Really???? All doesn't mean "all" it seems!

[ktgrok]

We have not been socializing with the neighbors because she works in hospitals, he works in a restaurant, and the kids are in public school (masks worn). Well, today we were outside and the husband yells over, "we just got negative covid tests."

I said, "Oh, is anyone sick?" 

"No, we just thought it was a good idea to be tested, just in case. And since we all just tested negative wanted to know if the kids could play, outside? I can show you the results if you want."

I didn't see the results, but said yes, as my kids haven't played with anyone except once in 6 months. Still said to kind of keep distance, don't be all up on top of each other. 

Well, glad I said that! 

20 minutes or so later, I'm chatting with the wife, and she says that the reason they got tested is she was exposed at work to a known positive patient, and HAD to get tested! AND that her husband got tested, but the kids "of course" didn't. 

Um....my kids are playing with your kids, who go to public school, ONLY because your husband said, they "ALL" got tested!!!!!! 

I ended up saying the kids had to go in and do their reading/school work. But SERIOUSLY??? 

He said "all" not "wife and I". All implies the kids! And he specifically said it was "just cause" not "because wife had a known exposure"!!!!

These are the same neighbors who will have one kid and one parent puking  and send the other kid over to play. 

 I should have known better. But darn! 

[maize]

Ugh, I'm sorry.

[Tenaj]

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To be fair, in our state one family member being tested because of possible exposure is the norm, they will NOT test the kids if the suspected exposure is mom or dad, unless there are symptoms. And a negative test is considered a negative for the whole household. This is actually the current policy in our biggest local hospital system. If you had incidental exposure and no symptoms and are low risk you still can’t get a prescribed test, though you can cash pay.

I wouldn’t say he was necessarily out of line. When my husband had a negative test after travel and I had a negative test after symptoms those were considered ‘good’ for the whole family. He could have communicated more clearly and it sounds like there is some history there, but I don’t personally really see the problem if they already had negative tests among the exposed individual and the person she sleeps next to.

Completely off subject but there are free pop-up clinics all over Ohio where you can get tested for free with no symptoms.

OP:. I would be annoyed, too. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by JanOH
Clarity

[Storygirl]

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To be fair, in our state one family member being tested because of possible exposure is the norm, they will NOT test the kids if the suspected exposure is mom or dad, unless there are symptoms. And a negative test is considered a negative for the whole household. This is actually the current policy in our biggest local hospital system. If you had incidental exposure and no symptoms and are low risk you still can’t get a prescribed test, though you can cash pay.

I wouldn’t say he was necessarily out of line. When my husband had a negative test after travel and I had a negative test after symptoms those were considered ‘good’ for the whole family. He could have communicated more clearly and it sounds like there is some history there, but I don’t personally really see the problem if they already had negative tests among the exposed individual and the person she sleeps next to.

I just double checked the state guidelines, because this was not how I understood it. The state does not restrict testing in the way you describe, and anyone can get a test. However, individual testing locations, like the hospital that you mention, can have their own restrictions.

[Storygirl]

I would have been really upset and felt misled, as well, Katie. I'm sorry.

[Guest]

That would make me quite upset. I would feel like the husband deliberately mislead me. Maybe he’s a “kids don’t get COVID, anyway...” thinker. 

[mumto2]

I would be upset.  Try not to stress too much.......the parents being negative is good.  This is said by someone who is currently worried about potential 6 foot away masked exposure.  So I am trying to find my don’t totally panic zone too.

[mommyoffive]

Wow.  So wrong on his part. 

[Kassia]

14 minutes ago, Storygirl said:

I would have been really upset and felt misled, as well, Katie. I'm sorry.

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking.  I am sorry, too.  

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To be fair, in our state one family member being tested because of possible exposure is the norm, they will NOT test the kids if the suspected exposure is mom or dad, unless there are symptoms. And a negative test is considered a negative for the whole household. This is actually the current policy in our biggest local hospital system. If you had incidental exposure and no symptoms and are low risk you still can’t get a prescribed test, though you can cash pay.

I wouldn’t say he was necessarily out of line. When my husband had a negative test after travel and I had a negative test after symptoms those were considered ‘good’ for the whole family. He could have communicated more clearly and it sounds like there is some history there, but I don’t personally really see the problem if they already had negative tests among the exposed individual and the person she sleeps next to.

Except at the time of the conversation I had no idea that the wife had been exposed. We haven't hung out in months NOT because of this particular exposure, but because they and they kids are out in public much more than we are. Which he knows. So him and/or wife testing negative works for her exposure, but has nothing to do with the kids' exposure risks at school daily - they have to take off masks to eat lunch, etc. So my concerns were never about the wife's exposure incident, but about general exposure risks

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Although it was wrong...I would like to gently suggest that the guy suffers from the same "selective listening" that my DH often suffers from.

The conversation I am imagining after you brought your kids inside...

Mom-so, that was weird.  After mentioned that I had been exposed, she got all weird, sent the kids inside.  What did you say to her?

Dad-I told her what you told me, all the tests were negative.

Mom- um it was you and I that got tested....if you said "all" the tests, she probably thought that meant the kids.

Dad- didn't it?  I thought you got the kids tested too?

Mom- *sigh*  Um, NO.  Those are our tests, the doc said the kids didn't need to be tested so I didn't test them...no wonder they got all weird!

Dad-Well *SORRY*, I misunderstood!

 

No, he knew. He and wife went together. Kids were at school, then they picked them up after. 

[Katy]

I just got so angry reading I growled and DH asked me what was wrong.

I don't think I'd ever have much to do with them again.  Serious pattern of poor judgment.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Although it was wrong...I would like to gently suggest that the guy suffers from the same "selective listening" that my DH often suffers from.

The conversation I am imagining after you brought your kids inside...

Mom-so, that was weird.  After mentioned that I had been exposed, she got all weird, sent the kids inside.  What did you say to her?

Dad-I told her what you told me, all the tests were negative.

Mom- um it was you and I that got tested....if you said "all" the tests, she probably thought that meant the kids.

Dad- didn't it?  I thought you got the kids tested too?

Mom- *sigh*  Um, NO.  Those are our tests, the doc said the kids didn't need to be tested so I didn't test them...no wonder they got all weird!

Dad-Well *SORRY*, I misunderstood!

 

 

 

I would say exactly this is how it went down.

 

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Ah. Gotcha. I misunderstood what was worrying you. 

Yeah, her exposure, after talking to her, doesn't sound that serious...I mean she was in the same room as a postive person (who didn't identify himself as positive to staff until after she was in a small room with him taking his history) but only for a few minutes, both masked and some distance but not a full 6 feet. 

It's more that he knows that we haven't had the kids play together in months, due to them having more exposure than us, us having more risk factors, etc. 

also...the guy has issues with me over a lot of stuff...sigh. 

[vonfirmath]

3 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To be fair, in our state one family member being tested because of possible exposure is the norm, they will NOT test the kids if the suspected exposure is mom or dad, unless there are symptoms. And a negative test is considered a negative for the whole household. This is actually the current policy in our biggest local hospital system. If you had incidental exposure and no symptoms and are low risk you still can’t get a prescribed test, though you can cash pay.

I wouldn’t say he was necessarily out of line. When my husband had a negative test after travel and I had a negative test after symptoms those were considered ‘good’ for the whole family. He could have communicated more clearly and it sounds like there is some history there, but I don’t personally really see the problem if they already had negative tests among the exposed individual and the person she sleeps next to.

What's more, my husband's work (That is being VERY careful with exposure. Everyone masked all the time, spread the people that have to be in the office out over twice as many rooms) has said that even if my kids are sent home for two weeks quarantine because they were exposed at school, he is not to quarantine unless one of the direct family is symptomatic or positive.

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, her exposure, after talking to her, doesn't sound that serious...I mean she was in the same room as a postive person (who didn't identify himself as positive to staff until after she was in a small room with him taking his history) but only for a few minutes, both masked and some distance but not a full 6 feet. 

It's more that he knows that we haven't had the kids play together in months, due to them having more exposure than us, us having more risk factors, etc. 

also...the guy has issues with me over a lot of stuff...sigh. 

How annoying. It almost sounds like he was intentionally misleading you. Is that possible? 

[ktgrok]

How annoying. It almost sounds like he was intentionally misleading you. Is that possible? 

Yes. Quite possible. He's in position where he can't outright annoy me right now has he needs me for something...but enjoys poking at people. 

[Dynamite5]

I would pile this into the Fool me once, shame on you category and cut off contact. No time to let down one's guard.

 

Sorry you've got that guy as a neighbor...

[SKL]

My only thought is that maybe he's from someplace where people say "you-all" and "we-all" to mean "more than one of you/us.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Leopards don't change their spots. 

[Carrie12345]

15 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Although it was wrong...I would like to gently suggest that the guy suffers from the same "selective listening" that my DH often suffers from.

Same. Though it would depend on what else I know about the neighbor.

My husband definitely has fatigue along with his selective listening.  I’m confident that HE thinks he’s trying real hard, but I define things differently. He’s hoping to come home from a work location within a week and asked if I’d feel better if he got tested yesterday.  Well, of course I feel *better with testing (it was negative), but that doesn’t say anything about the time between yesterday and days from now!  “Oh.  I guess that’s true.”  😶 

And this is part of why I trust no one.

[wintermom]

I'd rather start from the premise that he do not do this to intentionally endanger the health of your family. Whether you will ever know if it's true or not, you will feel better about the world in general if you don't have to second guess everything people say or do. 

Even though he said that they had tested negative, you could still have stood by your normal family practice of minimal interaction with others, which it sounds like you did pretty much anyway. Test results are not 100%. 

Hope that your family continues to be healthy and happy. Sorry you had to deal with this situation.

Edited October 2, 2020 by wintermom

[Selkie]

Sounds to me like he did something intentionally misleading that could potentially have very serious consequences for OP and her family. I would stay far away from that family from here on out.

[Jean in Newcastle]

10 minutes ago, Selkie said:

Sounds to me like he did something intentionally misleading that could potentially have very serious consequences for OP and her family. I would stay far away from that family from here on out.

I agree but even if it weren't intentional, the consequences can still be serious.  (note the "can" in my sentence.  This pandemic is a crapshoot of sorts, so in my opinion, playing the odds should always err on the side of caution.) 

[SounderChick]

Given your past with this family I'd be done at this point.  Whether its deliberate or something else they keep putting your family at risk.  

[Catwoman]

I would be livid, Katie! I agree with everyone who has said it’s time to be done with that family.

[QueenCat]

I would go GRRRRRR too!