I’m very disappointed by this decision. Not based on any assessments of actual risks posed to children (or indeed teachers) based on current evidence. It is possible there may be a slight increase in r rate- but most projections suggest this is small (and short-lived). I also think effective track and trace systems are important- but no a million miles away from that. I understand the return of schools might not happen immediately- but it could be done even for a short period. And why can’t schools who have longer terms re-start and work through to their beginning/mid-July end of term (if they wish to)?
Evidence is that children under age of 15, and especially under age of 10, rarely become seriously unwell (even when they have underlying health problems). They usually have mild illness or no symptoms at all. Children are also far, far less likely to spread the disease when they do have it. For instance, one case study suggested an infected child had over 170 contacts before 1 transmission. Population studies of the Italian village of Vo (extensive serial testing when whole village in isolation) also suggest children less likely to test positive for the illness even if they live with an infected person and no obvious cases where a child was the index case. I will concede data is not extensive, but it is consistent. Data regarding the rate of infection (I.e. do children get the virus just as often as adults or not) is a bit less clear.
If children are less likely to pass it on to each other or to teachers (and therefor less likely to take it home as unlikely to pick it up at school), and are less likely to become ill if they do catch it (you are statistically more likely to have an RTA both on the way to school and then again on the way home than of your child becoming seriously unwell due to Covid-19 infection).
The main risk is teacher-teacher transmission and if parents congregate at drop off/pick up time. The focus needs to be around making plans to mitigate these risks, but it really is not impossible to do- it does require planning and quite possibly additional resources. I accept those plans hard to put in place in a week or so for all schools- but those that can show they have workable/safe plans should be able to so.
I’ve heard quite a few teachers say “it’s too risky to children”- evidence doesn’t support that. There is, however, a very real risk to children of damage to their future prospects if their education suffers. Disadvantaged children are going to be disproportionately affected, this is going to take a long time to rectify- if it ever can be (for these cohorts). Many children are suffering psychologically from the isolation from their friends. We risk our fear becoming more damaging than the real risk posed.
I’ve also the heard quite a few teachers say they didn’t sign up to teaching knowing they would have to put their lives at risk. This is true. But neither did many, many key workers- I guess teachers wouldn’t be happy if we all decided to stay at home. I suppose you could argue clinical staff are aware they may come into contact with infectious diseases, but hospital porters, cleaners, frontline NHS admin, bus drivers, workers in food production and retail, delivery drivers etc most certainly did not sign up to a job which posed a risk to their lives. So why is it ok to put these people at risk (and far greater risk than teachers), but teachers can’t be?