OV9

Schools are germ factories at the best of times. I wouldn’t want to be working in one just now.

Broccers wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:24 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:11 am Nice to see the usuals suspects in the press going after teachers again for not wanting to go back into schools without proper controls.

There is no fail safe solution. If I was a parent I would send my kid back as they need to learn and I'd be shit at home schooling.

Based on what I've seen from the ONS statistics I'm fine with sending mine back. If any teacher over 45 has an issue they can stay away, but I wouldn't personally be that bothered.

My youngest’s primary school won’t be open until a week later (at the earliest) because the week of the 1st June would’ve been half-term and they have planned construction work that’s going on. Plus, he’s year 5 so he wouldn’t be going back straightaway anyway, so it’s likely that at most he’d get 3 weeks of school in before the summer holidays. It’s simply not worth the risk. It’s not that I think he’ll get ill, but there’s the possibility of him carrying it to us back home and us catching it.

It might be different if I knew I’d had it and couldn’t catch it again.

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:35 am

Broccers wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:24 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:11 am Nice to see the usuals suspects in the press going after teachers again for not wanting to go back into schools without proper controls.

There is no fail safe solution. If I was a parent I would send my kid back as they need to learn and I'd be shit at home schooling.

Based on what I've seen from the ONS statistics I'm fine with sending mine back. If any teacher over 45 has an issue they can stay away, but I wouldn't personally be that bothered.

yeah, those stats really made an impression on me. Our nursery will be opening in some fashion on the 1st, I’m fairly ok with the idea of him going back once I’ve seen the strategy they want to adopt. But I’d definitely not want to vilify any staff (or in the wider story, teachers) not comfortable with returning. Especially ones who are older or will put others at risk.

The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows. Some sort of phasing like this at least means there are more people to cover less roles.

Rich B wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:03 am

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:35 am

Broccers wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:24 am

There is no fail safe solution. If I was a parent I would send my kid back as they need to learn and I'd be shit at home schooling.

Based on what I've seen from the ONS statistics I'm fine with sending mine back. If any teacher over 45 has an issue they can stay away, but I wouldn't personally be that bothered.

yeah, those stats really made an impression on me. Our nursery will be opening in some fashion on the 1st, I’m fairly ok with the idea of him going back once I’ve seen the strategy they want to adopt. But I’d definitely not want to vilify any staff (or in the wider story, teachers) not comfortable with returning. Especially ones who are older or will put others at risk.

The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows. Some sort of phasing like this at least means there are more people to cover less roles.

The only 2 teachers my family have had any real contact with in the past few weeks both want to return to schooling. They will not be heard over the voices of the unions though, that disappears down a different rabbit hole though.

I think you do have to factor into the equation that there hasn't been a single documented instance, in any country, of a child giving Covid-19 to an adult. I'm not sure where the age cut off for this lies so let's exclude secondary schools from the equation, but the risk of your under-10 child bringing it home and infecting you would seem so small as to be irrelevant. The risk is coming into contact with other parents at drop off/pick up.

The biggest risk to the primary teachers themselves, ironically ,are their colleagues, not the kids. If you can maintain sufficient social distancing between the adults, it wouldn't seem justifiable to keep primary schools closed.

Rich B wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:03 am The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows.

Potentially a much lower R number and therefore less risk? As you say, who knows. My question would be what’s the advantage of going back for a small number of weeks and is that worth the risk?

GG. wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:18 am I think you do have to factor into the equation that there hasn't been a single documented instance, in any country, of a child giving Covid-19 to an adult. I'm not sure where the age cut off for this lies so let's exclude secondary schools from the equation, but the risk of your under-10 child bringing it home and infecting you would seem so small as to be irrelevant. The risk is coming into contact with other parents at drop off/pick up.

The biggest risk to the primary teachers themselves, ironically ,are their colleagues, not the kids. If you can maintain sufficient social distancing between the adults, it wouldn't seem justifiable to keep primary schools closed.

https://fullfact.org/health/covid-19-in-children/

Dr Munro writes that it is “impossible to tell at the moment” how infectious a child is once they have the new coronavirus because there are no “direct experiments comparing exposure to an infected child to exposure to an infected adult”.

Other contact tracing studies found that children were very rarely the first person to develop Covid-19 symptoms within a household (known as the index case). However, these studies also suggest that it is at least possible for children to transmit the virus: a review found three instances where a child under 10 was the index case within a household

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:20 am

Rich B wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:03 am The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows.

Potentially a much lower R number and therefore less risk? As you say, who knows. My question would be what’s the advantage of going back for a small number of weeks and is that worth the risk?

yeah, in my case, it’s not a few weeks, it’s back to normal (3 days a week throughout the year), so my take on it will be different. I definitely wouldn’t want to be telling others what they should do though.

Not documented doesn't mean hasn't happened. Unless you know for sure how every person who has had it has contracted it then you can't really rule out that it may have been passed on from a child or from someone who had been infected by a child.

At the moment there is precisely zero research into how patients have contracted it. If you go into hospital with it you're treated and sent home when you're well enough.

Interesting article but they all point to the risk being dramatically lower for kids and the likelihood of you catching it from your children being much smaller than you catching it from someone else.

Even the article noting three "index cases" concludes "the data available to date suggests that children have not played a substantive role in the intra-household transmission of SARS-CoV-2".

If you are currently in full self isolation where you are not leaving the house even to food shop, then sending your kids back to school may raise your risk of contracting slightly. If you are still leaving the house for exercise, food shopping, etc. I think you can be pretty comfortable that sending your kids back to primary school wouldn't materially increase the risk to you.

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:16 am

Rich B wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:03 am

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 10:35 am

Based on what I've seen from the ONS statistics I'm fine with sending mine back. If any teacher over 45 has an issue they can stay away, but I wouldn't personally be that bothered.

yeah, those stats really made an impression on me. Our nursery will be opening in some fashion on the 1st, I’m fairly ok with the idea of him going back once I’ve seen the strategy they want to adopt. But I’d definitely not want to vilify any staff (or in the wider story, teachers) not comfortable with returning. Especially ones who are older or will put others at risk.

The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows. Some sort of phasing like this at least means there are more people to cover less roles.

The only 2 teachers my family have had any real contact with in the past few weeks both want to return to schooling. They will not be heard over the voices of the unions though, that disappears down a different rabbit hole though.

The largest teaching union NASUWT asked 2600 members. 95% did not want to go back or think it was safe yet.

integrale_evo wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:29 am Not documented doesn't mean hasn't happened. Unless you know for sure how every person who has had it has contracted it then you can't really rule out that it may have been passed on from a child or from someone who had been infected by a child.

The contract tracing of one of the first kids who caught it from his father concluded he'd met c.170 people and hadn't given it to any of them. You can always wait until rigorous statistical analysis and experimentation has been done but common sense tells you the risk is low.

Gavin wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:36 am

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:16 am

Rich B wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:03 am yeah, those stats really made an impression on me. Our nursery will be opening in some fashion on the 1st, I’m fairly ok with the idea of him going back once I’ve seen the strategy they want to adopt. But I’d definitely not want to vilify any staff (or in the wider story, teachers) not comfortable with returning. Especially ones who are older or will put others at risk.

The flip side to this is where/when do we go back to some sort of normal? Is June going to any different to September or 2021 or beyond, who knows. Some sort of phasing like this at least means there are more people to cover less roles.

The only 2 teachers my family have had any real contact with in the past few weeks both want to return to schooling. They will not be heard over the voices of the unions though, that disappears down a different rabbit hole though.

The largest teaching union NASUWT asked 2600 members. 95% did not want to go back or think it was safe yet.

Is that 95% of 2600 or 95% of those that responded? I suspect I know the answer to that one already

GG. wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:36 am

integrale_evo wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:29 am Not documented doesn't mean hasn't happened. Unless you know for sure how every person who has had it has contracted it then you can't really rule out that it may have been passed on from a child or from someone who had been infected by a child.

The contract tracing of one of the first kids who caught it from his father concluded he'd met c.170 people and hadn't given it to any of them. You can always wait until rigorous statistical analysis and experimentation has been done but common sense tells you the risk is low.

That is one kid. I wouldn't be basing any sort of conclusion on that! That is right up there with 91% of women agreed the face cream made them look younger*









* 7 women surveyed.

Gavin wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:40 am

GG. wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:36 am

integrale_evo wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:29 am Not documented doesn't mean hasn't happened. Unless you know for sure how every person who has had it has contracted it then you can't really rule out that it may have been passed on from a child or from someone who had been infected by a child.

The contract tracing of one of the first kids who caught it from his father concluded he'd met c.170 people and hadn't given it to any of them. You can always wait until rigorous statistical analysis and experimentation has been done but common sense tells you the risk is low.

That is one kid. I wouldn't be basing any sort of conclusion on that! That is right up there with 91% of women agreed the face cream made them look younger*









* 7 women surveyed.

see my query above...

What baffles me the most* about this is that a few weeks ago, when some European countries such as Denmark and France announced they'd start reopening schools, there was a clamour over here and criticism of the GOvt' for us not following suit. Now that they've outlined a partial reopening over here suddenly Gov't are a bunch of cvnts for putting teachers' lives at risk...

*doesn't really at all

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:40 am

Gavin wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:36 am

drcarlos wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:16 am

The only 2 teachers my family have had any real contact with in the past few weeks both want to return to schooling. They will not be heard over the voices of the unions though, that disappears down a different rabbit hole though.

The largest teaching union NASUWT asked 2600 members. 95% did not want to go back or think it was safe yet.

Is that 95% of 2600 or 95% of those that responded? I suspect I know the answer to that one already

Apologies, mixed up NEU survey with the MASUWT one. The below as in the Guardian:

A leading teaching union has warned the government it will have to do more to win the trust of teachers, after a poll of almost 30,000 members found just 5% believed it was safe for more children to return to schools in England from 1 June.

The NASUWT’s snapshot survey revealed soaring levels of anxiety among teachers, with the overwhelming majority describing government plans for reopening primary schools as confusing and unsafe.

"Ninety-five per cent of those polled said they were concerned and anxious about reopening, 93% said the government’s plans were confusing, while 91% lacked confidence in government measures to protect their health and that of their pupils."

My question still remains. I again I fully expect that the answer is that the %ages relate only to those that responded, not the total polled as implied. As this is always the case.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 11:43 am What baffles me the most* about this is that a few weeks ago, when some European countries such as Denmark and France announced they'd start reopening schools, there was a clamour over here and criticism of the GOvt' for us not following suit. Now that they've outlined a partial reopening over here suddenly Gov't are a bunch of cvnts for putting teachers' lives at risk...

*doesn't really at all

I do not recall any clamour to follow suit and many people rightly pointed out that Denmark had had 11k confirmed cases and 561 deaths.