To think there's no need to worry about socially distancing in schools in September?

[Blockpavingpath]

Because all the dc are out in droves where I live - and I live in a naice area (not that that counts). We've still got 3 months to go it can only get more prolific.There's no way many of them won't have mingled over the Summer and trying to distance them after that will be a meaningless farce.
Disclaimer - my own dc are not allowed out.

My attitude is that my reception age child male pick it up when she goes back to school so whilst she's at school we'll not come into contact with my parents. She's sensible though and whilst she won't social distance she is already very good about washing her hands (and she does it properly) and she will listen when I say about not hugging her friends for instance. If teachers are wiping the tables regularly as well then that reduces risk.

What I'm hoping for is if we get it the viral load will be low as precautions have been taken.

“ The disease is very very low risk to anyone under the age of 65 with no health conditions. Like miniscule risk.”

That’s what they said about the 1918 pandemic.
Then it mutated for the 2nd wave.

If it’s safe, then why aren’t MPs back in Parliament?

So when the teachers and TAs start dropping like flies, who will do the teaching then?

I don't think weeks struggling to breathe and then many further weeks to recover is that low risk - and that is how it has affected fit, younger people in many cases.

My son in law is due back in school in June. He and my daughter have very young children, and my daughter has a heart problem. I really don't want him to go back. I don't understand why people are so desperate to send their children back so soon. Don't they think about the risks?

Tanith this is worth a read about previous pandemics.

What I'm hoping for is if we get it the viral load will be low as precautions have been taken.

The viral load won't be low for the adults in the classroom with the infected child all day though.

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot more antisocial behaviour coming soon. What are some bored teenagers going to do with nothing else to do? It's like the long summer holiday but with nothing open and no activities running. Police need to be enforcing the rules now or it is only going to escalate.

Schools didnt shut to protect children though.

They shut to stop the spread. Because in schools diseases spread like wildfire

Whilst the risk to children maybe low the risk to teachers is higher, many teachers will be from BAME, have underlying health conditions etc. Their families will be at risk too. Then the parents of the children. Then all these adults are out and about in sainsburies mingling with the over 65s.

If you have schools open you cannot stop the spread.

@DippyAvocado

Why wouldn't it be low. There is unlikely to be lots of coughing and certainly no ago. Children won't be expelling large amounts of virus. Viral load concept refers to an incident of exposure not cumulative. Frequent low dose exposure might be the safest kind.

I’ve seen nothing like that here .
All kids seem to be out with their own families and that’s it, no children playing out with friends or anything

they just don’t care to think beyond the immediate consequences for themselves and their children and can’t imagine why anyone else would care, either

Everyone needs to start thinking as if they had the virus, and takes steps in their behaviour, movement etc, to ensure that they don't pass it on to others.

That way we might achieve a workable sense of how we need to treat each other.

Oh, and tracking & tracing. And TESTING

I think social distancing will not be a requirement for schools going back in September. It is simply not feasible, unless the government are planning to either reduce education to part time or build a shed load more schools, neither of which is again, workable. The most sensible answer is ditch the 2m thing and let those who are happy with that blaze the trail for others to follow later.

Frequent low dose exposure might be the safest kind

Hmm, how does this tally with this expert view?

The Risks and How to Avoid them

She argues that
"Successful Infection = Exposure to Virus x Time"

And comments:

The principle is viral exposure over an extended period of time. In all these cases, people were exposed to the virus in the air for a prolonged period (hours). Even if they were 50 feet away (choir or call center), even a low dose of the virus in the air reaching them, over a sustained period, was enough to cause infection and in some cases, death.

In addition to Cat's link, the New Scientist has an article which reports that there is no difference in the amount of virus present in those with no symptoms, mild symptoms or severe symptoms. So those asymptomatic children are just as likely to be passing it on.

www.newscientist.com/article/2238819-does-a-high-viral-load-or-infectious-dose-make-covid-19-worse/

@CatandtheFiddle

Sure. That would be one incident. I was meaning more serial exposure multiple times over weeks. And that is refering to the chance of getting infected. The concept of viral load is usually used to explain why the severity of infection might vary. Ie two people get infected but one gets infected with a large amount of virus at once via a respiratory route the other gets less virus absorbed enterally or by eye mucosa etc. I think you're confusing two things there.

I was meaning more serial exposure multiple times over weeks

I think if you read the whole document I linked to, the author (an immunological researcher) argues that indeed serial exposure multiple times over is high risk for contracting COVID-19. She explains how a checkout worker is at far more risk than someone passed by a heavy-breathing cyclist, for example.

Obviously. Risk of catching virus does not equal risk of severity though. It's about severity where people typically use the phrase viral load.

The stats would show there is little to no need to do it in schools now. The disease is very very low risk to anyone under the age of 65 with no health conditions. Like miniscule risk.

Low risk statistically for admission to hospital and death comparatively.

But ..... you have to take into account that some staff will be absent due to shielding. Some will be clinically vulnerable and therefore higher risk whatever age group. Some children will also be in this category. So staffing and numbers will not be a case of just returning.

Plus...... risk does not correlate to transmission. All those in low risk of death are not any less risk of catching the virus or carrying it asymptomatically.

So..... just opening schools could cause mini epidemics and schools having to completely close due to the spread which they spend half the winter trying to avoid with the dreaded norovirus.

And all those will have or could have spread out into the community.

During a pandemic the risk isn't about each individual or setting it's about the community and transmission.

Social distancing in schools is bullshit.

It just is. It will be lip service - they can try their best and have bubbles and half classes and everything, but the fact is that every child going to school will inevitably have repeated situations where it is possible that they will have been virus exposed. Every day.

If there is one or more children with COVID in a school, they will infect others. No, it might not rip through a class as quickly as if they were all breathing over one another all day but as an easily transmissable disease, it WILL spread because the children are in the same room for hours of the day and are occasionally close by one another, in corridors, bathrooms etc.

So when schools go back it's likely we'll see a rise in cases if the disease is still in the community (which I assume it will be).

There will be no option then but for the govt to come clean and say, our policy is now herd immunity. Because they won't shut the schools again, will they?

I’ve not seen any children out grocery shopping for the past 8 weeks. Today, kids everywhere

There will be no option then but for the govt to come clean and say, our policy is now herd immunity. Because they won't shut the schools again, will they?

Their policy always has been herd immunity. I don't think that has changed, even in calling for national lockdown - my cynical view is that that was in response to the growing horror in public opinion at seeing what was happening in Italy.

The PM having a very serious dose of COVID-19 slowed that policy a little - he's not as gung-ho about his "We just have to accept that some people will die" policy as he was. But the rest of his cabinet seem less convinced that it's serious.

There's a creeping sense of "only the old, the fat, and the already ill" will die, and it's really not pretty. Particularly the repetition of "they were going to die anyway" about elderly frail people, and those with serious underlying illnesses.

Why aren't you allowing your children out?

My teen DC have both met a friend for a social distanced walk/kick about.

Why aren't yours allowed out OP? I've seen a few groups of teens hanging around by the park by us but that's all, considering the fact there are thousands of teens in our area it certainly isn't all of them out in droves. Is there a reason you've not thought about the teachers or other staff? The viral load on them could be huge.

65 education works had died with covid19 as of 20 April. I imagine there have been more since

Mine won't be going back until they can have meaningful contact with their friends and peers, well certainly the youngest two anyway. They have been brilliant with lockdown and social distancing but they are 5yo, in a roomfull full of their friends, nah. We normally have their friends over/they go to friends everyday, the confusion of doing one and not the other I think would be too much.

All of our playground supervisors are in the 70+ at least 80 range.