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.

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.

This. Every word of it.

I am not getting into the debate at the date of return as we all know that has less to do with education and more to do with the fact that the lockdown has been lifted and people need to be able to go back to work. I know that kids need to go back to school; my dd is desperate to return. I don't think calling the measures a prison camp is helpful though. However, I do think they chose the wrong year groups completely if they wanted to do it safely. Year R and Year 1 children will find this very difficult and that was a terrible decision. I actually think these children should be the last to go back precisely because they will find these measures hardest to manage.

By the way I don't know any teacher who would not administer an epipen in an emergency. It is a given.

Administering an epipen requires close contact with someone’s thigh. I doubt anyone would hesitate to do that in an emergency. I wouldn’t blame anyone for refusing to do mouth to mouth resuscitation on someone, though, but chances of ever needing to do that in a primary school are extremely low.

You can administer the EpiPen through clothing as well.

You’d be considered a bit odd if you did take a child’s clothes off before administering an epipen.

@walkaround neither approach is wrong or odd.
I was just clarifying that "contact with thigh" didn't mean skin contact.

It seems to me that the govt are just coming up with any old rubbish in order to make it appear they have some sort of strategy. People should wear face coverings at work and when out and about but teachers don’t need to; people should avoid public transport but should still return to work; families should not mix but kids can go back to school and spread it around there; we should all socially distance apart from in schools where it’s not possible. It’s all contradictory nonsense and they’re making it up as they go along, trying to fit measures into their plans, rather than making plans to actually stop the spread of the virus.

NeverTwerkNaked - hmm. I think unnecessary removal of a child’s garments might put a first aider at risk of parental complaints, so not removing clothing unnecessarily is self-protection for the first aider. Epipens are supposed to be able to get through thick denim, so no problem with school trousers or tights.

@cansu - Ooft. What kind of standard of lessons are you going to be able to have without prep time? Madness. I wish they’d just come out and say that this is childcare so that parents can get back to work and figure out a way to do that, rather than pretending this is going to be education.

Oh I know that it isn't necessary. I was simply clarifying in case your comment about contact with the thigh caused confusion.

But at home, with my own children, allergy clinic have been clear it is a personal preference which approach to take. I have administered Epipens through jeans but equally given the pain and bruising it causes I might be minded in future to take the jeans off first and put something more comfortable on the child after

@Walkaround It depends on the item of clothing, in winter some clothing is quite thick, it’s also hard to massage if it’s for example a padded winter trouser.

The NEU (teacher’s union) guidance on epipen use:
“In cases of accident and emergency, teachers must, of course, always be prepared to help as they and other school staff in charge of pupils have their general legal duty of care to act as any reasonably prudent parent would.“
However:
“teachers’ conditions of service do not include any legal or contractual obligation to administer medicine or to supervise a pupil taking medicine.”
In practice I can’t think of a teacher who would not administer an epipen in an emergency, however not all of them have been trained and it is not a duty they have to perform.
Head teachers can not force a teacher to administer any medication or provide any first aid even in normal times. They will be wary of even asking at the moment when teachers are dealing with so many complete changes to their normal work.
Science has shown that the virus is as prevalent in children as it is in the general population. Teachers are really scared of what catching the virus means to them and their families.
Science shows that it’s the amount of virus you are exposed to that determines your risk. That can be a one off high dose, such as being sneezed on or licked (both not uncommon in early years teaching) or it can be a low dose over time, such as being in a classroom of normally breathing children for a few hours.

To refuse to administer an EpiPen you would be working on the assumption that you would rather watch a child die uncomforted than spend 12 seconds in close proximity to them on the offchance that on the same day they had an anaphylactic reaction they also had coronavirus. And on the offchance you were one of the (statistically rare) under 60s who got very ill. Good luck living with that decision for the rest of your life.

@SaskiaRembrandt their lives wouldn't be at risk! We need people to get a grip! The vast majority of people who get the virus will be absolutely fine. And the chance of catching the virus from the child needing the Epipen are vanishingly small. We don't avoid all other risks in life. Maybe teachers shouldn't drive to work in case they die in a car accident? We need to get a sense of proportion here. By your argument, no doctor or nurse should go to work as they could pick up the virus...we can't live our lives like this with everyone feeling they must protect themselves AT ALL COSTS from catching the virus

And I won't be guilted into not sending my EpiPen carrying child to school and nor should anyone be.

Maybe you should talk to your child's school first before you assume the worst based on one poster's comment.

I will be @cansu and actually I would be astonished if they were planning to take this approach.

But it doesn't stop me being horrified that any school has said this is the case and that any posters are arguing that it is a defendable stance to take.

Year 1 children will find this very difficult and that was a terrible decision. I actually think these children should be the last to go back precisely because they will find these measures hardest to manage. You'd think year 5 and 6 would make sense. Year 6 to help with the transition and year 5 as they have SATS within a year. Have they explained why they have chosen YR and Y1?

I think there is no reason for year 1 s to find it any harder than the current situation (and for some it will be substantially better than what may be a very bleak home life right now).

@NeverTwerkNaked so that explains why Year 1s might want to go back but it doesn't explain why the government decided that with 7 year groups in primary schools they made the choices they did. Would year 2 find it any harder than Year 2, some children change schools at the end of keystage 1 so why not them, some children change schools in year 4, if they have a middle school system, so why not them.

I'd just be interested in the reasoning.

From my experience as someone who has experienced DV- because tiny children are the most vulnerable. I assume that is at least part of the logic. And because they are the hardest to teach remotely?

There is a lot of play-based learning in reception in particular so I am not sure why reception has been chosen educationally. I am not sure that the effects of domestic violence would be worse for reception and yr 1 than say y2, 3 or indeed any other year group.

@SimonJT - I have never seen an English primary schoolchild wearing padded winter trousers in school. Inappropriately thin clothing and no coat I see frequently, but I have never padded trousers. It would be nice if more children had appropriate winter clothing, as more time could then be spent outdoors, but I have never seen padded trousers in school in this part of the UK! I should imagine parents would have less excuse to complain if you did have to remove a child’s padded trousers before administering medication to their thigh, however!

@1forsorrow guidance claims it is because of all the learning that they will be missing that are necessary building blocks.

Personally I think it is because Year 1 and below are hard to wfh with and it’s about getting the workforce back