Given Iceland's data surely schools should go back.

[Floatyboat]

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100?query=featured_coronavirus

It appears that kids either don't get it much or their immune system stamps it out so quick the chance of transmission is very low. Iceland has been able to keep schools open and still gets these figures for under 10's.

Clearly some caution/graded opening may be sensible but to continue with the current status quo and all the associated harm is not justified.

Any other conclusions to be drawn from this data?

Prisons have an escalating issue with coronavirus infections. It is an enormous issue.

But hey. We don’t have much on. I’m sure the NHS has bags of room for all the thousands of sick teachers and students.

BTW- children aren’t immune. They just have a lower death rate but they are hospitalised and some do die.

How many deaths are people willing to take to get their child back into school. Are people prepared for it to be their child’s teacher who dies and having to deal with the fall out from that? Are people prepared for their child to be very sick?

I don't think it's throwing hands in the air to state the obvious, that a school as we have come to know it is not now a safe space for anyone.

Asking schools to be more like a soap factory or supermarket "because THEY have thought of ways round the problem!" isn't helpful either. Schools are doing what they can for the children who really need to be there and are continuing to do so.

The likelihood is, we are all going to need to get used to working around our children for considerably more time than any of us bargained for, or risk the health of too many people. If you feel the need for creative solutions, this will be a better place to spend your energies OP or you may be disappointed with the reality of partial closure for a long time.

You can’t compare us to Iceland, so no.

ChloeDecker What you're reading about schools in Germany is completely inaccurate.

This is in German www.km.bayern.de/eltern/meldung/6903/faq-zur-einstellung-des-unterrichtsbetriebs-an-bayerns-schulen.html#informationen-notfallbetreuung

Will explain later, am at work now.

We should just ‘suck it up’ apparently

That's going to be the situation for most workers, eventually. Surely you can see that?

If a person's health is not robust enough to be able to take the risk of returning to their work, then effectively they are not capable of doing their job any more.
No one in these circumstances should be forced to return to work, but they can't expect to continue to be paid for it either? That money needs to go to a willing replacement.
Universal credit needs to be provided to those displaced, until they are able to retrain or find a role more suited to them.

I had mentioned in another thread that it was positive some research had come out that children weren’t the super spreaders of this disease that we thought they might be. It is good, positive news potentially but people don’t seem to want to hear it

Maybe think it through a bit? If schools open, what happens? More journeys made. Parents needing to stand in playgrounds. Teachers who are high risk. Teachers who have high risk family members. Cost of PPE at even a basic level in schools. Sheer lack of space in schools to enforce any kind of meaningful social distancing to reduce any risk to staff. Exposure meaning staff are in and out like yo-yos every 14 days making ratios unworkable. High risk children not able to be in at all. Some children are aged 18 - adults! Potential death rate amongst the teaching population is frightening - and remember there is a national shortage of teachers already. Some will have no choice but to quit rather than risk exposure because of personal situations - that is certainly my plan, anyway and I teach a shortage area subject. And no, I can’t afford it but won’t risk my child’s health. Sorry.

But you must understand the schools won’t stay shut until a vaccine is found? So if the risk is unacceptable you’ll have to homeschool.

why don't as many under 10's test positive? Presumably because biology happens and young immune systems hit the virus hard so there is little left and it cant be found in their throats. Making them therefore less risky. Surely this is directly relevant to the UK?

@Floatyboat It was a rhetorical question really. I haven’t come across a definite answer yet. I certainly haven’t come across anything that suggests that young immune systems “hit the virus hard”. Younger children are normally more susceptible not less. Do you have any links to prove your “hit the virus hard” statement?

There are other possible reasons eg younger children include the very young so that skews the result, or younger children are less independent so are exposed to less risk.

The data from Iceland shows that testing and contact tracing is a good strategy.

That's going to be the situation for most workers, eventually. Surely you can see that?

Most people don’t work in crowded environments with at least 30 people in close proximity 6 hours a day.

If a person's health is not robust enough to be able to take the risk of returning to their work, then effectively they are not capable of doing their job any more

So all asthmatic teachers? Teachers with caring responsibilities of elderly parents? Teachers with their own children who are at risk? Any teacher with autoimmune conditions? Any teacher who is overweight? None of these people are capable now of being teachers? Can you actually imagine what that might do to the average school?

No one is asking for schools to stay shut! Who is asking that?

All people are asking is that it is:

A) in line with scientific advice.
B) staggered and social distancing put in place to help mitigate.
C) protective gear is mandatory. Not voluntary.
D) there needs to be a rota of staff and kids so that we can avoid having nearly 2000 people on site every day.

Every profession working on the frontline with huge groups of people should be offered PPE.

Not just to stop us dying but to stop our deaths clogging up an overworked NHS

Lock down was for nothing if all the schools go back to normal in a few weeks time.

That poor nurse died. She was perfectly young and healthy except for being heavily pregnant. How many heavily pregnant teachers are there? Should we make them come in too? What about the older ones? What about the ones with sick family member- partners or child immuno compromised?

How many teachers does that leave? How many of them will die? Does that leave enough teachers to actually teach.

Or is it actually babysitting you’re looking for?

Lots of people could go back to work without schools being reopened. Why is it that schools are the headlines instead of calls for people to go back to office jobs?

Surely the points about pregnant, vulnerable etc teachers also applies to care workers, prison staff and many others. I really don't see why it is a barrier to the profession as a collective returning, making amendments for certain individuals. High risk people could do marking from home, developing resources for their colleagues etc.

Can you actually imagine what that might do to the average school?

The teach first programme put graduates into Primary classrooms almost immediately.
It might be possible to do something similar with secondary school teaching students.
Unemployment will be rife so there will be willing takers for training and possibly for returning to teaching,
Perhaps teachers unable to deliver in class could assist remotely with lesson planning and advice, for a suitable wage?

What is the alternative, realistically?
You can't force people into work if their health won't permit.
Nor can we keep children at home until a vaccine is found. If one is ever found.

For the vast majority, COVID is survivable. For those at risk, they'll just have to give up their positions and go on benefits. It's not fair, but then it's not been fair to anyone else losing their jobs, either.

I hope you are right in thinking there will soon be a willing pool of applicants for teaching @PhoebesBirthMom . The very idea usually has MNetters running for the hills!

@Floatyboat

Right, it’s not your fault you don’t get it. You don’t know the ins and outs. There is a minimum number of staff you need to safely run a school.

The week the school closures were announced my head was already getting ready to close because we did not have the required number of staff, even though we had lost 35% of our student body.

If all those teachers are being shielded will we have enough to safely open the school? The answer for many schools will be no.

So, therefore. Schools will be able to affect places- to essential workers. Just like hospitals are rationing care and cancelling non-essentials. And public transport has been reduced.

We are still running now- from home for all students and at school for the children of essential staff.

The list of essential staff will get bigger over time as more professions are added to the list.

But if you are working from home in a non-essential role don’t expect a school place any time soon. For the sake of the NHS and public health.

I hope you are right in thinking there will soon be a willing pool of applicants for teaching @PhoebesBirthMom . The very idea usually has MNetters running for the hills!

True! But I think desperation to pay the mortgage and buy food might be a powerful motivating factor.

@PhoebesBirthMom

In that case it’s just babysitting. If that’s what you want then why does it need to be done at school with great risk to public health? Because it is a public health issue.

If you want your kids to be babysat so you can go to work maybe the government can start a small scales childminding scheme. It would be less risky for all involved.

In that case it’s just babysitting

Eh? I'm talking about one training scheme that already exists, and how it might be adapted for secondary.
It's about education.

If there is indeed no way to continue education then yes, a baby-sitting scheme will be needed. But it won't replace education. How could it possibly!?

@PhoebesBirthMom Sorry but you are saying some weird things- so people who are vulnerable should just roll over and give up the jobs they are qualified to do? Why?
Of course it's not fair in this nor any other profession as a matter of fact, you cannot penalise someone because of something like that. The fact it's not fair for some people should not mean the situation should become unfair for even more people.

Secondly, replacing numerous teachers with experience with fresh graduates with none = diseaster. I have seen loads of trainees in my time as a teacher and most were not very good. You become a good teacher with practise, training, and support. Very, very few people are good already when they start training, many of those have had previous experience in the field abroad of as a TA. If you want kids to be taught bu a generation of shit teachrs (who will have time to train them all in school???) who despite often have good will, but no know-how, and who entered the field just because there are vacancies, then God help kids and us in future. It's not fair on the new staff ither to be left without guidance either.

@PhoebesBirthMom Also, Teach Frst exists in secondary and relies heavily on training as well- who is going to train these people if everyone is going to be overburdened?

There is a similar scheme where teachers are chucked first into teaching and still need guidance, and the quality of their teaching is often not amazing to say the very least. I used to be a mentor for what used to be called GTTP and PGCE students, and we also had ex-teach first people, and sorry to say but the quality of the last was often ... questionable.

I don't think Iceland and the UK are comparable. Iceland is half the size of the whole UK and has only 364,000 people. We have 68,000,000. Iceland has onemain city with a population of 131,000. London's population is 8,000,000. Iceland is the most sparsely populated country in Europe. UK is one of the most densely populated.
Iceland has class sizes of about 15-16 in primary and 19 in secondary. English class sizes are much larger - DH's secondary school has classes of between 26-32 in Y7.
2/3 of Iceland's population live in the region of the main city. 240,000 people in a large , rural region. The other 140,000 are spread out across 3/4 of the country in small communities. It is just not comparable with the UK and our large cities and conurbations.
Newcastle has a population about the same as the whole of Iceland in a space 40 times smaller.

So people who are vulnerable should just roll over and give up the jobs they are qualified to do

If there is the to money to pay them in full, whilst also hiring new recruits to cover for them until it's safe to return to work - then it should be done without question.

It's unlikely to be the case though, is it? then essentially they are not fit to work any more.
It's not penalising them. It's treating them with the same fairness as other skilled workers who will have no jobs to go to.
COVID will have removed these opportunities, and the government can not fund replacing everyone's income whilst they are not working.
I think it will be a struggle to provide basic benefits to keep people out of work alive.

What you're reading about schools in Germany is completely inaccurate.

Erm, I was agreeing with you!

Also, Teach Frst exists in secondary and relies heavily on training as well- who is going to train these people if everyone is going to be overburdened?

Perhaps this is an opportunity for the teachers too vulnerable to return to school teaching?

I used to be a mentor for what used to be called GTTP and PGCE students, and we also had ex-teach first people, and sorry to say but the quality of the last was often ... questionable.

I don't think anyone would say it's ideal. Nothing about what's happening is ideal.

But what, realistically, is the alternative?

The teach first programme put graduates into Primary classrooms almost immediately. It might be possible to do something similar with secondary school teaching students.Unemployment will be rife so there will be willing takers for training and possibly for returning to teaching

Teach First exists already in secondary. And it places only in less than desirable schools - that is part of it’s remit. I worked in a less than desirable school that waited 2 years to get an MFL graduate. No ITT provider will take on a candidate they consider won’t be able to complete and pass the course. People with a degree might want to give it a try in desperation if their job has gone but it’s,really not as simple,as that.

And everything Mona said as well.