To be shocked people think you should be tested to go back?

[messymarker]

DD has been showing me tik tok comments today of people saying that those who don’t consent to the lateral flow tests shouldn’t be allowed to return to school. I was a bit surprised by this as the government haven’t made tests mandatory, hence students (especially those who can consent themselves) have the free choice whether they want to or not.
To me it’s not selfish to refuse a test if it’s not made mandatory especially as we’ve made huge progress in vaccination and research has shown the tests are fairly inaccurate, false positives and negatives etc. You shouldn’t have to consent if you don’t believe in the tests taking place e.g. it shows they’re not fit for purpose and the gov are doing it for the sake of it!

I wouldn’t begrudge one of my students their educations (in person) if they chose not to have a test as it’s a free choice- I’d hope they’d have the sense to research and come to their own decision. I’ve consented as DM is elderly and I’ve had to bring her groceries but along with 20 million others she’s had her first dose which has proven to prevent 80% of hospitalisation risk. Obviously there are still people waiting for vaccines, even some Mumsnetters unfortunately, but our most vulnerable have had their jab.

If anything I’d be quite worried if testing was forced or the right to (true) education was removed. Everyone in this country deserves the same access to education and shouldn’t be discriminated on choice. It’s like how we’ve heard no criticism from the media on civil liberties being stripped without scrutiny in terms of lockdown etc.

AIBU to think kids who don’t want to test shouldn’t be discriminated upon and people should be barred from going in?

Oops! I meant shouldn’t be barred from going in to school.

Just because something's your choice, doesn't stop it being a selfish choice.

I agree with you only to the extent that people should not be compelled to have medical procedures.

But you are wring is assuming that this is a decision that affects only the individual - the 'research' and own decisions' are unlikely to be well informed in terms of classmates who have a CEV person in the household and for whom bringing it home from school is a very serious matter.

I also agree that the false negative rate means that these tests do not provide a reliably safe environment. But they will reduce the numbers who could be spreading it asymptomatically or presymptomatically, and that is a benefit definitely worth having.

It's totally legal in this country to watch a blind person walk off a cliff and say nothing (it's not in lots of others, interestingly). There are some good reasons for this, just as there are reasons that it's not legally required to test children.

Legal does not mean morally right. If you can do it, you should, and it really is selfish.

I think it is right that it is optional but I think it should be opt out rather than opt in when it comes to parents providing consent.

While I understand that the tests are not very accurate and many can't/don't want testing, I understand people with the opposite view too.

Fewer cases in the community will mean that it's less likely that staff or kids get infected but it takes one infected person to burst the bubble and a lot of kids had a crappy autumn term in and out of isolation. Kids and most staff won't be vaccinated so are only protected by less cases in the community.

Teenagers will be well aware of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers and may know some among their classmates. Masks and tests are uncomfortable for everyone and I understand the opinion that those who can should be helping those who can't.

Well, judging by all the anti return to school threads on here, tests should be mandatory.

Valid points- there are children with CEV household members at school who are understandably worried. We’ve luckily had a high uptake in LFTs and I can see how refusing is selfish but I’d never say that those who say no shouldn’t get the same education as others.

False positives are fairly rare.
Testing should be highly encouraged, but not forced.
There will be some who cant test, and they shouldn't be penalised, but if everyone who can is tested, the chances of schools staying open increases. Testing is for the overall good, not the individual good.

But, actually, if you could all withdraw consent, my job next week would be MUCH easier, so please do do (JOKE)
But then, as a school, we have a much higher than average number of consent forms returned. The kids that came to be tested today were absolute stars. It's not pleasant, but, imo, it is worthwhile. Even given mediocre odds of picking up a positive, I believe it's worth while the way it's currently being used.

The most overused word of 2020/21: Selfish.

@RedGoldAndGreene

While I understand that the tests are not very accurate and many can't/don't want testing, I understand people with the opposite view too.

Fewer cases in the community will mean that it's less likely that staff or kids get infected but it takes one infected person to burst the bubble and a lot of kids had a crappy autumn term in and out of isolation. Kids and most staff won't be vaccinated so are only protected by less cases in the community.

Teenagers will be well aware of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers and may know some among their classmates. Masks and tests are uncomfortable for everyone and I understand the opinion that those who can should be helping those who can't.

Definitely true. As uncomfortable (and perhaps as futile) as it is everyone should be wearing masks at the very least and I expect in my school almost everyone bar those exempt will be wearing them as we had a very good uptake previously when at times when they were required to wear them- though practically all day is a little different! Testing is more invasive and there are more reasons to refuse (imo) so I respect the choice not to consent more. We were lucky- only a few cases in the lower school and none in the sixth form so minimal disruption.

@OverTheRubicon

It's totally legal in this country to watch a blind person walk off a cliff and say nothing (it's not in lots of others, interestingly). There are some good reasons for this, just as there are reasons that it's not legally required to test children.

Legal does not mean morally right. If you can do it, you should, and it really is selfish.

Can you explain this more please? I've never hear this before.

Unless you have very good reasons why not - sen, medical needs some form of previous trauma etc then the tests are not traumatic/invasive/distressing. I do them twice a week for work.
It’s not the most fun thing I do but it takes about 2 minutes and if it has any chance of being helpful, I’ll do it.
The whole point of them is that the outcomes do affects lots of people other than yourself.
My the results of my test impact me, may family, my childcare bubble, my work bubble, my children’s schools etc etc

How would you feel if your DM needed care and the worker (s) refused to be tested? I'm not being Goady here, it's a genuine question. Care staff are being told "No jab, no job" for New workers by some companies, and I know of one care worker who was furloughed because she wouldn't test, she vomited each time, she did eventually come to be able to, But initially she couldn't.

As for your question, I don't know how I feel about it tbh, I don't think people should be forced to do things like that against their will or lose education (or a job) but then I think a lot of the refusals of masks, tests and vaccines isn't rooted in genuine issues, rather trouble causing, standing out and feeling hard done by, I don't agree with that.

My dc has an eating disorder so he won’t be having the tests. He struggles with things in his mouth.
However we have not seen anyone or left house other than exercise for months and months. I don’t believe he needs to take the back to school tests anyway.

You shouldn't have to consent if you don't believe in the tests taking place e.g. it shows they're not fit for purpose and the gov are doing it for the sake of it!

And the average parent or school pupil is sufficiently medically trained to have an informed opinion on this?

The current figures are that about 1 in 230 people have Covid.

So I guess in an average sized secondary of 1000 kids that is 4 kids who have Covid.

About 1 in 4 is asymptomatic.

So 3 of the 4 cases are isolating at home but the 4th is sitting in geography without any idea that they have the virus.

LFT tests are apparently between 50% and 75% accurate in identifying the virus.

So if no one does the LFT then there is a 0% chance that they will identify the asymptomatic person. If everyone does it then there is between 50% and 75% chance they will identify them. If they don’t identify them then on average one infected person will probably infect 3 - 5 other people. (That is our pre Covid R rate and I suspect that even post Covid your average secondary school pupil will have a similar amount of interactions as your average pre Covid person.)

So 1000 tests means an approximately 60% chance of preventing approximately 4 cases. So 1000 tests prevents an expected 2.4 cases.

So the question is - is it worth the slight (but existent) unpleasantness of the test to 1000 people to prevent 2.4 people getting Covid?

I’ve made a ton of heroic assumptions here but that is basically the decision that needs to be made.

@Chipsahoy

My dc has an eating disorder so he won’t be having the tests. He struggles with things in his mouth. However we have not seen anyone or left house other than exercise for months and months. I don’t believe he needs to take the back to school tests anyway.

You do realise you can just have a nasal swab if you can't tolerate the throat one

I guess there are different costs and benefits to different people. On the one hand, risk for pupils who have medical conditions themselves or household members. On the other hand discomfort/inconvenience for those who don’t want it.

Then there is the accuracy of the tests. Perhaps a balance could be found by putting those with vulnerable household members or medical conditions themselves in a class where everyone tests and having a class for people who don’t want to test?

And then where do you put the people who are unable to test?

With people who are non vulnerable but who can test

@endlesswicker

You shouldn't have to consent if you don't believe in the tests taking place e.g. it shows they're not fit for purpose and the gov are doing it for the sake of it!

And the average parent or school pupil is sufficiently medically trained to have an informed opinion on this?

I’ve seen some god awful parents in my time but I do believe that the average student or parent is able to research studies on the test, the impact of testing and form their own opinion on whether they would like to do it or not. That is, if they are motivated to do it.

I've told my reluctant child that testing is the socially responsible thing to do. We should all be taking reasonable steps to prevent spread to those potentially more vulnerable than ourselves.

The rest of the household will also be testing, other than primary DC.

I understand it may be difficult for those with SEN or sensory issues and they shouldn't be denied an education over it.

But everyone for whom it will be a minor inconvenience should just swab.

Surely no-one would "like" to do it, it's mildly uncomfortable.

And yes, of course there are issues over the test reliability, false negatives etc.

But it is slightly better than nothing.
Same with masks and ventilation.
Every little step adds up.

Perhaps a balance could be found by putting those with vulnerable household members or medical conditions themselves in a class where everyone tests and having a class for people who don’t want to test?

How does that work, given that testing is secondary school only, and pupils are in different sets and are doing different subject options?