School in September

[Mumlookingforadvise]

Hi all,

I have a girl who goes to a school in Wimbledon ( Year 4 ). I am thinking of not sending her to school in Sept due to the current situation around Coronavirus.

AIBU - to not send her to school
AIBNU - Your choice.

What are other parents thinking?

@xolotltezcatlopoca

"Most of us, however, are not going to die of Covid."

That is not reassuring at all, people may not die, but left to live with complications afterwards. That's what is really scary for me.
I have a child with weak immune system, have been hospitalised numerous times after simple cold. I have serious concern about sending dc back. It's not hysteria. Just a simple concern by a parent.

I can see why you are concerned, @xolotltezcatlopoca . However, the OP doesn't have any pre-existing or underlying health concerns.

My point wasn't whether Covid would kill us or leave us with complications. My point was that some people, especially on MN, are trying to eliminate the risk of anyone dying, ever - which is obviously bananas. We are all going to die. Fact. However, most of us will not even contract Covid, never mind have symptoms, or complications relating to Covid. The overwhelming majority of the population will not die either with or of Covid. That was my point.

The main man himself...

This talks about dying. Not long-term complications. There are studies talking about people becoming very ill and suspectible to organ failures. Some Posters have mentioned.

Also they supported Cheltenhem races, Liverpool Madrid match. They said testing is not required and stopped testing. People can go to care homes. Yes, I trust them.

@Koennt "However, most of us will not even contract Covid, never mind have symptoms, or complications relating to Covid. "

What makes you think that most of us won't contract Covid?

The balance of probability, frazzled. The majority won't get it. Of the minority who catches it, the majority will have no or mild symptoms. The minority of the minority will have more serious complications; some of these people will die as a result. This is how these things tend to pan out (swine flu, anyone?)

God I’ll never forget Swine Flu 🤮

@Koennt

The balance of probability, frazzled. The majority won't get it. Of the minority who catches it, the majority will have no or mild symptoms. The minority of the minority will have more serious complications; some of these people will die as a result. This is how these things tend to pan out (swine flu, anyone?)

I don't think that's what the science is saying. I think you would be more honest to say "I fancy my chances, so I'm not really fussed about what happens at a population level". But don't trot out things like "most of us won't even contract covid" as if they were fact.

Hmm, some people have a super optimistic viewpoint. If we let covid run, with no distancing etc., then most of us would get it. The expectation is it would spread very quickly.

If that were to happen, the health, economic and social impacts would be massive with very high numbers of deaths and serious illness.

@Koennt

The balance of probability, frazzled. The majority won't get it. Of the minority who catches it, the majority will have no or mild symptoms. The minority of the minority will have more serious complications; some of these people will die as a result. This is how these things tend to pan out (swine flu, anyone?)

Do you work around law? It's used there mainly.

"The balance of probability, frazzled. The majority won't get it."

These 2 sentences have nothing to do with each other.

Balance of probability is used when you weigh the options and balance the probabilities to come to a most likely conclusion. Eg.: coroner sees a headshot, quick balance of probability in the mind tells him/her that the the man died from being shot. The probability of the man dying from a fall from high is very unlikely, though can't be ruled out totally as there is a small chance.

So in this context it is not a phrase that can be interpreted.
The second sentence is wishful thinking. If there is a high number of infected people around an area and you have to travel through it with TFL and no one wears a mask or uses hand sanitizer then your chances are actually higher. If only one -the one asymptomatic carrier- sneezes on you, then you have almost a 100% chance of getting it. Thus the minimal risk all of a sudden becomes very high risk. There is of course still a chance that your immune system can fight off the few viruses, or your clogged nose won't let them into your system, but these are not the most likely scenarios.

I'm not saying that everyone will die. But it would be great if people understood the fundamentals of science. This virus is not about I hope, I wish, .... or about freedom, liberal values,... it's a mindless virus that has the potential to kill a whole lot more people if we -as a society in the UK- and humanity in general don't do all we can to stop it. But at the end of the day it comes down to individual actions which either can come from a place of understanding, of from fear of retaliation from the gov for not keeping in line with the law.
At the moment what I see is that people only act on the second, and even then it's spotty.

And I blame stupid journalists for spreading half-truths and misinformation to suit some agenda....

the health, economic and social impacts would be massive

They already are massive, as a result of the government scaring people into believing that People Will Die if they step outside their own front doors.

The OP is proposing to remove her child from a school where the child appears to be happy, has friends, and has made good progress. She is proposing to do this because of her own anxiety about Covid. I would say the health and social impact on her daughter would be significant. She hasn't come up with a well-considered HE plan; she's just proposing to keep her daughter off school until it's "safe". It will never, ever be completely safe!

@TheSunIsStillShining You explain it very well. I am not a lawyer, but used to live with one!

@Koennt thanks :) I thought I was going to be shouted at. On MN a lot of reasoning and scientific thinking provokes that for some reason....
(then again, it can come later :))

I honestly think that if we had transparent, up-to-date data available for public consumption and have think tanks? (small groups as there is more types of knowledge needed) who would interpret that data + answer questions and disseminate correct, verified, consensual information locally - than that would be a step ahead.
This could even be locals who have an affinity/training for the subjects needed. And they could self organize to discuss issues on different levels with other groups eg like indie_sage.
(gov would be a stretch.)

Clear gov goalpost and a signposted road on how to get there (look at germany, nz, scots,... ) would be another mandatory step.

But most importantly there would need to be a dataset requirement list of what data will be useful for what and how the gov intends to get it.
Eg.: the ONS weekly sampling is a good thing, but if you start poking it it turns out that it's a nice piece of data, but it can be so easily screwed that it might as well not exist. And if nothing else, it will only indicate what happened 2 weeks ago(ish), not what is happening now.
And on this point we should -we=first world countries- think about what is more important GDPR or lives. Because of the privacy discussions no really valuable track and trace app can be done. There are ways to safeguard privacy information, but it's not easy or cheap by any means.
Or go the other route: information is only valuable if it is a scarcity. MAke it a general commodity and no one will benefit from it more than other (potentially). I think we are overvalueing the information that gets stored about us, and under estimating how much companies and government know about us already.
The whole reason of having issues around track and trace apps in general, in the wold comes down to the fact that most govs already have the ability or the info itself, but if they can't admit it, because then people would be outraged.

I think everyone who is willing and able to keep their kids out of school should be encouraged to do so. You'll be helping to keep the infection rate down and also making it easier for the children who remain at school, because school will be less crowded without your child there.

Your whole family is happy for your daughter to be at home, so it seems like a great plan.

I could keep my daughter off. But it would get to the point where she has missed out massively on forming friendships with other kids. Then all the key worker kids will be finding their best friends and forming relationships with eachother and the staff... When my DD goes back she will be really behind compared. Home schooling is absolutely fine to the right family. But they will need to socialise their children in other ways. I wouldn't have much to offer my DD in that respect. We don't know tons of people. We don't hang out in groups. As a non driver I also can only get us so far. Most of the fun stuff is further away too. So whilst the idea is nice. It upsets me to think of her without her peers for much longer. That said I do believe part time would be better for the first month whilst they figure it out! It does feel they are chucking everyone in hoping for the best, which isn't fair or acceptable.

What is bothering me is I've purchased uniform and I'm worried she will hardly be there. I've made sure I've spent less on shoes and things. But uniform isn't cheap. I'm sure this is an issue a few parents are having.

The whole thing is stressful. I feel sad for parents of reception children. I can only imagine how much they don't want their kids to start under these restrictions.

@chocolateoo

I agree with everything you've said.. key worker children getting provision is creating a two tier system both educationally and socially.

@formerbabe

Yeah. I get the method behind people saying this. But I do think they are forgetting what's actually best for all of the kids is to have the same opportunity as their class friends. Seperating kids on whether the parents work isn't fair. My DD missed out on the last term as they only had a few spaces in her class. It didn't look great anyway the children were not allowed to play together at all. So they were in squares or alone at the activity. Seemed to be the method her school choose. I've heard some schools let them play in their bubble.

I also think it varies on the size of the school too. My DD school is fairly big for primary. It is 325 kids. She's got two cousins the same age. They go to village schools with 100 children. So I don't think it's as easy for town and city schools. Village schools still have worries but less kids hopefully meansucj more manageable.

Also I get why they need to open other places. But ideally they should have kept everywhere shut and opened up just schools in the summer. Then they would see if infections rise if kids are unlikely to be doing other activities. But now they are opening when kids will be out and about mixing allover.

From news today - Coronavirus infects 200 kids at summer camp where they didn't have to wear masks

A coronavirus outbreak at a summer camp in the US state of Georgia left more than 200 children infected, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed

Devi Sridhar

@devisridhar

·

2h

Headlines coming full-circle back to ‘shielding’ over 50s today. This has been tried before & is impractical & unethical. Also have under 50s given their informed consent to gamble with their health given possible long-term health problems?

From news today - Coronavirus infects 200 kids at summer camp where they didn't have to wear masks

A coronavirus outbreak at a summer camp in the US state of Georgia left more than 200 children infected, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed

Without being disrespectful to those running summer camps but they are very different to school. I witnessed last week a summer camp of about 45 kids... playing tag... yes they were being encourage to run around and touch every other single child. This summer camp was also outside in a field with no access to any toilets or hand washing facilities so no idea where these kids were going to the loo and cleaning their hands. The leaders then allowed all 45 kids to go and play in the small playground designed for younger kids... the leaders looked like kids themselves.

It’s completely up to you. There’s no right or wrong answer and absolutely nothing wrong with homeschooling.

Good luck.

Oh and you are not being unreasonable, I know a lot of parents that are going to be homeschooling in September.

From news today - Coronavirus infects 200 kids at summer camp where they didn't have to wear masks

But as in .. 200 children just tested positive? Did any of them have symptoms worse than a cold? How many?

Would the headline be as scary if it was “200 children contract a cold at school” or “200 children contract chicken pox” which obviously happens all the time..?