to get it because of a political stance.

It doesn't matter if they are a "foreigner" or not. They are here on a visa, pay taxes and can spread it like everyone else. They saw a loophole and jumped through it.

Not a really a loop-hole. Are you arguing nannies and au pairs are NOT providing child-care? Nutty.

So are stay at home parents? Shouldn't they be on the list equal to APs, if not higher?

It is a loophole. Allowing teachers and child-care providers to get the shot was meant to help open schools and daycares. Au pairs are at home with one family and not at the same risk as a teacher in a classroom with 15 kids or a daycare provider working with kids so young they may not be required to wear masks. Theoretically, there is nearly little need for my au pair to leave the house. I do the food shopping so her risk level is low. The clerk at the grocery store or bus driver certainly should have had priority over a typical au pair. HOWEVER, I understand that the county/state didn't want to have to deal with exemptions and thus left it on the honor system. Just focus on the next month and hopefully more vaccines in the system.

Absolutely not a loophole. Nannies and APs are dealing with a population that cannot be vaccinated (children). Nannies and APs go to parks and outdoor activities where other children congregate - and children are not reliable mask wearers. States could have excluded nannies - and did not - because they realize that they are at risk or b/c nannies/APs are at higher risk b/c of factors associated with skin color/ethnic origin.

Nannies are APs are dealing with children as are ALL PARENTS. But they didn't put us higher on the priority list. The difference is nannies are going home to their "own" families while APs are living with the same family. There is zero … ZERO... reason for APs to get a vaccine ahead of someone more vulnerable. The regulations may make it legal, fine. But everyone arguing that their AP needed it so they can go travel or whatever...that's juts BS.