Or have they just not got a clue

[Yolo2]

Jenny Harries today at the Government press briefing suggested that pencil cases will be banned at schools in case children share their contents, but lunch boxes will be allowed as she could "almost guarantee" that a child would not share their lunch with anyone sitting 2 metres away. What a load of utter nonsense. Is that based on any science whatsoever? If the Government are following the science, and this is the sort of dross the science is coming up with, we should worry!! How can a child not borrow a pencil but we can order takeaway food to our homes? How can the Deputy Chief Medical Officer "almost guarantee" that kids won't share their lunches. I'm afraid her medical training doesn't qualify her to have a better idea of the likelihood of kids sharing lunches than the average man on the street

So now we know pencils transmit Coronavirus (!) can we ever be safe using the supermarket? I handle my products, pass them to the cashier, who handles them, after touching all the products handled by every customer before me. (I understand some people have taken to bleaching their shopping but come on ) But shared pencils - prohibited. If kids can be trusted to not go near each other (?), can't they be trusted not to lend pencils?

We are in danger of utter madness invading every aspect of life. Social distancing, yes. Ridiculous rules from government on pencil cases etc. is quite another and is making things seem ludicrous.

@millymollymoomoo
I agree with literally everything you have said

The fear that some spread will impact on the mental health of children for years. The way some talk on here is worrying. If they talk like that in front of children their children will become anxious wrecks.

The virus is extremely low risk for children but mental health issues will be a much higher risk. Sad.

How about the children go back to school when all MPs return to the HOC!

This comparison to the HOC is ludicrous. As much as I dislike the government it's entirely different risk categories

SimonJT

@Chillipeanuts I’m confused by your post, where have I said that there won’t be school lunches?“

You didn’t: I assumed, because your school’s advice implied that children would be eating from their lunchboxes from home at their desks. That suggested to me that the school kitchen/dining room wouldn’t be operating.

Do you know if it will?

I'm sick of hearing the "I'll send my kids back when the MPS are back in the House of Commons" argument.
It's a completely different situation and the risks are massively different.
As much as I dislike a lot of them, they are older, more likely to have underlying health conditions etc.

I think that schools do need to tell parents how things will be organised. It does sound dreadful but it is all in the guidance sent to schools about what they must do. However, it needs to be shared with parents in a neutral manner and with the additional message that they will of course do their best to make the experience as positive as they can for the children. I know that staff will do that anyway but it ought to put alongside the list of infection control measures. It isn't anyone's fault that parents need their kids to go to school. I am a parent and a teacher and I know it won't be great but it will be OK for the kids. They will adapt. The worse aspect for the children will be the lack of opportunities to play with their friends. The worst aspect for the staff will be trying to stay distant from the children and all the washing and disinfecting not to mention teaching children you don't normally have or in some cases subjects you don't normally teach. The govmt guidance also instructs schools to use TAs to lead groups if they are short of staff. The key for schools is to provide the info neutrally, try to follow the guidance to keep the children safe and to protect their staff by instructing them not to put themselves at risk. This will mean not teaching things they normally would as most things require some 1:1 teaching and help.

I also agree about Jenny Harries; she is much more willing to 'help' the minister at the press conference than Witty who is much more careful.

The letter posted up thread is just terrible. How can a school refuse administer first aid?
Surely the risk of harm to an injured child is higher than the possible risk of catching covid from that child in the 2 or 3 mins it takes to assist them.
And many people are saying this is not education but childcare, well this letter makes it clear it is education, with children sitting at desks all day, no play times or outdoors times, learning from a teacher who stays at the front of the class talking at them, and not helping individual children.
Very Victorian.

And we have never been advised to not touch anything ever, that other people have touched. I know shopping trolleys are wiped down, and parks closed, but we all have to touch some things. Items in shops, door handles, money, post, buttons at pedestrian crossings, and I'm sure a myriad of other things.
We can't live in a totally sterile atmosphere, and imposing it on children is just way way over the top.
Look at how Denmark has returned to school, they have bubbles, and those bubbles dont mix, but the children play outdoors, and the teachers seem kind.
That letter just seems to show the school will be a prison camp.

What gets me is, if children are such low risk then why do schools have to be so strict on pencil sharing and cleaning their toilets? You can’t have it both ways. If children need to be kept 2m apart, their pencils are dangerous and adults cannot touch them when they have wet themselves, soiled their pants or fallen over and have blood running down their face, then they should not be back at school. If it is actually OK for children to touch each other, share pencils and toys and go to the toilet a few times before the toilet needs to be cleaned, then fine, they should be back at school. If it’s OK for adults to physically help them when they have wet themselves and to let them use spare, dry clothing provided by school to change into, then send back the little ones first. If not, then why send back the least physically competent first? I would have thought the stress of going back to school in strange circumstances is likely to increase the incidence of toiletting accidents for a while! It might be better to increase confidence in schools’ ability to cope with older age groups, first - eg start with the six year olds, not the 4 and 5 year olds, and then work from there as a sense of normalit returns?

Are hospitals cleaning all of their toilets and sinks after every single use?

*normality

millymollymoomoo totally agree with your post.

Look at how Denmark has returned to school,

Schools in England are being asked to prioritize the younger years, nursery, reception and yr1, if space doesn't allow for all chosen year groups to return.

If those children were in Denmark they would be in a group of up to 6 children.

The Danish Health Authority recommend groups of three for children three years old or younger, and groups of five or six for children over the age of three.

Btw, primary school in Denmark does not start until age 6.

Bladeofgrass Are you aware of the difference in infection rate and deaths between the UK and Danemark? The UK has over 30,000 deaths , Danemark has 543! I am not sure that is a very valid comparison.

I’m interested in when teachers are going to get breaks or lunch. If they’re being expected to supervise break times to ensure social distancing and lunch times at desks when do they get to eat and go to the toilet themselves?

Oh and before I have multiple posts telling me I have written Denmark incorrectly, I know! I mistakenly wrote the French version, revealing my subject!

I realise they are in small groups in Denmark, and the children I saw in the clip I watched about it were 7, but if we can't offer a reassuring, safe and caring environment like they have, why send the children back at all.
If all the measures in the letter are needed, it's better not to bother.
I won't even facilitate parents getting back to work, if they have to be on call for the smallest of injuries and they know the children wont be getting even basic first aid if they need it.

I am also interested to find that out Murray as we have also been told that we won't have any lesson prep time at all either.

I’ve read a couple of positive articles from an international school in Copenhagen about reopening - but that would be a particularly wealthy, well resourced school even by Danish standards, so it seems an odd comparison to make with under-resourced English schools that are reopening for children 2-years younger than their Danish counterparts, tbh. It would be nice to have their facilities and to be able to employ the extra staff they have taken on, though.

Bladeofgrass
Why do you think the teachers won't be kind and reassuring? Whether teachers have reservations or worries about plans, they will still be kind and breezy about things with the children. In the run up to lockdown, despite everyone being worried in private, we were also upbeat and positive with the children.

Cansu, then let's not go back to school yet. Get the rates lower before trying.
Just a few more weeks should help, how about beginning of July as a target?
If they only get 3 weeks of school it's at least a start and the children can get used to being with others, without their parents again.
Resettling the youngest children will be very challenging, and needs a sensitive, caring atmosphere to go to, not a prison camp. It will be terrifying for them.

Absolute breach of the Equalities Act to say you won't administer an EpiPen . And that's just for starters. it would be manslaughter to allow a child to die when you could save their life.

Not if doing so puts your own life at risk.

@saskiarembrandt people run into burning fires to pull others out. People dice into water to pull someone in difficulty out. Anyone who truly would not be prepared to administer an epipen on account of a very tiny risk of covid absolutely should not be working in a school. A very real risk of a child dying any person with any sort of moral compass would be prepared to risk themselves for.

The risk to the adult would be a miniscule one. The risk to a child would be certain death I cannot believe anyone thinks this is defensible in anyway.