Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Swinglowandslow]

I think it needs a change of mindset. As unpalatable as it might seem to some we need to accept that it is another disease that will sit in the background of our life. Unfortunately it isn't there yet.

Typhoid sits in the background, as does cholera, Dengue fever and a whole host of very nasty diseases. Go back not that far in history and you'll find polio was greatly feared(60's), and it isn't that long ago that Smallpox was officially eradicated.

Call it birthing pains for want of a better way but, eventually, Covid needs to be thought of in the same way.

Yes, but the background is somewhere over the oceans?
This thing is in the foreground at the moment , hundreds of deaths per day still ( well, maybe not all because of covid, but with covid-another discussion), but at the moment covid is banging at the door and cannot be dealt with in the same manner as the diseases you've mentioned.
Covid will sit in the same room as them when the vaccine is here, or when we have herd immunity. Both are some way off. Which is where your ' eventually' is to be found.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

From the point of view of child health, one is far more unpleasant than the other, and it's not the one without the vaccine.

What you have said is in itself true, but why are you saying it?
If you think the last few pages have been only about children's health, then you need to start again.

 

[Hobbit]

The odd thing about my wanton callousness is that I am a died in the wool lefty-ish anti-corporatist (maybe they're the worst sort for this sort of thing). But from this viewpoint I see every day of our current strategy disadvantaging thousands of the most disadvantaged Kids, and likely throwing millions of the youngest and lowest paid into long term unemployment and penury(sp).
This makes me very unhappy.

I feel your pain. But having made it to senior management I felt there was a 3rd way. Look after your most expensive asset and they will look after you. But do you want someone disadvantaged for x years, with the opportunity to pull things around, or do you want them dead.

I can't remember the last time I was on public transport. But I can remember the last time I was blue'd up, double gloved up, cap, mask and goggles. And I do remember the isolation/barrier rooms, and going in there. We chose the risks for ourselves, and were properly 'armoured' for it. Will the children be so 'armoured?'

 

[Hobbit]

Yes, but the background is somewhere over the oceans?
This thing is in the foreground at the moment , hundreds of deaths per day still ( well, maybe not all because of covid, but with covid-another discussion), but at the moment covid is banging at the door and cannot be dealt with in the same manner as the diseases you've mentioned.
Covid will sit in the same room as them when the vaccine is here, or when we have herd immunity. Both are some way off. Which is where your ' eventually' is to be found.

It isn't a flick of the switch solution. Obviously the vaccines and driving it down need to happen, just have they have for the diseases listed. And that was exactly point I was trying to make. Over time, with the right outcomes, that's where we've got to consign Covid 19. But let's not forget, Coronavirus, in its first known guise, was identified in 1931.. Another outbreak in 1965, then SARS and MERS.

When Boris said there might not be a vaccine, it wasn't a clumsy comment. Granted this is the most virulent version of Corona virus, and a lot more effort is going into finding solutions, but we might just have to learn to live with it just as the Subcontinent has had to learn to live with Typhoid etc.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Yep but sending them back for 6 weeks will not address this. The focus is on childcare for the 6 weeks not education. Phonics will be the focus at my wife's school, no shared resouces and minimal contact means the lessons are simple and basic.

Add to this as my wife will be teaching 15 year 1 kids she will not have time to set her year 2 classes the same amount and level of work as she is in year one so all pupils working form home are getting less teaching and simpler work too. So they are now going to suffer more.

The reality is there are not enough resources to split the school in two and set the correct work regardless of how you portray it.

Schools will be risk assessing if they can make it work, some schools will be doing split classes with days off in the week where there are no kids in for teachers to catch up/set other work. Other will take different approaches. I agree that in most primaries the resources are not enough to have all year R,1 and 6 classes in whilst they are trying to keep them apart in pods and also set work for kids at home, plus those in year R,1 and 6 who do not come in. So a compromise will be worked out if possible. I know plenty of schools who have done this, they are planning to provide what they can based on the advice but taking into account local circumstances at the school.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Is there any scientific rationale behind the decision to send 4 and 5 year olds back to school long before sending teenagers back?

Or is a purely political decision based on it being an expedient way of providing free day care for younger kids so their parents can go back to work, while teenagers can fend for themselves?

It is based on the potential harm an increasing lack of proper education will have on their future ability to cope in schools. There are several things that kids at 4 and 5 need to have in place if they are able to learn effectively as they move through primaries, sort of the building blocks. And the longer they do not get these, the theory is the more they will struggle later on in schools. So it is mostly an education theory based decision as opposed to a scientific decision over who is less likely to pass things on.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Which was exactly my original point when I questioned the claim that teachers were scared stiff, the implication being all teachers.

All teachers will surely have their own opinion on this as on other issues.

My concern is that they still require objective evidence to assist them in reaching their decision.

From my personal experience of several schools I would say teachers are at best apprehensive with most being still very concerned. Especially as logically they are being asked to go into a position where realistically in primaries they will not be able to completely social distance, and the kids definitely will not. When at the same time the rest of the population is being asked to always socially distance. But just about all of them want to provide the best education they can for their classes so a lot of them are very torn and having to make some tough decisions. And throughout all schools now the heads are talking to the staff, going through the advice so staff are getting a lot of objective evidence.

 

[DanFST]

We chose the risks for ourselves, and were properly 'armoured' for it. Will the children be so 'armoured?'

Unfortunately 2 children under 14 have lost their lives in the UK with Covid on the death certificate, that's tragic. In the New York of the 16,000 deaths at the time of my data, 3 were under 17 with no existing conditions, I feel for the parents.

Children are inherently armoured from this whatever reason. Horribly, had school been in session, statistically more would have died in transit. As callous as it may sound, that is not a logical reason for kids not to be at school. Far more will suffer with a lack of education, what if we don't get a vaccine out for 2 years?

 

[Hacker Khan]

One other things to bear in mind is that if you do send your child to school in the 1st wave then from a social distancing perspective it will be as safe as it ever can be, due to the limited numbers that will be in. If there is an expectation that they are all back come September then that will pose significant issues with social distancing in most schools. So I'd say the R rate really does need to drop for that to have any chance of happening. And I would argue this is one of the reasons why they are trying to start now to gradually increase capacity. As if you start in September then in reality all kids will not be in from day 1, so in the governments mind you are potentially looking at even more time being lost to educate the kids.

 

[pendodave]

From my personal experience of several schools I would say teachers are at best apprehensive with most being still very concerned. Especially as logically they are being asked to go into a position where realistically in primaries they will not be able to completely social distance, and the kids definitely will not. When at the same time the rest of the population is being asked to always socially distance. But just about all of them want to provide the best education they can for their classes so a lot of them are very torn and having to make some tough decisions. And throughout all schools now the heads are talking to the staff, going through the advice so staff are getting a lot of objective evidence.

Thanks for these answers. They're thoughtful and coherent. Good luck in the next few weeks.

 

[Hobbit]

Unfortunately 2 children under 14 have lost their lives in the UK with Covid on the death certificate, that's tragic. In the New York of the 16,000 deaths at the time of my data, 3 were under 17 with no existing conditions, I feel for the parents.

Children are inherently armoured from this whatever reason. Horribly, had school been in session, statistically more would have died in transit. As callous as it may sound, that is not a logical reason for kids not to be at school. Far more will suffer with a lack of education, what if we don't get a vaccine out for 2 years?

I get where you're coming from, and accept that I'm being an idealist. But don't forget, in accepting that children are, to a large extent, immune from it the teacher isn't under 17. What 'armour' will teachers have?

As for suffering from lack of education, again, I get where you're coming from but if the choice is to die from Covid or to be a labourer instead of a brain surgeon, what is the best choice, life or death.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Thanks for these answers. They're thoughtful and coherent. Good luck in the next few weeks.

Cheers bud. Don't worry, I'll revert back to sarcasm and petty politics soon.

 

[User20205]

Statistically the risk to kids does seem low, but you can mitigate travel, exposure to other ‘threats’ etc. I’m not sure that you can currently mitigate for this in a school environment. My kids school x2 (same trust) seem to be pushing for a sept return, I’m ok with this, even if it means fundamentally changing my working pattern.
What is irritating me about this thread tho, is posters pontificating re schooling, re the heath risks to kids & teachers, who clearly have no skin in the game.

 

[User20205]

Cheers bud. Don't worry, I'll revert back to sarcasm and petty politics soon.

Question HK. You’re on the board of a state school, I believe your kids go private, what differences, If any, are there in approach re these 2?

 

[DanFST]

I get where you're coming from, and accept that I'm being an idealist. But don't forget, in accepting that children are, to a large extent, immune from it the teacher isn't under 17. What 'armour' will teachers have?

As for suffering from lack of education, again, I get where you're coming from but if the choice is to die from Covid or to be a labourer instead of a brain surgeon, what is the best choice, life or death.

I agree that's another debate (one I can see more weight in)

Who knows what will be put in place for teachers, I haven't seen anything concrete so can't really debate!

FWIW: 2 of my teacher friends are still teaching, they are my age (just under 30). Annoyed they aren't going to be able to see their parents until antibody tests come through(but isn't that the same for every key worker, or someone going out everyday to the shops?) But not worried for themselves.

 

[chrisd]

Just listening to Lord Sumption advocating that there should be no lockdown and that everyone should be allowed to do as they wish in regard to self isolating. Seem oblivious of the fact that its not about whether he gets it, its how many die from his passing it on. What a dick!

 

[rosecott]

Has a serial poster we all know been out with the spray can?

 

[Hacker Khan]

Question HK. You’re on the board of a state school, I believe your kids go private, what differences, If any, are there in approach re these 2?

It's actually part of an academy trust. My daughter is at secondary level and is not in one of the years they are focusing on at that level so she is still being home schooled. So I do not know what private primaries are planning. Although I'd expect they would be doing the same as state schools in terms of risk assessments. However there may well be a bit more pressure on private schools to open as parents are paying what is usually a fair whack for them to educate their kids in schools.

This is in fact another area where privately educated kids, who already have advantages, may be get even more advantages. As in general the quality of the private school home schooling set will be very high as again, parents are paying for it. So private schools want to keep the paying parents especially happy. I've done no home schooling myself as the school makes sure she has all she needs without parents needing to do anything. There is some great home schooling going on in the non-private sector, but for completely understandable reasons the quality is more variable. So on average the longer home schooling goes on for I'd say the larger the gap may be, which may well become visible in future years exam results.

As for how I feel about this then as a parent I am obviously OK with it. As a chair of governors at a non-private school I want to ensure that non-privately educated kids get the best chances in life and the best education. And that may, or may not mean going back to school as soon as possible.

 

[drdel]

I get where you're coming from, and accept that I'm being an idealist. But don't forget, in accepting that children are, to a large extent, immune from it the teacher isn't under 17. What 'armour' will teachers have?

As for suffering from lack of education, again, I get where you're coming from but if the choice is to die from Covid or to be a labourer instead of a brain surgeon, what is the best choice, life or death.

Dont you think those two statements are a tad extreme. Kids are not "immune" to the virus: they can catch it and pass it on just like other people. However the health impact upon them is far less. For teachers the risk is there but it is actually quite small. There are areas of the country where the infection rate is very, very low so there will be many schools that will not be at any risk: going to supermarkets with parents probably is as risky to the kids and teachers.

Your last paragraph is again somewhat extreme "life or death" really: the vast majority of deaths are to the elderly and fat who have underlying medical conditions. Medical staff are well trained and know how the equip themselves. We also know that avoiding the viral load is very important to the severity of any resulting illness.

The 'viral load' is also important when you consider how exposed the average person is during normal external situations; few occassions of general public's interactions will be beyond the 10 to 15 minutes.

The situation is serious and need managing carefully but, if we're honest, the public on-mass can be pretty unintelligent and I think the statistics tend to become interpreted at the extremes: the risk of contracting it is low and the risk of dying is much, much lower. That said no-one would willing expose anyone if it is reasonably possible to prevent it.

 

[Old Skier]

Just listening to Lord Sumption advocating that there should be no lockdown and that everyone should be allowed to do as they wish in regard to self isolating. Seem oblivious of the fact that its not about whether he gets it, its how many die from his passing it on. What a dick!

Mans brain obviously went AWOL