Children are not super spreaders, but answer me this...

[Happymind]

We can contract Covid 19 from objects so must take precautions... but not so much from children?

And children can go to school and be in contact with teachers, as they're not "super spreaders" but can not be around family members or grandparents outside their household?

The UK are following guidance from other countries regarding sending children back to school. They are reassured that there will be little or no covid outbreaks judging by other countries success. Yet the UK appear to be the only ones not providing PPE for students and staff?

Am I missing something?

This

@Happymind

Bahaa- I'm using my brain!! My children haven't mixed for 2 months. My mum and dad (60's and healthy and active), haven't mixed. Government says we can't see them. However my children may return to school where apparently the risk is less??

So assuming there is no vaccine this year...what are you proposing as the situation isn't going to change dramatically from June onwards? I assume you are intending to keep your children isolated and until the virus is extinguished.

The damage being done to children being out of school is massive. Maybe not so much those from middle class families who can contribute some home schooling and maybe a tutor in the future if need be. But those children from poor and disadvantaged families, some of which have parents not as motivated as you Op are being massively damaged. Some schools are so concerned they are delivering food parcels to those families and insisting they see the kids every week. Many of those kids are left to go to bed when they want, get up when they want and live playing on Xbox, often left alone. These are the poor ones being damaged massively by being out of school.

So after all this, I get massively pissed of when I see teachers and their union bleating about risk to them from handling kids work when marking it. From the teachers I know, they don't seem bothered about pushing trolleys around supermarkets not always wiped, picking stuff up from shelves not having a clue who has handled it but suddenly when it comes to going back to work they want the schools to replicate the standard of a sterile operating theatre with medical grade equipment. Well get real teachers and the holier than thou parents . We have to start going back to reality and all credit to the small number of teachers that have been coming into school to look after and teach the children of key workers. At out local school it is noticeable that it is always the same teachers whilst their colleagues didn't volunteer. Perhaps these are the ones that want risk assessments coming out of their backsides before they will shift.

I waiting for the next bleating about coming into school in the holidays for summer school to help those kids needing it

Really? Do you really need this explaining to you? Quite honestly if you don’t get it despite extremely clear explanation from sage I’m not sure any amount of explaining on mumsnet will help.

www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-kids-back-school-august-18273315

this is a wee idea of what Glasgow have proposed for the future

Hence why it is deemed safe for a 50 year old adult to spend several hours indoors, without social distancing, with 25 young children but that same person can only see their own grandchild if they are on their own (without their parent), outdoors and from 2m away.

It's not that one is safe and the other isn't, it's that one brings more overall benefits to the population and country as a whole than the other does. Seeing grandparents and having contact with them is a really nice, positive part of life. Educating children is an essential part of life. The risk is not less, the need is more.

*Not necessarily less, I should say. In many ways it is less, because most teachers are not 60+ with physical health conditions that make them particularly vulnerable.

Well argued Nonotthatdr

I do agree with Aragog though about the government's motives. While I personally agree with re-opening schools, I don't think the government are doing so for any altruistic reasons about education or social equality. If they were, they would do what other countries are doing and allow part-time schooling and other measures that would reduce risk more. It is obviously more about childcare and making it easier for employers to get workers back in.

The main danger from an object is the desire to bang your head against it after reading some of the “but why can’t we “ questions.

The full week or a few days at school will benefit a child more than an afternoon at Grans.

Socialising in extended family groups is one of our biggest risks. Because the interactions are different from those with colleagues or strangers. A 1:1 outside meeting is very different from meeting up in family groups. If you cannot imagine that, go outside and observe it. People sitting 1:1 are spaced out. Families meeting up to picnic are in huddles, sharing food and drink. Meeting at the house will spill indoors even if it starts in the house.

I can't work out why it's not safe for dh to be back in the office but dd1 can go back to school.

People continuously confuse personal safety with societal safety.

If everyone who can work from home does, it means there are less people coming into contact with another.

Office workers can do this easily. Construction works obviously can't work from home.

It's not rocket science.

From the Independent - www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-france-school-cases-reopen-lockdown-a9520386.html

Coronavirus: France sees 70 cases linked to schools days after reopening

oldie so 70 cases have been transmitted in schools within days of them opening?

Thats strange. France had 358 new cases yesterday and even if we add a few more days into that its not particularly high.

France locked down after Spain / Italy yet they have only that number of cases on a daily basis.

Something is not stacking up in France.

One thing that annoys me is people talking about “children” getting fewer symptoms and not passing covid-19 on easily, without clarifying what age one ceases to count as a “child” in this respect. My understanding is it’s a load of old codswallop that there is any evidence at secondary school age that this age group of “children” are less likely to pass the virus on, or any less likely to die than healthy 20-somethings. “Children” are children under the age of 10 when it comes to the theory they can skip around with covid 19 without their snot and spittle (which they share more readily than other age groups) being of any particular danger to anyone. And obviously the theory about not passing covid 19 on is still just a theory, or there would be a lot of happy reunions between elderly grandparents and their youngest grandchildren being allowed to take place by now.

That said, the risk of schools going back is very much more to the adults driving their public transport, feeding them, cleaning up after them, doing their first aid and teaching them, and to their older family members if they do bring the virus home, than it is to the children, and there are certainly huge benefits to children in being back in school.

But I don't teach under 10s. So that data is no good to me. I'd like the data that shows how 14-18 year olds spread it differently to adults please. Because that's who I'm going to be in a small enclosed space with windows that open an inch or 2. And I can as easily give it to them as they can to me.
The comparisons with countries where so few people have died are useless - if less people have it then less people can pass it on. But we have thousands still catching it every day so transmission chances are higher. We all want to go back but safety for everyone. In France kids are wearing face shields. In other countries masks for teachers and students. Denmark have installed outside sinks. All great ideas. What do we get ? Weak guidance that keeps changing. Let's do it properly.

It's really nothing to do with the children at all.

It's so that the blue-collar workers' kids are out of the house so they can go back to work for their corporate overlords, making money for the billionaires.

That this'll kill off some more non-essential people is not really part of the decision matrix. Gran isn't making money for the landed gentry.

I for one would hate to have to work in the way the government is being forced to do. Talk about baptism by fire

Oh please. They made sure we were behind plenty of other countries who were tackling the virus outbreak, testing and tracing, lockdown, etc. in imaginative and effective ways (eg. South Korea, Germany) and refused to snap into action and apply the learning that was already happening elsewhere. Instead they twiddled their thumbs for weeks and put thousands of people here at fatal risk, including the public servants obliged to work on the deadly frontline. Two months later we still get frankly frightening 'performances' from the Health Secretary on daily briefings that would be hilarious if they were satire but since they're not, are decidedly sinister.

So no need to apologise for the so-called government. They clearly don't believe in the concept, or in admitting their mistakes.

I think people do understand but a lot of the time just want to make a political point .

My husband said to me yesterday about the spreading ( not the severity of the symptoms because that's to do with the immune system as we get older ) is it because the biggest risk is proven to be face to face conversation ( you could have no symptoms and pass it on) and children are so much shorter that MOST of the time they will not be talking into a teachers face ?

I did not have an answer for that .

Its not as simple as X activity is "safe" while Y activity is "unsafe".

Perhaps visiting grandparents is less risky than going to school, but the benefit (to the child and to society) is less. If they government said you "might as well see grandparents because you're going to school" then you would have the risk from/to grandparents PLUS the risk from/to school, rather than one or the other.

Using this logic we might as well do everything. If its "safe" to go to the supermarket, it must also be "safe" to go to clothes shops, electronics shops etc. Yes the risk is probably the same. But people would do BOTH and therefore the risk is more. The government is doing the risk/benefit analysis for is and trying to balance risk against the benefit for individuals and society.

I don't think the government are doing so for any altruistic reasons about education or social equality.

It is obviously more about childcare and making it easier for employers to get workers back in.

Work is a far more fundamental goal than education or social equality. Work pays for lots of things, but the most fundamental of those is food. Without food we die. Education and social equality are things we can afford to worry about only after we've paid for food, shelter, energy, broadband, etc.

@TheHighestSardine

that's ok then - lets all stay on lockdown and punish the business owners --- oh no wait a minute - that means no one will have a job - no money to pay for food or housing . That's ok the councils will pick up the bill .

but no - they wont have any rents or rates coming in form the business owners - so they wont be able to help with housing benefit either .

if only life and motives were as black and white as you make out. We would all be in utopia

The reality is about 300 people under age 45 have died of CV19 and we are choosing to destroy the lives of the many to save the very few

^^This, a thousand times over. @Xenia

Susieowl its not a linear thing - look at aerosols, they float about and it doesn't have to be in your face speaking for the spread to happen. ALso one exposure doesn't mean you will get it it has to be also about viral loads, how well your immune system is and so on

ATM the science shows children are at extremely low risk to suffer dangerous effects of the virus . that has been shown world wide and the government are not making that up . Schools have remained open for keyworkers so they have had some experience of how it will work .

whether we should wait until Sept - I am not sure - but I do know parents have the choice and wont be fined .

That's true Random and that's part of why I do think schools should re-open -- we can't shut down the economy much longer.

But in other countries, for example, they are splitting classes in two and having kids go back part-time in different groups, to minimise exposure while still making it easier for parents to get back to work if they can. There's a sense of trying to balance both concerns.

Coronavirus: France sees 70 cases linked to schools days after reopening
incubation period is longer than a few days, so while the cases have shown up in schools, they are not linked to school as such...

My understanding is that children can be carriers and spreaders as much as adults. But children don’t usually display symptoms and are not affected in the same and are not at the same risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from this virus.

Can you share the basis of your understanding on children being spreaders as much as adults? I thought the (early) evidence base was indicating that the opposite was true - that child to adult transmission was rare?