Surely schools have to be first to open?

[Riddlediddle]

I know lockdown is for at least another 3 weeks (and likely longer!) however when we do start to come out of lockdown surely schools have to be the first thing to reopen? Parents of children of primary school age (me included) will not be able to return to their jobs unless the schools are open or childcare options are available? I just don't see how this will all work as surely schools will not be at full staffing levels due to some having to self isolate/be in higher risk categories. I just wish the government would give us some indication of what the exit plan is.

Schools were closed first because of social distancing but that was in order to delay the peak, once the peak is done there is no reason to keep them closed, the amount of social distancing will be able to to be reduced so it has to start somewhere. Most other measures rely on children being at school so that implies schools will need to be first. That’s logical, but they know far more than we do so we have no idea really

@Michaelbaubles
" As a teacher, if I’m going to spend my days in a small room with lots of germ-filled young people, I don’t see the point of them constraining the rest of my life by staying indoors and not going anywhere"

Thankfully current key workers don't share this attitude

As others have said, government are trying to contain the spread to be within NHS capacity. Someone needs to enter the big bad world first. Not saying it should be schools (not saying it shouldn't be either) but I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make that decision

Most other measures rely on children being at school so that implies schools will need to be first. That’s logical, but they know far more than we do so we have no idea really
*

I think a few extra key workers would be better.

It would be bizarre for kids to go from lockdown to school. No learning would be done. Can you imagine the behaviour!*

Surely it would be better for kids to play outside with one or two mates before school starts. That's what I would prefer for my dd.

Surely it would be better for kids to play outside with one or two mates before school starts. That's what I would prefer for my dd.

Very lovely. I’d love it too. I’m not sure it would have much impact on employment, GDP and the horrific economic hole that may well blight our children for years, as well as costing lives over the next few years.

How about we concentrate on getting our harvests in first? I think the first step in releasing lockdown should be recruiting a bunch of young 18-30 year olds to work in the fields. We have an upcoming crisis there, because we cannot get our usual seasonal workers in from Eastern Europe.

*I don’t really understand how schools can have half the teachers off shielding. It’s not that big a group and teachers certainly shouldn’t be over-represented in it, statistically.

Shielding at at great risk is different.
Shielded groups can't go out at all. This is a restricted number of people.

Vulnerable or at greater risk groups are much wider and include people with asthma, heart and ling conditions, those on specific medication for arthritis, etc. These are the people who are eligible for a free flu jab each year. This is a much larger group of people and include many teachers and TAs. These people are supposed to practice much stricter social distancing but can go our for shopping, exercise, etc. They were the first to be told not to go out to work, along with those who needed to self isolate.

@Rhica Which current key workers at spending their days in rooms with 30 (potentially) germ filled people?
The ones I can think of are either expected to observe social distancing (shops) or use PPE (medical staff and care workers). Teaching would be an end to being 2m apart and I have never heard it suggested we would get masks etc - that might work if so (children in them too obviously)

I think the first step in releasing lockdown should be recruiting a bunch of young 18-30 year olds to work in the fields.

This is already possible, because food production is classed as essential work. It probably needs a greater single recruitment campaign rather than the current piecemeal approach though.

Plenty of NHS staff and other key workers are in vulnerable/risk groups.

Only those at greatest risk & with shielding letters (small minority) are off work. Everyone else had risk assessments done and is at work in line with the outcome of those.

Large, reasonably healthy groups of society cannot hide away indefinitely. The advice for now is stay home, that's a short term measure only. This virus is not going anywhere fast

I dont have school aged children, so when schools go back doesn't directly impact me BUT all this talk of how vulnerable and frail such high percentages of teaching staff are is not a sensible argument to keep schools closed indefinitely

@JassyRadlett You're right - I worded that wrongly. It is already acceptable. We don't have anyone available to go and do it, though, and I'm not seeing much action to change that at the moment. It would count for another 80,000 people, which is about a quarter of the number of nurses we have. I'd rather we added smallish batches of people at a time, rather than suddenly adding "everyone who has a child of school age or cares for one" to the mixing pool.

Very lovely. I’d love it too. I’m not sure it would have much impact on employment, GDP and the horrific economic hole that may well blight our children for years, as well as costing lives over the next few years.

Ahhh so its not about the mental health of the kids. Got ya.

There are thousands of people already massively struggling with work and childcare and the government haven’t addressed this so I don’t think it’s a huge concern for them

Very lovely. I’d love it too. I’m not sure it would have much impact on employment, GDP and the horrific economic hole that may well blight our children for years, as well as costing lives over the next few years.

*There are other businesses that can open without schools being the very first thing. So again it's back to the argument that teachers are babysitters not educators. Sad really.

The model done today showed how bad it could be. It was terrible but modellers also said we would' bounce back' that was based on 3 m lockdown 3 m easing.

If you don't understand how kids going from lockdown straight back to school is difficult then guess thats it.
*

We don't have anyone available to go and do it, though, and I'm not seeing much action to change that at the moment.

I’ve seen some encouraging individual or small-scale stories - because there are many more people than would be available if eg universities were still open. The charity Concordia has apparently recruited 14,000 people through its Feed the Nation campaign - mainly students but also carpenters, chefs and former service personnel according to the BBC. One asparagus farmer has apparently been approached by a circus looking for work for its people. A lot of the individual producers’ organisations are running schemes. It would be better with a concerted single campaign behind it, I agree, but I don’t think it’s a case that there aren’t people available given the huge rise in unemployment plus students etc.

@Onceateacher how about teachers that are still working. Supermarket workers who are in close proximity to hundreds of different people a day. Bus drivers who take the hospital workers to work. Care home staff appear to have limited if any ppe. Need more examples?

Let me correct that. Teachers who are still in classrooms for kids of key workers. I am aware many teachers are still working from home and doing a great job

If you don't understand how kids going from lockdown straight back to school is difficult then guess thats it.

They went from school straight into lockdown. It will no doubt be very difficult when they move from lockdown/isolation to school. But there are large numbers of children desperate to go back to school and for whom prolonging the current situation, even with a little bit of play with their mates, means prolonging the current impacts on their wellbeing and mental health.

@Rhica

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/morrisons-and-aldi-to-put-up-checkout-screens-to-protect-staff-coronavirus

18 transport workers have died from Coronavirus in London, so maybe not the best example to use.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/13/bus-drivers-shutting-front-doors-coronavirus-outbreak-threatened/

@JassyRadlett that's good news - I'd heard about the shortage, but nothing about anything being done about it.

The whole “schools aren’t childcare” argument really hacks me off. Obviously the key reason for children to attend school is their education. It is also true that children attending school is what allows the majority of parents to work.

Are we seriously suggesting that all children at school require a parent or nanny at home whilst they are at school because the school is not childcare? If not then the argument makes no sense.

@nellodee completely awful. But without bus drivers some hospital staff wouldn't get to work. So what if those bus drivers decided as they exposed they mayaswell go out and not waste their lives stuck in as per the original post I am responding to. They would be spreading the virus putting more at risk. So still a valid example for my point. I am very grateful and completey indebted to all those that have lost their lives or are putting their lives at risk for the rest of the population including myself. And thankful they don't have that selfish attitude

They went from school straight into lockdown. It will no doubt be very difficult when they move from lockdown/isolation to school. But there are large numbers of children desperate to go back to school and for whom prolonging the current situation, even with a little bit of play with their mates, means prolonging the current impacts on their wellbeing and mental health.
*

They have only missed 10 days of school.*
*
But then I thought it was about the economy?

My daughter just wants to see her friends. Be a kid again. She would be better if it was normal holidays then her mental health would be fine for a while without school. *

*I completely disagree with you but great to have lots of different opinions.

Have a nice evening.
*

Ahhh so its not about the mental health of the kids. Got ya.

No, that isn’t what I said - and you know that full well.

When the government is making a policy decision they will balancing a huge range of factors but given the OBR figures and other economic costs - which also have mental and physical health impacts for people of all ages - those setting the policy are going to have to consider measures that balance minimising spread of the virus with those measures that will help to stimulate economic activity.

Therefore measures that have a positive economic impact are likely to be prioritised, balanced against the effects on spread of the virus - and that will be the basis on which decisions are made. So if you think the government are going to allow measures that increase spread of the virus without it balancing out against some of the most significant negative impact, I think you’re being a little naive.

As someone said up thread, I’m glad I’m not making or advising on these decisions, with such a shaky and incomplete evidence base and almost certain negative consequences from any option.