Does anyone happen to know how they categorize someone who, say, got their first shot, recovered from the illness, and then went on to get their second dose? Would they be counted under
a) those vaccinated with two doses b) those who had the illness and were then vaccinated with two doses
I'm asking because once that 120-day mark hits, the reporting rules start to diverge, right?😁
Section 1 refers to Procedures for Close Contacts of an Individual with COVID-19 and it states quite explicitly here:
"For close contacts who are part of a group where assessing the spread of infection is vital, it is recommended to undergo RT-PCR or rapid antigen testing within five days of exposure. A negative test result does not affect the duration of quarantine/self-isolation. A positive result requires follow-up processing for the tested individual's close contacts. A positive rapid antigen test should be confirmed via an RT-PCR test."
Then it goes into section 2.1 regarding All symptomatic individuals with clinical suspicion of COVID-19:
"All symptomatic individuals with clinical suspicion of COVID-19—given the worsening epidemiological situation, it is necessary to send all symptomatic persons for testing. For administrative reasons (to facilitate the issuance of a digital health certificate), all positive rapid antigen tests must be confirmed by a PCR test. Whenever possible, and depending on testing capacity and specific circumstances, the PCR test should be used as the primary diagnostic choice. Any symptomatic person indicated for COVID-19 testing must remain in isolation until the results arrive (regardless of whether they took a rapid antigen or PCR test). Close contacts of a symptomatic person awaiting test results must also remain in quarantine—specifically family members and workplace contacts if they are healthcare workers or residential care staff—until the results are in, unless they fall into categories exempt from quarantine (see section 1). In the event of a positive result, the infected individual remains in isolation until they meet the criteria for ending isolation (see section 3), and their close contacts must stay in quarantine unless they belong to the exempt categories mentioned in section 1. Given the significant rise in school-aged children among new cases since the start of the school year, we remind everyone of the need to test students showing symptoms suggestive of COVID-19."
By definition, I should fall under case 2.1... but nowhere does it explicitly mention that a negative test means you can come out of isolation??
Does anyone know if there's any way (maybe through the e-government portal?) to check my isolation status?
I haven't been able to find anything regarding the second part, even though I did some digging. As for the first point—you might want to take another look at this, because the updated guidelines are actually listed right here:
Essentially, it all comes down to your history—whether you've had it before, if you're vaccinated, or if you're unvaccinated—which then dictates the isolation period after you test. At most, the government will likely just provide you with a rapid test right now, since waiting for a PCR can take days. Until that result comes back, you aren't technically "officially" in isolation; you're just acting on suspicion while waiting for the lab work. That said, the expectation is that you act as if you do have it—meaning, please don't go wandering around out and about!
I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time chatting with my daughter about how tattoos just inevitably lose their edge over time. It’s an unfortunate reality—they start to blur because, eventually, the body begins to break down the ink, and as we get older, our skin loses that elasticity. Honestly, there is nothing more unappealing than seeing a faded, stretched-out, blurry tattoo on an elderly person 🤮
I agree with Michelle Nelson4 on this one; they really do lose their charm. But I suppose if you decide to stop getting them, you're just left with a small scar, and most people end up moving away from that look after a while anyway
To be honest, I’d much rather see someone smoke for a few years than deal with a permanent tattoo. Getting them done is expensive enough, but trying to get them removed is a whole different level of costly ☕ Plus, let's be real—no sixteen-year-old has any clue what they’ll actually like by the time they hit thirty... not even close. There’s just a high chance they'll end up feeling embarrassed by it. It’s better to leave those youthful mistakes firmly in the past 😁
Anyway, my daughter keeps things pretty natural—short, unpolished nails and almost zero makeup. I won't say she's completely avoided the puberty phase yet, but luckily, she hasn't fully succumbed to it. I always tell her that the less makeup she wears, the better her chances of avoiding that "washed out" look most of her classmates have, and so far, it seems to be working. She can wear mascara or eyeshadow if she wants, but please, anything but those five layers of heavy foundation that all those beauty influencers are constantly pushing
That’s probably true. In my local school district, we usually see about 6 to 8 students per class moving on—though that number fluctuates quite a bit depending on who transfers in, drops out, or withdraws mid-year—and our classes typically hover around 26 to 28 students.
mellowskipper said:I mean, it would only make sense if they ran them at the exact same time—assuming this is actually an alternative. That way, you’d have one group heading off to religious studies while the other focuses on critical thinking. It seems like the most logical split, I guess.
Sent from my Android device using Reddit
Haven't you heard the old rule that two different bodies can't occupy the same space at the same time? If they were held simultaneously, they could only have their classes in a hallway, an auditorium, or out on the playground (which is where the kids opting out of religion usually end up here in the States). Perhaps they could alternate—one hour of religion, then the next hour for critical thinking.🤔
It’s the same old story: everyone starts complaining about how things should be, even when the basic logistical requirements haven't been met. If they actually had the scheduling sorted out, German, Computer Science, and the upcoming Civics course wouldn't all be clashing in different shifts anyway. Honestly, they should just move the religion classes to that block instead of constantly bothering us with extra subjects. If people want to take those classes, let them go whenever and however they please.
I was reading this article this morning about a "new alternative to religious studies," and honestly, the whole piece completely misses the one thing I actually care about regarding this subject. It doesn't mention whether this will be integrated into the schedule just like religion class is, or if they’re going to label it a "mandatory alternative" and shove it into a block period during the opposite shift. I really want to know if this is just going to be another "subtle" way to herd the non-believers right back into the fold.
If they intend to make it an optional elective and then dump it into an 8:00 AM block when most kids are on the afternoon shift, they don't even need to bother designing a curriculum—because practically zero students are going to sign up.
As far as I'm concerned, if they are serious about offering an alternative, it needs to be distributed throughout the weekly schedule just like religion class is. Let both groups have their gaps in the schedule; it doesn't bother my kids at all—they usually just have a great time hanging out with friends and knocking out their homework for the day during those breaks.
PS — I'm also a bit stumped by the name of the course itself. Is it meant to be a subtle jab at religious students, implying they don't need critical thinking skills since they've already chosen their faith? Or perhaps it's a message to the secular students, suggesting they're missing out on essential critical thinking skills in religion class and that this new subject is meant to fill that gap? 🤣
It isn't really a choice they get to make; the professor just assigns them to groups. My daughter actually managed to negotiate a more balanced workload this last time around. I even told her, "Listen, if you end up with one of those heavy lifting roles, you have my total support—just please don't let them slack off and dump everything on your shoulders..."
rowdypanther12 said:So now they're learning about those ancient eras and how the land compares to what it used to be. Luckily, there are tons of great YouTube videos out there because when I read the book, I honestly couldn't wrap my head around why the seasons switched from winter to summer like that. 😂
Honestly, that was my favorite part of the whole year! I had such a blast drawing everything out and walking them through it. We kept things totally straightforward, of course. 🎉 It’s one of those rare subjects where you can’t just memorize facts; you actually have to *get* it. She picked up the rest on her own.
To my eyes, every single word in that textbook was perfectly clear and logical, but I noticed even my aunt struggled to follow along. It also seems to me that their foundational knowledge isn't quite where it needs to be.
If I had my way, I’d push for more project-based learning—but specifically individual projects rather than group work. Project-based learning is great because it teaches kids how to organize information systematically, especially when they have to put together a PowerPoint for a presentation. Group work, on the other hand, mostly just teaches a kid how to advocate for themselves so they don't end up doing all the heavy lifting for the lazy or uninterested members of the team. Though, I suppose that's a valuable life lesson in its own right.
Six days, you say... well, that's just one way to measure how many infections we're seeing and the rate of school-based SI 😁 Last year, there was this specific window where by the time they finished waiting for testing slots and gave the epidemiologists enough time to actually process each classroom, the final SI decision would arrive on the very last day. 😂I mean, unless you think some little green alien is suddenly going to swoop in and write up all those reports. And more importantly, they'd have to sit down and interview every single kid individually to ask if they were hanging out with Peric or Maro that day. 🤣For our school alone, I doubt even 5 FTE epidemiologists could handle that workload this week...
placidnomad87 said:She managed to figure it out. 👍
That’s just how it goes. I honestly hope you’re prepared to shell out 👍 next time you have to pay out of pocket for private healthcare—services you’re technically entitled to through your mandatory coverage, but can't actually access because the wait times are endless or your doctor simply refuses to give you a referral. 😉
mellowskipper said:I made sure to officially file for my leave when my little one was in the ICU—you know, on parental leave.
Sent from my JNY-LX1 via Reddit
Taking care of a 6th grader who isn't even sick? That's just... 🙏 The sheer amount we all pour into our taxes and insurance contributions—honestly, even Monty Python and Kafka couldn't dream up a scenario this absurd.
It feels like some people here have thousands of posts, yet they act like they just landed from Mars. It’s been over for a long time; anyone who has recovered or been vaccinated isn't heading to intensive care. Besides, the standard protocol is for an epidemiologist to mandate isolation for the classroom, with a note stating that anyone providing proof of recovery or vaccination (which is a relatively recent update) can step forward to receive an exemption.
slyfox43 said:During World War II, about 97% of the population made it through, so it wasn't exactly a catastrophic event for the nation at large.
I mean, unless we’re talking about the Black Death or some massive eruption of Tobe, it’s just business as usual.🙂
At my local school, they say two entire classes have already been sidelined. In one of them, it feels like they're pulling positive cases out of a hat—it seems like someone new gets flagged every single day. Just take it easy, everyone; I’m predicting things are going to get pretty lively in about two weeks. (P.S. The rapid tests at my neighborhood pharmacy are already sold out; we're just waiting on the next shipment 😂).
Larry Walker24 said:Fifth and eighth graders are getting hit with new national standardized tests. We did some digging to see what's actually going on
"They're saying it'll be in 'as many as' 80 schools, which obviously won't change much other than letting you know how much (or little) a kid actually knows after four or eight years of schooling. For my daughter, who's currently in 7th grade, this is totally useless unless it serves as some sort of gauge for high school entrance exams—though she already said she isn't interested in STEM-focused academies, so there's no pressure there."
I really hope they decide to use these results as an input for high school admissions by the 2025/2026 school year when my son hits 8th grade. It would be nice if we could finally stop this constant terror of chasing perfect grades all the time! It would also be wonderful if the folks over at the national educational institutes would show a bit of initiative and actually announce the plans for next year to the public, rather than leaving us all to guess, as per usual. But I suppose that would require a slightly more proactive management team than the "waves of nothingness" we see from people like Fuchs and his associates.
Alex Roberts4 said:It was the same story with my son back when he was in daycare. One time, strep just kept circulating through the group; my little guy actually threw up twice when he was only a month and a half old... They didn't bother testing everyone, they just handed out antibiotics to anyone who tested positive. The CDC even said that's not how things are supposed to be handled anymore—especially not handing out antibiotics to people who don't even show symptoms.
Well, thanks for the quick confirmation that A) I wasn't making things up when I said that's how it actually happened B) the person in question was lying when they claimed that "for the last 100 years," healthy people always just kept going regardless of any outbreaks.
It would be quite fascinating to look back at the protocols from the era before measles vaccines and other infectious diseases—I wonder if everyone just played dumb back then, letting kids head off to school during an epidemic until they actually fell ill...
slysurfer14 said:I guess it's been like that for the last century anyway. And if the kids aren't even showing symptoms, why should they be stuck at home?.....
Just wanted to offer a quick correction to that point. When a strep outbreak actually starts, the school often does swabs for everyone in the entire class or group. Even if the kids aren't showing a single symptom, if they test positive for strep, they get prescribed antibiotics and aren't allowed back in school or daycare until they provide a negative test result. I went through this exact situation with my own child, and I know it isn't just an isolated case.
What part of this isn't making sense? Honestly, I find it quite amusing to watch people cheer for pure populism, essentially trying to convince themselves that things will somehow settle down when, in all likelihood, the chaos is just going to escalate. It’s that endless "Snow White syndrome" where everyone keeps repeating the same wishful thinking—that once everything finally settles and returns to some mythical version of "normal," everything will be perfect. As if cosmic justice is going to wave a magic wand and suddenly fix everything just because, heaven forbid, our one precious life is passing us by while we deal with this ongoing mess of a pandemic for the second year running. If we all just collectively pretend everything is wonderful and pretend nothing has changed, surely a magical vortex will appear and make it all come true, right? 🤣
There is absolutely no way these twenty kids are going to stick to two weeks of regular classes. It’s just a matter of time before at least one more kid catches it, and then suddenly you’ve got five or six of them stuck in quarantine. Before you know it, someone else gets hit, and there go another five or six... 😂
Then you have the "smart" parents who will refuse to let their kids get tested just to avoid having them end up in isolation. But then those parents might end up getting sick themselves. If a parent can't dodge the testing, they’ll be stuck in a ten-day quarantine, while the kid might miss the window for a positive test result. That means the child ends up home for ten days of parental quarantine plus another fourteen days of self-isolation. And honestly, if the other parent tests positive a few days later, you could be looking at even more time out of school.