(You keep making these 1-2 sentence posts and I reply with 5-6 paragraphs, lol.) When I make a statement without conditions, I generally assume that it is true for either all or generally most cases. "Cows eat grass" to me means that either all cows or the vast majority of cows eat grass. There may be some cows that have a grass allergy, but the general rule and standard is that the cow will eat the grass. So, to me, the statement allows for other possibilities ("Maybelle and some brown-flecked cows do not like grass") but these cases do not need to be stated at the outset to be understood as possibilities, so long as they are fringe cases, ie, a very small minority compared to the whole. If something is not true for the majority of cases, or only true for ~50% or <50%, I assume that a qualifier will be stated. Even though I know Maybelle doesn't like grass, I will qualify it to, "Some cows do not like grass" as a necessary inclusion. If I only say, "Cows do not like grass", the statement to me is incorrect because it is not true in an understood majority of cases. Even if it's a case of, say, 70%, I will consider a qualifier necessary, "A lot of cows prefer barley to asparagus" and not leave it to the reader to possibly mistakenly assume that the all/close to all of cows do. [Please note I have no idea of cow preferences of barley and asparagus.] So, your first statement "Which is what a lot if people have been saying from the beginning. If anyone mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath when this started they were shut down." I did not see a qualifier especially on that second sentence. Therefore my reading comprehension is to believe you are saying that this is what was happening in the majority of cases where people mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath and were shut down. So when I replied to it, even though I did use some qualifiers, I thought that my statement was true of the majority and did not need to include even more qualifiers to be understood as allowing for some other possibilities (ie, yes, some people were talking about the flu's endemic nature, and yes, maybe they were even shut down, BUT in the majority of cases this is not true.) I brought in stronger-qualifiers, like overwhelming, overall, and overarching, to better communicate what I am understanding when you do not use a qualifier, as the conversation went on and once I felt held to a standard of "literally all". Me using these words is me trying to make it more apparent what I am comprehending and also what I am disagreeing with. Yes, in some cases I am sure some people compared Covid to flu becoming endemic, but it does not follow from this truth that this is what people were trying to shut down, because in the overall majority of cases the flu comparisons were about severity.

I keep scrolling up through our conversation and asking myself, "What am I missing?" Is this a case of 99/100 apples in the barrel are red and we are disagreeing about how green the last one is? Because I was responding to the assertion here that: Which I was reading as saying: "People were shut down for saying that 'Covid is like the flu in that it is endemic', and now they are being proven right that it is similar to the flu for being endemic. " To which my [paraphrased] reply was: "Most people who said 'Covid is like the flu' meant 'Covid is like the flu in that it is of the same general severity and concern', and that is what people were trying to shut down at the beginning of the pandemic." You respond to this with Sincerely, I must be missing something, because to me, my response is different from your original assertion. If we agree on my quote, I am not sure why you keep bringing up that Covid is endemic as if it proves earlier comparisons to the flu as being right, and by implication, others were wrong for shutting them down. After much thought, my only explanation is that you holding that one statement does not negate the other, and so that even if only 1/100 comparisons were endemic-minded, your original assertion is therefore true and my reply pointing out the 99/100 therefore does not matter? That we are both correct since both flu comparisons were made, and my original reply to you was misguided/silly because I cannot prove the actual break of the count (1 v 99 or 20 v 80 or 49 v 51), or that the breakdown doesn't matter so long as there is at least 1/100? And while that may not be "what you said", since you didn't outright disagree with me you can be implied to have agreed? I'm really, really trying to understand what is going on here. We can let this go, I know I can make these meta posts unbearably tedious, but I want you to know that I am sincerely trying to understand what you're saying and this isn't just dying-on-this-hill on my part.

I guess, to me, it is silly to think that the majority, overarching narrative behind "it's just like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic til now has been about it becoming endemic instead of it being "not a concern" in terms of severity and concern. I assume we converse in good faith here, too, which is why I was caught off guard by the new standard. So, while I do not think you were correct in the first place when characterizing the overall narrative behind flu comparisons, I understand we obviously disagree on that. And that's fair enough.

Seriously? This is the standard you want to hold me to? Conversely, if we are requiring absolutes, if I can find one place where they were shutting down the comparison due to the severity and concern reasons, your argument would be null. This is a ridiculous assertion to try and use to cancel out my point. Ahh, but I did make sure to leave [at the time I thought a petty and pedantic loophole] of: they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down") If THIS is the standard by which we are going hold each other to, I can now only assume that your original stance was that ALL flu comparisons were endemic-only, not regarding severity. In fact, I'll even cut you a break and only hold you to "overwhelming majority" instead of "all". You seriously believe that the overwhelming majority of people saying "its like the flu" at the beginning of the pandemic were only meaning it would be endemic and not that it would have the same symptoms, outcomes and death rates of the flu? And that any time people were arguing with them it was because they didn't think it would be endemic? And that because it is now endemic all of these people are being proved right? This is your stance? I hope you can see this new standard is problematic at best. Can we back away from this ridiculous standard of 'all', or do you sincerely think that the overwhelming majority of "like the flu" comparisons were only about it becoming endemic and not about severity, outcomes, and death rates? But, if you want to hold to this standard (and be held, conversely), yes, I will get sources. * *eta: but also note that I would be sourcing to prove only my original assertion that: flu comparisons were about severity and concern as the primary message and what was being shut down; and I will allow myself to admit that I'm sure some people were asserting it becoming endemic (since that seems to be a given/implied in my original post) though the "shut downs" were primarily focused on severity and concern. If we need to be so precise about this.

That is both true now, and maybe even always the most probable outcome, and still besides the point. You are equivocating on why people were being "shut down" about the flu comparison. The fact that now it is "like the flu" being endemic has nothing to do with people being shut down about it being "like the flu" in severity and concern.

Equivocation. Before, when people "mentioned flu and Covid in the same breath" they were saying that Covid was like the flu in severity and concern, not about it being endemic (or at least, that was the primary message, and what was being "shut down"). There was hope at the beginning of Covid that it would not become endemic (whether or not that was actually possible is a timeline we'll never get to see). Now, because the people who insisted that flu and Covid were the same in severity and concern refused to take any mitigating steps, it IS like the flu in being endemic. So, partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yay, maybe we humans are figuring out our own version of ESP: fake it 'til you make it.

DD12 (13 early January) still shares a room with her brothers DS8 and DS11. This is of her own choice: she could share with DD4 (how we originally set up the rooms) but the 3 olders have always shared a room and after maybe 3 days she was consistently falling asleep in their room (the boys would share a bed, she took the other bed). After about a month we just made it official but periodically remind her she can always choose to sleep in the other room. She says she is fine as she is. They stay up after bedtime talking and reading and just...being kids and she likes the company.

I'm sure the stuffies would love their own cards if you happen to have the extras and time! They do sit on the couch and "read" the cards very intently, I imagine the stuffies would be extremely pleased to be so important reading one of their very own!

Really?!?! That would make her world, lol. Cuddly, Tigey, and Kitty Kat seem to be the most excited about receiving mail, lol.

DD4 has been over the moon with all of the cards. She keeps asking if they are for her stuffies. She's had me take some of the envelopes and write their names on them so that way they receive cards too. Cards keep disappearing and I think I'm going to find a trove of them when I get around to cleaning her room, lol.

I had decided that I would host Christmas Eve as the compromise to see my unvax'd parents for Christmas, which I posted about. I figured with the windows open, air purifier, etc., I could have a semblance of control and keep the 4yo (only unvaccinated person in my house) from getting it. Now with omicron, I feel like even if they don't bring it to the house for Christmas, someone at my work will give it to me from their own Christmas despite my distancing and masking, which I'll give to the 4yo. So I don't know if I should even worry about my parents at this point because this variant seems like a matter of time more than avoidable.

My periods have been sporadic for the past 4 years. Before all my shots, (original 2 plus booster) I was 2+ months waiting for my next period, and the shots did not jumpstart anything for me (I was hoping it would, lol). I don't disprove correlation for others, but the only period I've had in the past 8 months starting the morning, the only morning in the past 4 years I might add, I was going to a beach. Since my booster didn't get my period started again, I am considering booking a plane ticket to California and only packing a swimsuit, lol.

My dad has gotten all of his irons from estate sales. I have claim on the next one he finds if he runs across it. I guess you could be second in line? lol. It looks like eBay has a few listed, various reputation on sellers and range of prices. I have borrowed and have made waffle cones with them, I was fine with the thicker cone.

Christmas Eve: My mom is bringing sour cream enchiladas, I am hosting. IDK if I'm going to go full Mexican and lean into this or just make stuffing and chicken (turkey?) and cranberries and mashed potatoes, etc. Christmas: cinnamon rolls and then either tamales if I went full Mexican for Christmas Eve (to fill in with the leftovers) or just leftovers if I did non-Mexican. Please vote if I should do Mexican or not if you have any inclination, I have put this off for a couple weeks and really need to make a decision, lol.

I was realizing when people re recommending Dropps, that I don't know much about dissolving solutions like this. Does the hardness of the water help/impede dissolution? We have exceptionally hard water, I should have asked if that makes a difference for these other options.

Anyone have success with laundry detergent alternatives, like the laundry detergent papers? I have/use an Eco egg, as well as All free n clear, and add vinegar to certain loads. I'd like to phase out All for a few reasons: - avoid throwing out the plastic bottles - kids don't measure it right all the time -expense isn't as big a deal, but if other options are cheaper... -the kids use up so much of it despite being shown how to measure -my laundry water goes out to my landscape for non-edible plants and so I try to keep things as clean-ingredient as possible *this is legal where we live and I do not own the house so cannot change it. -seriously my kids think you need so much soap for their little clothes So I've been looking at Tru Earth laundry strips and similar. Does anyone have any experience or opinion on these, or other options that may be more environment-friendly and measurement-simple?

Re: wanting to communicate to him that you should have the ability to make this decision solo because you are the functional parent right now. So my first post was actually supposed to have helpful ideas but instead I just blathered about stuff too long and lost my point. It's been too long now to edit. These are the options I see in your situation. I'm leaving out a few I originally typed out because you want constructive, work-with-my-co-parent options first, not the dangerous tactics; even still these are not all great. These are more provocative thoughts, that hopefully gives your brain new fodder to work with. There is no perfect answer to this because it is an imperfect situation to be in (to say the least). usually just saying "because you're mentally unwell, that's why" doesn't work, but you can try to do it nicely. *I have not found a nice way to do this. Compassionate, yes, nice, no. tell him he needs to focus on himself, and that you are focusing on the kids, and so you are the one to make the decision for their interests. you can try explaining that you are temporarily helping out on his side of responsibilities, but you can only do that if he helps you out by letting you do it. you can lay out all of the extra responsibilities you are having to deal with right now and say that this gives you full power. *ruthless and usually regretted later, also normally does not work. you can try telling him that he is an equal decision maker but the burden is unequally on you, and that needs to be taken into account, and the way to do it is by allowing you final say in a stalemate. <-- highest percentage positive outcome in my own situation, not without issues though. you can try telling him it simply is not possible to do what he wants, because it would break you, it's just not an option. <-- my big guns. gets what I want but the collateral damage is not fun so I don't use unless I'm in dire straits. you can ask him how he expects to get them ready, tested, registered, and everything, since you will not do this thing that is against kid's interests. ask him if he is willing to do this *warning, backfire can be spectacular. you can "compromise" and if he goes with you on this, agree now to go with his later decision (ie Catholic high school) no matter what. *may regret later. you can ask him to please make this sacrifice for your mental well being. *very dangerous tactic, overall do not recommend. Other random thoughts: ask him what would make the secular school more acceptable to him. Bible study as a family at night? Volunteering at the church? Daily mass? Not saying that his "more acceptable" ideas will be doable, but maybe focusing on addressing his Catholic-based concern could make the pill easier for him to swallow. If he were mentally well I would normally ask what his biggest fear about the secular school is. That may not be a good question in your current situation. But maybe if he can put this into words, you can reassure him about that [probably irrational] fear. Ask to table this discussion until (eg) January 15th so you can focus as a family on bigger more important things (Christmas, vacation, reintegrating, etc). I know you have deadlines that need to be met re: testing, applying, etc., but push it until ~1 week before actual action needs to happen. (And I wouldn't worry about test prep as "action" because if your son is liking the more rigorous classes now, the test probably won't be a big deal.) A lot can change in that amount of time, he may not feel like he needs to take as strong a stand on this issue anymore if enough time goes by and he feels more integrated/respected in the family. I don't like kicking the can down the road, but maybe it can help in this case. I don't know if any of this will help, but maybe it will trigger something else in your brain. Even a strong "no that won't work" is sometimes the clue we need to what will.

Re: wanting to communicate to him that you should have the ability to make this decision solo because you are the functional parent right now. I wasn't getting into this thread because while I have experience with co-parenting with a partner who has mental illness, the circumstances are completely different (and the fallout). But, this objective that you have, I can empathize with completely. IDK if I have any actually good ways to do it, but it's a valid emotion to have. You don't have to apologize for recognizing this is the reality of the situation now, and that you may have emotions around this topic. In the end, you are going to be the parent holding the bag. We need to make sure the bag is not too heavy. The potential that he can help carry the bag in 6-9 months is nice, but it is not guaranteed and the family cannot make decisions based on that potential. You are not making this decision by yourself, but a decision has to be made, and in this case you are the one who is going to be directly impacted (out of the two of you). So, in this kingdom of equals, you get the lion's share of the responsibility on this topic and therefore the lion's share of the decision. The hard part with co-parenting with mental illness: they don't always accept this and there's no way to really make them. Sometimes the best you can hope for is grudging going along with it (and complaints) and that eventually it dies out. I usually budge on smaller hills* to show I am not trying to take over everything, and that their opinion is valued [caution: doing this on meals and too-small things can be taken as patronizing and backfire]. But repeating, "I know, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, we just need to do what's best for us and Kid for right now. It's not forever." over and over and over whenever it comes up can make it better. Even if he doesn't believe this is what's best for kid, just keep saying it is (I mean, obviously, if you believe it is). Just check in with yourself every so often: IS this what's best for kid, or am I getting invested in being right, too? Mental illness is really really hard to live with and making sure you aren't falling into a pattern of me vs him is super important. Because after someone is continually trying to frame it that way when it's not true, it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you want to avoid that as much as possible. Just as you are consciously trying to convince him that you are working together to do the right thing for the kid, his mental illness is tricking him to thinking otherwise and subtly will be trying to trick you too, for lack of a better way to put it. *If the difference to the kid is like a 5% difference, it's a hill to budge on. There will be bigger hills. I'd say anything bigger than 20-25% difference to kid is where I'd draw my line. 15% is a grey area where I'd try to even out the hills somehow by making the other hill a sweeter deal, or maybe decide it's worth the fight and sweeten my own hill instead. ---- In our case, it did get better. DH is a mostly contributing member of the family now. We're maybe a 35-65 split (me at 65) but we are on the upward trajectory. It did take 3-4 years to get to this point. But, he also relinquished willingly most decision-making to me fairly early on, which is what made it doable from my position to cope.

I have developed a "I'm dying" routine, which I pull out with any sniffle. Not because I want to be dramatic, but because DH's maternal instinct only kicks in if you are dying, apparently. So if I want to be tucked in, handed the remote control, given my cup of tea and plate of crackers, and patted gently on the head -- all standard of care that I think should come with minor cold and above -- he needs to think I'm at death's door. If it looks like I have a 50-50 chance of survival he completely forgets about tuck ins and head pats and remote controls, so I do what I gotta do to make sure my needs are met, lol. eta: however, any minor illness symptom in the house triggers The Great Lysol'ing. Once someone sneezes and it isn't obviously from allergies, he starts wiping door knobs and opening windows and scrubbing surfaces. So we all have our strengths.

Get a hard-sided pencil case. It doesn't have to be huge, there are some pencil sets that will come in a case that is basically the thickness of an eraser and can hold like 10 pencils. I bought one of those years ago and it's my standard case, I just change out what I'm carrying for the project. Currently I think it has 4-5 Generals, 2 erasers, pencil sharpener, a folded piece of parchment paper, 2 architecture pencils, a mini ruler, and 3 micro pens because that's my main thing now. Found an example https://www.michaels.com/staedtler-mars-lumograph-drawing-pencils-set-of-12/10555320.html

May I ask what "high" antibodies are? As in, what number are we saying, "Yeah, that's good" or "Hmm, need to booster it up." I haven't seen too many numbers associated with the words and my Googling doesn't make me confident I understand what numbers are acceptable.

in that same vein, has this been posted here?

I'd probably think you were uber-organized and are coordinating furniture across the house, and would be so impressed and have to reevaluate my life choices.