CDC removing mask mandate what will you do with dc under 12

[mommyoffive]

This was an interesting read this morning.

Why Is Covid Killing So Many Young Children in Brazil? Doctors Are Baffled (msn.com)

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

This was an interesting read this morning.

Why Is Covid Killing So Many Young Children in Brazil? Doctors Are Baffled (msn.com)

Oh gosh. Well, THAT's terrible...

How common is the Brazilian variant in the US at the moment, do you know? 

[rebcoola]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh gosh. Well, THAT's terrible...

How common is the Brazilian variant in the US at the moment, do you know? 

Yes it is.  I'm not seeing a lot of hard numbers.  It's listed as the number 2 variant in the states and confirmed in at least 5 states.  It is listed as a variant of concern on the CDC guidance. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info.html

[Not_a_Number]

40 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

Yes it is.  I'm not seeing a lot of hard numbers.  It's listed as the number 2 variant in the states and confirmed in at least 5 states.  It is listed as a variant of concern on the CDC guidance. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info.html

I'm not seeing hard numbers, either. Here's an alleged graph from a month ago: 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1207356/covid-19-variant-p1-cases-number-us-by-state/

That's actually quite disturbing. I'd love to see if anyone else has stats for the P.1 variant. 

"Fun" fact: the 1918 flu epidemic actually didn't start out that deadly. From the Wikipedia page:

 

"The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic." 

 

So... it wouldn't be unknown for a virus to mutate to hit younger people harder. It makes sense, really, because if you've used up all the older folks and it's now spreading in younger folks, you're going to select for variants that actually give kids symptoms. Those variants are, I suppose, likelier to actually hurt the kids 😕 . 

[Sk8ermaiden]

One of the number one reasons I would like my children to be vaccinated soon is the possibility of a Spanish Flu like situation where a new variant comes around and this time wipes out young, healthy people. If we thought Covid was just going to stay the way it is now, I wouldn't be in any rush for the 7 year old particularly. Either way of course I want the vax to be tested and safe - and am a little glad DD won't turn 12 until mid-July so I can see kids vaccinated for a couple months before it's her turn. 

[kokotg]

4 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

This was an interesting read this morning.

Why Is Covid Killing So Many Young Children in Brazil? Doctors Are Baffled (msn.com)

Well, that's terrifying. I feel like there's a lot of hubris in assuming covid variants don't have a good chance of mutating to be more dangerous to kids. My observation so far is that covid generally does a great job of meeting and exceeding everyone's most pessimistic predictions (on the good side, the vaccines are also exceeding expectations so far). 

[KungFuPanda]

18 hours ago, Terabith said:

My father got his polio vaccine in Jonas Salk's kitchen.  His mom worked for the building Salk's lab was in, as a cleaner, and Salk needed test subjects for his vaccine so asked all the people who worked in the building to bring their kids by.  Phase 1-3 trials were a lot more casual in the 50's than they are today.  

I'm just gonna pause right here and take some time to appreciate this moment in history.  This is really cool.

[Penelope]

7 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

This was an interesting read this morning.

Why Is Covid Killing So Many Young Children in Brazil? Doctors Are Baffled (msn.com)

From this BBC article and a couple of other sources I came across, it seems the issue is that the number of infections in the country was overwhelming, and that there was a lack of good medical care at least in some cases. I found more than one story about children who were quite sick but sent home. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56696907

The statistic here suggests that headlines and absolute numbers are misleading here. This number is still higher than for the US, where we have a couple of hundred pediatric deaths from age 0-17, and that is concerning. But I don’t conclude it is probably from a variant. I think a more virulent variant would make EVERYONE sicker, particularly  the older and medically fragile who are already worst hit by Covid. There is nothing about P1 that suggests it would be preferentially worse for young children, is there?
 

Quote

Scientists stress the risk of death in this age group is still "very low" - the current figures suggest only 0.58% of Brazil's 345,287 Covid deaths to date have been of 0-9 year olds - but that is more than 2,000 children.

What else could it be? Lack of pediatric facilities? Pediatric hospitals full of adults with Covid, so they send kids home thinking they will be okay? Higher percentages of obesity in very young children than other countries (probably not)? Doctors less aware of MIS-C or not able to treat it properly? Maybe they are using antibiotics or other medications there that are causing problems for young children. Are they more accurate at counting the pediatric deaths than they are for the adults? Probably there are other possibilities I’m not thinking of.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Penelope

[Not_a_Number]

3 hours ago, Sk8ermaiden said:

One of the number one reasons I would like my children to be vaccinated soon is the possibility of a Spanish Flu like situation where a new variant comes around and this time wipes out young, healthy people. If we thought Covid was just going to stay the way it is now, I wouldn't be in any rush for the 7 year old particularly. Either way of course I want the vax to be tested and safe - and am a little glad DD won't turn 12 until mid-July so I can see kids vaccinated for a couple months before it's her turn. 

Yeah, I'll admit that I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the 12-15 set before I vaccinate my kids. Although if I had a 15-year-old, I'd be pretty convinced by the fact that lots of 16-year-olds got it already... 

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, Penelope said:

From this BBC article and a couple of other sources I came across, it seems the issue is that the number of infections in the country was overwhelming, and that there was a lack of good medical care at least in some cases. I found more than one story about children who were quite sick but sent home. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56696907

The statistic here suggests that headlines and absolute numbers are misleading here. This number is still higher than for the US, where we have a couple of hundred pediatric deaths from age 0-17, and that is concerning. But I don’t conclude it is probably from a variant. I think a more virulent variant would make EVERYONE sicker, particularly  the older and medically fragile who are already worst hit by Covid. There is nothing about P1 that suggests it would be preferentially worse for young children, is there?

Yes, there's something about P1 that suggests that it's worse to young children. The thing that suggests it is that it killed more kids. We don't understand viruses well enough to be able to conclude anything in any other way, frankly. 

 

12 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Scientists stress the risk of death in this age group is still "very low" - the current figures suggest only 0.58% of Brazil's 345,287 Covid deaths to date have been of 0-9 year olds - but that is more than 2,000 children.

Right. And in the US, it's 0.05%! That's a difference of a magnitude!! I don't know what kind of care could explain such a huge discrepancy. Kids MUST be getting sicker. 

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, there's something about P1 that suggests that it's worse to young children. The thing that suggests it is that it killed more kids. We don't understand viruses well enough to be able to conclude anything in any other way, frankly. 

 

Right. And in the US, it's 0.05%! That's a difference of a magnitude!! I don't know what kind of care could explain such a huge discrepancy. Kids MUST be getting sicker. 

I think it is hasty to conclude this.

The ACIP meeting had an update on variants. P1 has some of the same major RBD mutations of concern as B1351. Have there been reports of that variant being more virulent in children? 

There was mention in the meeting of the specific concerns with each variant, and there was no mention of increased virulence in children from P1. And these are some of the top scientists in the US who are in charge of keeping track of such things, during the same meeting where there were other presentations about why 12-15 year olds should have access to vaccination.

I could not find any scientific articles or mentions anywhere about this, except for a few reports in major media. Even the scientists quoted in the media do not say they think the virus is more virulent in young children. They say they do not know why more children have died there. I am not claiming that it is impossible that virulence could be the reason, but we know so very little that I think it is premature to say it is something about the variant. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Penelope

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

They say they do not know why more children have died there. I am not claiming that it is impossible that virulence could be the reason, but we know so very little that I think it is premature to say it is something about the variant. 

So we're arguing that kids are getting sick enough in the US that fully 10 times as many may die without proper care? 😕 Because that seems to be the alternative. Kids are dying because they didn't get the oxygen (or something) they needed, and that oxygen (or something) was really, really crucial. 

That's not remotely a cold anymore. A cold is something you don't have to go to the doctor for and even if you don't, you'll be fine. 

[Penelope]

40 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So we're arguing that kids are getting sick enough in the US that fully 10 times as many may die without proper care? 😕 Because that seems to be the alternative. Kids are dying because they didn't get the oxygen (or something) they needed, and that oxygen (or something) was really, really crucial. 

That's not remotely a cold anymore. A cold is something you don't have to go to the doctor for and even if you don't, you'll be fine. 

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I am not arguing for anything, but pushing against the idea that some news reports saying that higher proportions of young children dying of Covid in Brazil automatically means that the P1 variant is the reason.
 

I threw out ideas from there. I am not arguing for any of them, but I think we need to look further than a simplistic assumption about a particular variant. Clearly the doctors and scientists who study such things are doing that. 

I didn’t spend a lot of time searching, but here, for example, is an analysis showing that CFR increased in Brazil in February compared to the baseline mortality Sept-Jan. That could be for reasons other than the variant, too, as they note, but the mortality only went up for age>20, not for pediatric patients. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254046v1.full.pdf

Another similar CFR comparison for another region of Brazil, again showing greater difference in severity and mortality in the February wave in adults,  but all but one result nonsignificant for differences in severity and CFR in the pediatric group. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.13.21255281v1.full.pdf

Now, at least from these, certainly CFR looks worse after P1, but that still doesn’t say that there is something about the variant that makes it more virulent, so that it will be more virulent if it, say, infects someone right now, here in the US. There could be, which is not the same as must be. I don’t know, that seems obvious to me. 🤷‍♀️ It’s such a multifactorial situation. 
 

And I still can’t easily find anything that says there is something about the variant which makes it particularly worse for young children. And that is what others were claiming by those numbers, that the 0.5% of deaths means that it is proportionally worse for children. From these papers that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Maybe there are studies somewhere, but I would think if there were something definitive, it would be reported on, as that would be pretty important. 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Penelope

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I am not arguing for anything, but pushing against the idea that some news reports saying that higher proportions of young children dying of Covid in Brazil automatically means that the P1 variant is the reason.

If 10 times as many kids are dying in Brazil than in the US, but the issue is not the variant, then we must have many kids that would die in Brazil that aren't dying here. What are we doing with them that's making sure they don't die? 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

And I still can’t easily find anything that says there is something about the variant which makes it particularly worse for young children. And that is what others were claiming by those numbers, that the 0.5% of deaths means that it is proportionally worse for children. From these papers that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Maybe there are studies somewhere, but I would think if there were something definitive, it would be reported on, as that would be pretty important. 

What is your definition of "proportionally worse for children," exactly? 

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

If 10 times as many kids are dying in Brazil than in the US, but the issue is not the variant, then we must have many kids that would die in Brazil that aren't dying here. What are we doing with them that's making sure they don't die? 

Brazil has a high rate of poverty and a much higher child death rate than the USA to begin with.  Their hospital capacity isn't sufficient to care for people when there isn't a pandemic.  And they are having one of the worst Covid waves in the world.

[Penelope]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

What is your definition of "proportionally worse for children," exactly? 

I thought that was the point you were making. The article posted, and others published about the same time, were talking about children being severely affected in Brazil. 

I pointed out a quote that said deaths were 0.5% of the total, and you noted that this is quite a bit higher than the proportion of child deaths for the US (even though I don’t know if either number was accurate, but agreeing Brazil’s is reported as higher without digging into it).

If Brazil has lower absolute Covid death numbers than the US, but higher absolute numbers of pediatric deaths, and the claim is that this is because of the variant, aren’t you saying that the variant has a proportionately higher level of virulence for children compared to wild type, than it does for adults? 

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Brazil has a high rate of poverty and a much higher child death rate than the USA to begin with.  Their hospital capacity isn't sufficient to care for people when there isn't a pandemic.  And they are having one of the worst Covid waves in the world.

I don’t know too much about their normal health care capacity. When they were going through the worst time, I was reading articles about how they still have remote areas there with a lot of indigenous people and no hospitals in those areas, and no way to get to a hospital. But I’m under the impression that some of the other countries in that part of the world have some of the same problems. I did not see much reporting on Peru, which had a very high death toll. It is hard to know what really happened in Brazil from just the reports we get here. I think politics and variants are the reasons we heard more about that country than some others. 

[Elizabeth86]

Well, I'm partially vaccinated.  Dh refuses.  Needless to say, he is not on board with having our children vaccinated when it is available to the little ones.  

I don't feel ready to do anything indoors unmasked.  I mean it's  spring coming up on summer, we are outdoorsy people, we don't have a whole lot of places to be indoors.  I think we will be going around people in outdoor settings unmasked.  Parks, beaches and such. Maybe even private gymnastics lessons. Small family gatherings outside. I am not ready for restaurants and stores though. It may be more risky than I've been all year, but I have to face the facts, my kids won't be vaccinated and dh is still not masking when he is out and about, so we may as well enjoy ourselves instead of staying hole up forever.  IDK, this is just my thinking right now. 

[melmichigan]

I believe the variant of concern is the B.1.617 and it's subtype, B.1.1617.2.  It is the Indian variant following the same progress as the B.1.1.7 did in the UK.  

 

[kokotg]

I've got to say that I don't find the speculation that there's only a massively higher death rate for kids in Brazil because there's not enough room for all the kids with COVID in the hospitals particularly reassuring. I really don't want my kids to get any disease they're likely to be hospitalized for, even if there's plenty of room for them there. 

[Wheres Toto]

One of the other threads had a link to an article about Singapore shutting down schools because the Indian variant does seem to be hitting children more often.  So far not with severe illnesses but more frequent illness.

That's worrying IMO.

Honestly, reading the posts on this board where multiple people seem to be forgetting about the "vaccinated" part of this recommendation is really disheartening and just shows how premature this is.  

[happi duck]

1 hour ago, Wheres Toto said:

One of the other threads had a link to an article about Singapore shutting down schools because the Indian variant does seem to be hitting children more often.  So far not with severe illnesses but more frequent illness.

That's worrying IMO.

Honestly, reading the posts on this board where multiple people seem to be forgetting about the "vaccinated" part of this recommendation is really disheartening and just shows how premature this is.  

Yes, people are acting like the CDC decided to be nice people and cancel the pandemic.

I've seen news reports saying things like "Store X is no longer requiring masks" with no mention of vaccinated or not.

 

[whitestavern]

9 hours ago, happi duck said:

Yes, people are acting like the CDC decided to be nice people and cancel the pandemic.

I've seen news reports saying things like "Store X is no longer requiring masks" with no mention of vaccinated or not.

 

In an ideal world, yes, stores would be checking, but it would be very onerous. It would create long lines (putting people in close contact with each other), and stores would have to hire additional staff to carry this out. I think it would be very difficult to carry out. 

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

In an ideal world, yes, stores would be checking, but it would be very onerous. It would create long lines (putting people in close contact with each other), and stores would have to hire additional staff to carry this out. I think it would be very difficult to carry out. 

In an ideal world, checking wouldn’t be be necessary because we could largely trust our fellow people to be honest.

[happi duck]

11 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

In an ideal world, yes, stores would be checking, but it would be very onerous. It would create long lines (putting people in close contact with each other), and stores would have to hire additional staff to carry this out. I think it would be very difficult to carry out. 

There is literally no way to officially prove you're vaccinated.  (Fake cards are already available and I think they were always meant as a record not as proof.) However, the guidance is that *vaccinated* people can stop masking.  News reports and signage should keep pushing that.

I've seen that numbers are falling which is good but I wish it could've been used as incentive.  "Vaccinated people can visit private homes and if numbers continue to drop and vaccinations continue to rise we can ease up even more."

 

[happi duck]

1 minute ago, happi duck said:

There is literally no way to officially prove you're vaccinated.  (Fake cards are already available and I think they were always meant as a record not as proof.) However, the guidance is that *vaccinated* people can stop masking.  News reports and signage should keep pushing that.

I've seen that numbers are falling which is good but I wish it could've been used as incentive.  "Vaccinated people can visit private homes and if numbers continue to drop and vaccinations continue to rise we can ease up even more."

 

Quoting myself to add that I don't think the CDC had to lie or withhold information to get the message out there in a fashion that would not have caused so much confusion and potential for spread among the unvaccinated.

Looking on social media and even here on the Hive, there are definitely unvaccinated people ditching masks now that they can.

[ktgrok]

27 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

In an ideal world, yes, stores would be checking, but it would be very onerous. It would create long lines (putting people in close contact with each other), and stores would have to hire additional staff to carry this out. I think it would be very difficult to carry out. 

which is why they should keep mask mandates in place. 

[hshibley]

2 minutes ago, happi duck said:

 

Looking on social media and even here on the Hive, there are definitely unvaccinated people ditching masks now that they can.

I do wonder if feeling the number of unvaccinated planning ditching masks or people claiming vaccinating children under 12 is a waste of time  is just a function of who frequent the board. I think it’s a greater quantity of homeschoolers and evangelicals that hold that view point than the general public. I was at Costco yesterday the only family I saw with kids under 12 unmasked was a fellow homeschooler. The vast majority of families I’ve seen out since lifting the mandate have been masked. Honestly it restores my hope in society 😁. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, hshibley said:

I do wonder if feeling the number of unvaccinated planning ditching masks or people claiming vaccinating children under 12 is a waste of time  is just a function of who frequent the board. I think it’s a greater quantity of homeschoolers and evangelicals that hold that view point than the general public. I was at Costco yesterday the only family I saw with kids under 12 unmasked was a fellow homeschooler. The vast majority of families I’ve seen out since lifting the mandate have been masked. Honestly it restores my hope in society 😁. 

I think it’s definitely a ‘pockets’ problem near me. In my immediate area, people seem to be wearing masks anyway, and our vax rates are fairly high. People move here for the schools tho and we all want our kids back in person. There is a vocal minority of people declaring mask independence online and I do worry that if I stray too far in any direction from my house, especially into the touristy and more rural areas, they won’t be hard to find but I’m not gonna test that theory. Not following the guidance is very much a thing on my local military spouse page tho. Within hours, people (not a small number) were very clear about ‘no requirement, no mask, no vax!’ Whether they follow that online rhetoric up by strolling into local stores unmasked is another story. They could be all hat and no cattle.

[pinball]

28 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Quoting myself to add that I don't think the CDC had to lie or withhold information to get the message out there in a fashion that would not have caused so much confusion and potential for spread among the unvaccinated.

Looking on social media and even here on the Hive, there are definitely unvaccinated people ditching masks now that they can.

I must have missed the people on the board who are unvaccinated who said they would “ditch” their masks. 

Links please? Names? 

 

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, hshibley said:

I do wonder if feeling the number of unvaccinated planning ditching masks or people claiming vaccinating children under 12 is a waste of time  is just a function of who frequent the board. I think it’s a greater quantity of homeschoolers and evangelicals that hold that view point than the general public. I was at Costco yesterday the only family I saw with kids under 12 unmasked was a fellow homeschooler. The vast majority of families I’ve seen out since lifting the mandate have been masked. Honestly it restores my hope in society 😁. 

Anecdotally--Our mask mandate was dropped Friday, with the governor recommending/urging the unvaccinated/not yet fully vaccinated to follow the CDC's guidance and continue to mask. I had my doubts.

DS22 works in a grocery store, one that in our immediate area is considered the high end store. His estimate is that throughout the pandemic mask compliance has been around 95 percent there. He says in the last few days he'd estimate 90 percent are still masking. So no really huge reduction. And I was in Walmart this morning around 8:30. I'd estimate that at least 90 percent of people were still masked. A significant number of those who weren't wearing masks had them, they just weren't pulled up over their faces (and that to me indicates at least a willingness to use them). So I too have been pleasantly surprised so far. The majority of people appear to be doing the right thing.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Pawz4me
clarity

[Spryte]

We are in a pocket of no mask/ no vaccine people here.  

No one really ever masked in our area, even with mask mandates, so I don’t think it will change much.  People did mask in stores, though, so without the stores requiring masking - it takes away that last layer of protection for our under 12s.

The vaccination rate in our immediate area isn’t high, and I don’t expect it to go up much.  We’ve even been in some national news stories here for the “Q Anon megachurch” whose pastor finally left as a result of the conspiracy theories (it’s that bad). That’s right around the corner from our house.

When we had limits on gatherings, neighbors would host big parties, unmasked.  Indoor parties.  Most of our neighbors would attend.

Lots of hostility toward people who did mask, we were personally accosted several times, and we have neighbors who are no longer friendly because we mask and they don’t.  It’s sad.  But I know people who will never, never get the vaccine and haven’t been masking, certainly will not start now.  They have no problem with walking around implying they have had a shot, just by not wearing a mask.

The only other people we know who masked consistently and follow the CDC  guidelines are homeschoolers.  I don’t know any homeschoolers who didn’t mask.

Since the under 12s are all unvaxxed, they are supposed to mask anyway.  It’s disappointing that they will be masking in stores (here) with people who are also unvaccinated because we all know that wearing a mask in a room full of unvaccinated, unmasked people isn’t ideal.  

I had planned to take my under 12 kid out more, knowing that people would at least be masked in stores, etc, but we will stay outside now, and wait till she can get a shot. She’s got some risk factors, if she gets sick, that make me more wary than perhaps some parents, but she’s not as super high risk as our other kid.

[happi duck]

28 minutes ago, pinball said:

I must have missed the people on the board who are unvaccinated who said they would “ditch” their masks. 

Links please? Names? 

 

No I'm not going to re-read all these long threads to respond to what seems like snark.

People mentioned not having their kids under 12 mask anymore.  I know a husband and some parents were specifically mentioned as not masking because they can easily skip it now.  

What's your problem with the word ditch that you put it in quotes?  Is that offensive where you live?

[kokotg]

35 minutes ago, pinball said:

I must have missed the people on the board who are unvaccinated who said they would “ditch” their masks. 

Links please? Names? 

 

The first response to this thread is someone saying they would let young kids go without masks now.

[pinball]

Just now, happi duck said:

No I'm not going to re-read all these long threads to respond to what seems like snark.

People mentioned not having their kids under 12 mask anymore.  I know a husband and some parents were specifically mentioned as not masking because they can easily skip it now.  

What's your problem with the word ditch that you put it in quotes?  Is that offensive where you live?

you need to dial back the hostility.

i put ditch in quotes because that is the word you used. I did not use it, you used it, thus my quotes.

[happi duck]

31 minutes ago, Plum said:

 

I haven’t been able to keep up with all of these threads. Are people here saying they will lie about being vaccinated? If so, how many? 

I will say that my area definitely has some confusion after suddenly taking on the CDC guidelines and allowing businesses to decide for themselves but I haven’t seen a whole lot of unmasked people at stores in my neighborhood, downtown is another story but I don’t go there anyway. 

I have no idea if anyone here would lie.  Not wearing a mask because you think it's worthless and can now easily skip it is different than lying.  No one's going to be asking.  No verbal lying required.

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

The first response to this thread is someone saying they would let young kids go without masks now.

And there are two more that say the same thing within the first 5 or so posts. I guess you did miss it.

[happi duck]

2 minutes ago, pinball said:

you need to dial back the hostility.

i put ditch in quotes because that is the word you used. I did not use it, you used it, thus my quotes.

Totally *not* hostile!  Seriously!

I asked about the word ditched because the quotes made no sense to me and I was curious if perhaps it was offensive in some places.

[hshibley]

1 minute ago, happi duck said:

I have no idea if anyone here would lie.  Not wearing a mask because you think it's worthless and can now easily skip it is different than lying.  No one's going to be asking.  No verbal lying required.

If you go to a store like Costco which currently has the policy that if you are vaccinated you do not need to mask and you are not vaccinated and do not mask to me that qualifies as lying. Granted no one is at door asking but you know the policy.  

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

And there are two more that say the same thing within the first 5 or so posts. I guess you did miss it.

Like I said... I must have missed them. I also was thinking of adults, not children. 

This thread is about what people will do with their unvaccinated kids.

Are there unvaccinated ADULTS on this board who said they will <insert word choice here that means no longer wear masks> their masks?

[pinball]

3 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Totally *not* hostile!  Seriously!

I asked about the word ditched because the quotes made no sense to me and I was curious if perhaps it was offensive in some places.

You also said my question seemed like snark.

[happi duck]

1 minute ago, pinball said:

You also said my question seemed like snark.

It did.  Not hostile though.

[Not_a_Number]

On 5/17/2021 at 2:05 AM, Penelope said:

I thought that was the point you were making. The article posted, and others published about the same time, were talking about children being severely affected in Brazil. 

I pointed out a quote that said deaths were 0.5% of the total, and you noted that this is quite a bit higher than the proportion of child deaths for the US (even though I don’t know if either number was accurate, but agreeing Brazil’s is reported as higher without digging into it).

If Brazil has lower absolute Covid death numbers than the US, but higher absolute numbers of pediatric deaths, and the claim is that this is because of the variant, aren’t you saying that the variant has a proportionately higher level of virulence for children compared to wild type, than it does for adults? 

Yes, I’m saying that. And you’re saying it doesn’t, I believe, or that at least we can’t be sure. And I was trying to figure out your model for what is going on there, then.

[Tenaj]

I guess I'm one who needs to confess that my 11yodd will not be masking as soon as our mask mandate drops which is currently scheduled for June 2.  We've been following the mandates and are going to continue following them.  If numbers start going crazy again or kids begin to be more at risk, we'll reevaluate.

 I'm not going to continue to mask (and have already stopped - went to Sam's club yesterday - it was awesome 😎).  I'm fully vaccinated and am following our state guidelines.  If you all want to view me with suspicion whenever we're out and about I guess I'll have to live with it.  

Edited May 18, 2021 by JanOH

[pinball]

20 minutes ago, happi duck said:

It did.  Not hostile though.

And I think your respond to me was hostile, for no reason.

You wrote something and I don’t think it is snark on my part to ask for you to elaborate or give more details.

 

 

[SKL]

I think at least some of the responders saying they won't make their under-12s mask were talking about after the rules are lifted for all.  Some states have already announced a lifting of their mask mandates before the CDC announcement.  My state is one of them (effective June 2).

If the state has no mask mandate, then it's up to individuals and organizations to make rational choices.  The CDC announcement is not a law.

Also, I think people are defining masking differently.  Some seem to be talking about masking everywhere when around other people, which is already beyond the CDC recommendations.  For example, at parks and playgrounds.  The same people might have a different comment about masking in indoor schools etc.  I am guessing that some folks here practically never take their little kids to places where masking them would matter.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

I've seen that numbers are falling which is good but I wish it could've been used as incentive.  "Vaccinated people can visit private homes and if numbers continue to drop and vaccinations continue to rise we can ease up even more."

Most spread occurs in private homes, where practically nobody, vaxed or unvaxed, masks.  So I don't think this would be meaningful at all.

[SKL]

For kids who are not in group care, if their family members 12+ are vaccinated, the likelihood of them getting and spreading Covid seems really really low.

[Spryte]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

Also, I think people are defining masking differently.  Some seem to be talking about masking everywhere when around other people, which is already beyond the CDC recommendations.  For example, at parks and playgrounds.  The same people might have a different comment about masking in indoor schools etc.  I am guessing that some folks here practically never take their little kids to places where masking them would matter.

True.  When I talk about under 12s masking, I’m referring to following CDC guidelines.  That would mean unvaxxed kids/adults would mask indoors. I’m only speaking about indoors.  So masking in school - yes, that would be following the CDC guidelines for unvaccinated people.  Ditto stores and everywhere else inside.  

Some posters might be referring to outdoors as well, which I think is a bit above the CDC guidelines.  But understandable if you’ve got kids playing face to face on a playground for a long time, and sucking thumbs.  😊

My under 12 won’t be going indoors with people we don’t know, and I’m fine if she plays outside without a mask because the risk to her seems low.  If she prefers a mask, fine.  If her friends prefer masks, we will all mask.  I’m good either way, outside, as long as we aren’t literally breathing on top of each other.