please read the guidance for schools....

[Ariseandsmellthetea99]

Key points:
-Since hospital grade PPE is neither obtainable (needed for medical staff) nor practical for teaching young children (scary and next to impossible to teach in) this is not recommended

• Since face coverings would need to be worn by all the children to have any effect at all (this relates to the science that a face covering only protects those around you not the person wearing), this isn't practical or recommended.

-They are NOT suggesting children are kept separate from all other children (as some fairly alarming photos on social media have shown).

-Children should be kept away from others who are NOT in their group bubble (the max 15 other children they WILL be mixing with). These groups should remain the same with the same adult to limit exposure for the adult.

• Any staff who are (clinically) vulnerable or live with someone vulnerable should be leading remote learning from home.

-Any children who are (clinically) vulnerable or who live with vulnerable should stay at home

• Parents should be socially distanced. To enable this, each bubble of 15 children should be dropped off at a different entrance or time.

If you disagree with these measures, please say what measure you think would be better, since children remaining home for up to 2 years is neither desirable nor healthy.

Teacher here. In answer to people asking 'so when should schools go back?' I would honestly say Sept, part time for primaries. I don't know enough about the secondary system to say what would work there (apparently lots of people with no teaching experience do though 🤔).
This gives adequate time to plan and implement a proper system. I would suggest a morning and afternoon shift in which kids are taught Maths and English. Classes cleaned in between. Foundation subjects to still be delivered remotely.
This would give everyone some childcare cover and lessen the issues around vulnerable children being off radar... regular contact with school etc and help prevent inequality with some children not learning at home.
But most importantly it would give staff in schools a chance to follow guidelines properly and stay safe. This is more important. Protection of life is more important than money, educational achievement and some additional stress. 38 adults from schools have died of corona (I read that today but can't remember where, someone might link).
I have been in every week since lockdown, I have taken my own children with me.their hands are raw from constant washing. My son was hurt when a child with SEN had a meltdown and we did not have the usual staff in. I teach special needs kids with no concept of personal hygiene etc and I'm getting utterly sick of office workers, sitting on their arses, tucked away safely at home suggesting that anything other than a full and immediate return to school is teachers shirking.
The economy is going to be decimated by this, but awful as that is, it's not as bad as being dead. Priorities people.

Please get some perspective. The risk to children from covid is minuscule, less than the risk of getting to school.

The younger ones in particular will struggle to social distance, but do what......

Children need to back at school for their physical and mental health

And the DfE's Chief Scientific Advisor needs to go back to school to learn how to evaluate and answer a question! That video of the committee was shocking.

The risk to children is minuscule. Do the adults there not count?

My dc school sent a letter today saying they will only be teaching English and maths and they will only be open 9-12. No lunch time or breaks.
Staff and children in ks2 will be encouraged to wear masks, no parents on site it’s a drop at the gate and leave situation and the office is by phone or email only.
I don’t know yet if we will be sending our dc, I’m a key worker and have indirect contact with covid patients so I’m worried, dh is keen to send them though.

@MH1111 the risk isn't necessarily to children, it's to their families. It's the fact that so many people that are infected are asymptomatic, and can spread it to many before anyone realises.

@ADreamOfGood and a risk to teachers surely too?

Yubaba, this is the reality that people aren't getting. What you have described is the new normal, in no way is that good for children's mental or physical health. In fact, it's a very stressful and pressured situation. For very limited gains.

@Yubaba that is interesting.

@DreamofGood - precisely - so DfE has not used any modelling for their recommendations. All those vectors coming together is a suck it and see situation but the DfE dont want to say that

Siddalee I think parents will have to stick to what they say they are going to do. These are extraordinary times and it would be unreasonable to expect ultimate flexibility of the school nevermind what your emotions are doing.. Its what 3 weeks before June 1st. And if the other children are to have 4 weeks in school before the holidays they need to start after middle of June. So I would say parents have the next 2 to 6 weeks to make their minds up - this is plenty of time.
Our school has already written to say they will continue to look after key workers children but there will be no catering, school bus, breakfast club or after school club. Atleast we know where we stand.

@MH1111 some perspective about what? That it doesn't matter what happens to the adults at school? As long as you can get shut of your kids and they don't miss a few weeks of (very altered) learning.

user1635482648

I thought it was "up to 15" , according to the space available once 2m distancing has been implemented.

It contradicts itself by saying if possible and larger groups if required.
Paraphrased.

Sorry @ineedaholidaynow I thought it was a given that school staff are at high risk from this strategy! I cannot believe the guidance ('draft guidance', apparently ) says no PPE. Medical staff and caring staff are given PPE. Staff in EYFS are just as close to pupils' effluvia as caring/medical staff.

Check this out from the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/13/analysis-danger-coronavirus-compares-risks-everyday-life/

'In April, Imperial College modelled the death rates for the virus, factoring in for the first time less serious cases which will never trouble the health service. While the overall death rate of those in hospital is hovering at around 1.3 per cent, or about one in 77, it falls dramatically to 0.66 per cent, or one in 152, when mild and asymptomatic cases are included.

The same lowering of risk holds true for all age ranges, and means that the chance of dying for children contracting coronavirus is miniscule, approximately 0.0069 per cent for 10 to 29 year olds – one in 14,492.

For the under-10s, there is even less risk – around 0.0016 per cent, or one in 62,500. Those in their 20s have a one in 1,666 chance of death, while for 30-somethings it is one in 1,190. For people in their 40s it is approximately one in 625, in their 50s one in 169 and in their 60s nearly one in 50. Over-70s have a roughly one in 23 risk of death.'

@scatterbrainbox

We are all going to have to get used to living (and dying) with covid 19.
The economy is lives. There is not a choice between lives and the economy. Thousands will die as a result of a deep recession, mental health will suffer too.

Really MH1111, and what risk taking job do you do?

'The avoidable mortality rate in Britain, which includes accidents, unintentional injuries and some preventable diseases, is currently 228 people per 100,000, or 0.2 per cent.

But the risk from coronavirus for the general population does not rise above that until people hit their 50s – so for anyone under that age the disease is less risky than the general underlying chance of death from preventable causes.'

So if you are under 50 coronavirus doesnt add any significant risk to your life (assuming you are 'average').

Scatterbrainbox your risk of dying is very small unless you are elderly / have underlying health issues / obese.

Thanks for posting OP but I think you're wasting your breath....all determined to find everything terrible. Hilarious really since this is basically just nicked from what Germany is doing. If you'd said "hey look these are the German guidelines", everyone would have gone ooh good idea aren't the Germans pragmatic.

Refer to this list for high risk factors:
The underlying conditions which increase risk to survival for patients hospitalised with Covid-19
Dementia: increases death risk by 39 per cent
Obesity: 37 per cent
Chronic heart disease: 31 per cent
Chronic kidney disease: 25 per cent
Chronic pulmonary disease: 19 per cent
Presence of tumours: 19 per cent

I'm none of those things. Plenty of my colleagues, however, are. It's very easy to be blase about the value of life when it is strangers' lives you are talking about.

The issues are about infection rates and transmission rates MrPickles That article is a study risk to death based on severity.

You are aware that the Chief Scientific advisor in that meeting admitted that they have not been discussing transmissions rates and that it could be high ‘depending on the size of the classroom’
Do look at the recent studies from other countries that have found children under 10 are just as likely to get infected as adults from The Lancet.

’Notably, the rate of infection in children younger than 10 years (7.4 per cent) was similar to the population average (6.6 per cent). and this was from China.

In response to that paper in The Lancet:

Professor Simon Clarke, a virus expert at the University of Reading, told The Times: 'This is an important paper. It means we should be extremely careful. As children are carriers, reopening schools could expose parents, grandparents and teachers to infection and in turn anyone they might come into contact with... risking a second wave.'

Tootletum

Its called a discussion, if your not capable of having one why bother posting?

Mrpickles

But teachers fall into those categories. We have around 16 staff at our school. Six will not be coming in because they fall into the underlying health category groups.
Another three are over 50 but will be in.
We will have smaller numbers of children to start with, which is just as well, because we will have to have much smaller classes plus people to clean stuff a lot more than usual (we don’t use a cleaning firm. Our cleaner is a parent who comes in after school but she is also shielding so as well as everything else we have to find a firm. We just don’t have the money for it...)

But if the numbers of kids go up, that’s more people who could transmit the virus and with a staffing body that contains people in the at risk group.
And listen to the Chief Scientist in the DfE committee earlier saying that there is ‘very low confidence in the data that show children don’t really spread the virus.’ Basically, there is some evidence but it is nowhere near proven yet.