Reply With Quote
Damn. Well at least he recovered
You can be as careful as possible but if some asshole at the grocery isn't wearing a mask and sneezes in your general direction then you still might get ed.
My cousin is pretty sure she, husband and kids got it from a visit from her mother in law. It put her husband in ICU on a ventilator for almost a week.
Damn. Well at least he recovered
We were all holding our breath.Damn. Well at least he recovered
Costco employee friend has it.
Local bar shut down after two bartenders got it.
Like I said before... asking a five or six year-old to keep a mask on and properly social distance for eight hours is not realistic. Day cares have stayed open throughout the pandemic and they are not requiring masks for the kids either. I'm not saying kids can't spread it, but this is just reality. Not every parent has stay-at-home child care and the ability to work and feed their family.
Derp is the most bitter ball of hate on this forum. I don't get just being an angry troll constantly. At least be funny if you're going to troll.
ST broke him. He was never the same after the Jimmer fiasco. Since then, he has dedicated his life to trolling everyone on his list.
Unrealistic and probably impossible but they'll have to try. Also, it's one thing not to require small children who sneeze, cough, rub their eyes, stick their hands in their mouth, and pick their nose, but all kids not required ti wear one? It's asking for more trouble than we already have, imho.
That sucks. Predictable but sucks.
No kidding. It's no wonder the teachers unions are going ballistic
It's too bad Larry bailed. He could probably provide some insight on how to keep masks on little kids.
We just got hit with a mask mandate starting Monday.
Unsure of the rumor, but some have said that we could be cited for being outdoors without a mask. I don't mind the mandate, but if this part is true, it grinds my gears a little.
"The first thing is knowing the Rummy Pearson knot. He played the best pre-20s harmonica with...yep...Satchmo..."
From one of the top pediatric centers in Canada.
https://www.sickkids.ca/PDFs/About-S...g-SickKids.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sickk...fall-1.5616344
You are in CA right? I read the mandate from Newsom yesterday...it's really not any different than mask requirements/recommendations before and I saw nothing of being cited for being outdoors without a mask. It basically said a mask was required if it wasn't feasible to socially distance indoors.
Our county mandates that ALL businesses mandate them no matter. The only time they can be removed is for services related to the face and mouth. Stanislaus County.
lol that sucks. I went with the wife last night to our first sit down at a restaurant since March. No masks required for customers. San Diego county. I really enjoyed the tables not being crammed together.
Your link:
"Dr. Ronald Cohn, President and CEO of SickKids, said in a webinar Wednesday.
"None of the studies are suggesting that children do not transmit it at all. It's just not at the high frequency that any of us would have expected."
Bexar County about to do the same.
Gov Abbott acting like counties had the authority all along to require masks
Who claimed they do not transmit it at all?
You asked why children shouldn’t be required to wear masks.
Non-Medical and Medical Face Masks for children
Non-medical masks may reduce transmission from individuals who are shedding the virus.24 However, the extent of this benefit is unknown (especially in children) and would only be potentially beneficial if done properly.
In fact, if worn incorrectly, it could lead to increased risk
of infection and it is not practical for a child to wear a mask properly for the duration of a school day.24 It is noteworthy that several European countries have had children successfully return to school without face masks.2
Guidance statement(s):
• Non-medical and medical face masks are not required or recommended for children returning to school.
The following points were considered in this recommendation:
• There is a lack of evidence that wearing a face mask prevents SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.
• Children are not typically trained in their use and there is potential for increased risk of infection with improper mask use.
• In young children in particular, masks can be irritating and may lead to increased touching of the face and eyes which could increase the risk of infection.
• It is impractical for a child to wear a mask properly for the duration of the school day. Children would need assistance to follow appropriate procedures for putting on and taking off the mask (i.e. during meal times, snack times). In addition, during these times when the mask is removed, they would need to be stored appropriately to prevent infection spread.
• It is likely that masks will be disposed of improperly throughout the school and potentially lead to increased risk by children playing with them.
• The mask may not be tolerated by certain populations (i.e. children with underlying lung conditions, asthma, allergies) and especially during warm/humid time periods.
• It is recognized that some parents and children may choose to wear masks. This is a personal choice and should not be discouraged. To this end, equitable access to non-medical masks in the school setting is an important consideration.
• While at SickKids and other hospitals, patients have been required to wear a mask. This is a different situation as children can be closely monitored by their parents and hospital staff to ensure appropriate mask use and it is for a brief, defined period of time when there may be close interaction with a significantly immunocompromised population.
https://www.sickkids.ca/PDFs/About-S...g-SickKids.pdf
Austin did the same thing Wednesday until mid August.
That simplifies it further. If they can't wear masks, they shouldn't go back to classrooms.
You’re simply an idiot who wants underprivileged children to suffer further.
Summary:
This do ent provides guidance surrounding the reopening of schools as this relates to the measures to mitigate risks. As discussed, the risks of infection and transmission in children, which appear to be minimal, need to be balanced with the harms of school closure which is impacting their physical and mental health. On balance, it is recommended that children return to school and that the messaging around this clearly articulate the rationale for the recommendations outlined in this do ent in order to help reduce the fear and anxiety in parents, children and school staff. In our view, a daily school model is best as it allows for consistency, stability and equity regardless of the region in which children live.
An important factor to consider in this respect is emerging evidence indicating inequalities in the social and economic burden of COVID-19,30 which may further disadvantage children living in higher burden areas where educational inequality
and barriers to online learning may be more pronounced. In addition, we appreciate that the living conditions for children vary across socioeconomic groups and therefore recommend that further work be done to develop guidance and identify supports needed for situations where children reside within the same home as individuals with underlying conditions that put them at increased risk of more severe disease. Finally,
it is important to note that these recommendations reflect the evidence available at the present time and may evolve as new evidence emerges and as information is gathered from other jurisdictions that have opened schools already.
https://www.sickkids.ca/PDFs/About-S...g-SickKids.pdf
"On Wednesday, Sick Kids released its recommendations for children returning to school in September; by Thursday it had attracted criticism, suggestion, derision, and some praise.
“This is entirely pediatricians writing about a school decision, and what the do ent screams out is there’s no expertise in this do ent related to the health of people who aren’t children,” says Dr. David Fisman, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto. “There’s this fetishization of creating a sense of normality for children … which is completely mismatched to this moment.”
"It’s a skeletal examination of it. And not terribly well thought out,” says Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, an infectious disease specialist and ICU doctor at Toronto Western Hospital. “Erring too much on the side of freedom and complacency is dangerous, knowing that the influenza season is predictable, and it’s going to happen, and we know the risk that poses.
“I think people are going to be willing to accept some amount of inconvenience if it means other people won’t be at risk.”
At its heart, this is about balancing risk. Children suffer the disease at a much lower level; research indicates that below the age of nine or 10 they are less likely to contract it, though Fisman has data showing that children under 10 had the highest test positivity rate in Ontario over the last month.
And there are still grey areas as to how much children transmit the disease; that is the key. ..........."
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star...ot-enough.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
No.
