Not see the illogic in cracking down on 17-21 year olds “gatherings” and secondary school classes 1000s ?

[mintpeonies]

Yet again it seems we are told absolute illogical waffle.

The great sin = 17-21 year olds gathering in groups of over about thirty

Absolutely safe = 14-19 year olds gathering at secondary school in groups of one hundred ++

Reminds me of few months back:

Masks = absolutely essential to safeguard medics

Masks = absolutely useless at protecting ordinary people

[Wolke]

Could have written the OP myself. The problem is the more illogical the waffle from government, the less likely anyone is to listen to it. It makes no sense that my child can mix in a bubble of 60 at primary school but can't attend a birthday party with 6 friends inside a child's home. So what happens is that everyone basically says to hell with it all and that is how we are going to end up in a very big mess this autumn.

Also, has anyone noticed that after all those months of daily briefings we've not seen the PM in what seems like months? He couldn't care less, he's too busy making a complete pig's ear of Brexit and enjoying the distraction the virus provides as cover for the fact the country is going to hell in a handcart.

[TheLastStarfighter]

I agree. No body has a clue what they can and can't do because guidance isn't clear, contradicts itself, or contradicts common sense.

[HipTightOnions]

No it’s not necessarily inconsistent. The idea is that education is actually very important so children must go to school.

Then, to make that as safe as possible, by keeping infection rates low, people should avoid the not-so-important things like getting pissed up in large groups with no social distancing.

That’s the idea, but the partygoers probably have other priorities.

[mintpeonies]

But @hip covid could not care less about alcohol. There is no true social distancing in Secondary schools. They should be online with the vulnerable and those lacking tech/internet in school buildings and grounds.

[BabyLlamaZen]

Life isn't fair. Of course large gatherings of children isn't a great idea. But they need to be educated.

Non essential gatherings, which let's face it are going to be closer if these people are mixing with more other people and drinking alcohol etc. are going to increase the number even more. So they must take the hit to allow children to go to school.

Government just need to come out and say that. They can deal with the mess from the school kids if everyone else stays quiet.

[fluffi]

Education is important and necessary, large social gatherings and parties are not.

All interactions increase risk of getting the virus, asking people to limit interactions to essential things like school / uni / work seems logical to me.

[Wolke]

Why should there be a mess from schools though? There are certainly other options in terms of blended learning for secondary pupils. I think by half term many parents will be begging for blended learning if it avoids outbreaks and kids having to self isolate every time someone in their bubble gets a positive test result.

[mrshoho]

@HipTightOnions

No it’s not necessarily inconsistent. The idea is that education is actually very important so children must go to school.

Then, to make that as safe as possible, by keeping infection rates low, people should avoid the not-so-important things like getting pissed up in large groups with no social distancing.

That’s the idea, but the partygoers probably have other priorities.

I get that and yes it is right to prioritise education but this incompetent government have done themselves no favour with a campaign to get children back to school that was disingenuous. They sold it to parents that schools would be covid secure. Look at all the media spin showing socially distanced students and staff. The reality is very different as teachers had been pointing out for months would be the case.

The despicable new message of killing grannies is stooping to the lowest level even by this government's standards and has Cummings written all over it. Even today Boris was filmed with his arm around another leader having a party together.

[Ellmau]

covid could not care less about alcohol.

I think there is a perfectly reasonable point hidden here, in that those who are relaxing and enjoying themselves, and those who are drinking alcohol in particular, are likely to be slightly less inhibited about their behaviour than those in a larger group to work or study.

[LastTrainEast]

Since covid started people have kept asking basically the same question over and over "why is this allowed and not this"

"why would we allow schools but discourage social gathering"

because one is essential but the other isn't

"why is it ok for people to work in power stations and not in pubs"

because one is essential but the other isn't

"why can nurses go to work, but I can't get my hair done"

because one is essential but the other isn't

and so on

It has never had anything to do with it being safe in schools or safe in power stations.

[DamitJanet]

It’s weighing up risks and benefits. Yes there’s a risk with schools, but balanced against the benefits of an education, and the risks to young people in not going to school it’s considered a reasonable risks
Despite what many young people, and at times their parents, would like us to think house parties do not carry the same benefits, certainly not ones that couldn’t be fulfilled in less risky ways.

[mrshoho]

But it is the way schools (secondary) and colleges have gone back that is at odds with the advice to be vigilant and to avoid being in close contact elsewhere. If schools had more SD measures in place, as teaching staff had been asking for all along then young people may be more inclined to follow outside of schools.

[SoManyActivities]

Someone will come on in a minute and start going on about 'risk budgets'.

[notevenat20]

I don’t think I agree. Secondary schools are a) vital and b) trying really hard to limit the numbers who interact socially.

[notevenat20]

Someone will come on in a minute and start going on about 'risk budgets'.

That would normally be me :)

[notevenat20]

@LastTrainEast

Exactly right!

[Tomatoesneedtoripen]

but this is the age group that have tested positive for coronavirus.
it isnt just for fun

[Strugglingtodomybest]

@LastTrainEast nailed it.

[Concerned7777]

The aim is to reduce the amount of transmission between young ones not stop it completely. To stop it completely we'd have to be in complete lockdown again. Its looking at what's essential and what's a luxury, education = essential, social gatherings = luxury. Even 1 less interaction when it's not necessary has a chance of breaking the chain of transmission

[MRex]

@LastTrainEast summarised it nicely; some risks are reasonable but if we take all risks then rates will rise. So we take the most important risks; school and work are important, because without an economy we would have no food, water, public services etc. You can have a distanced chat and get 90% of the benefit.

[Tfoot75]

It has nothing to do with one being safe and the other not. Socialising is not necessary, education simply is. Both carry a similar risk of contracting a virus that won't affect 99.99% of the age group. The risk is to the population as a whole, not to the individual. Change your perspective!!

[chantico]

The logic is that some things are essential/highly desirable (such as schools opening) and that we as a society are prepared to take and manage the risks that are inherent in that activity.

But it raises transmission, so to keep the overall transmission rates down to a manageable level, we need to have restrictions on other activities to balance it out.