Government reportedly considering schools going back in 3 weeks

[FiveFootTwoEyesOfBlue]

On BBC News 24 now, article in tomorrow's Sunday Times says that ministers are considering schools going back in three weeks time. Plus allowing some shops and social gatherings, but not pubs and clubs.

Except one theory has no evidence and one has lots of supporting data from range of countries and methods

Yes agreed. But you can’t say that ‘x theory is a lie’. It would have to be stated as a truth to be a lie. It might be a theory based in little evidence, but it can’t be a ‘lie’, as no one is stating it as a truth.

@BertNErnie I agree people will go off sick. If I was a teacher I would be getting myself signed off sick with stress or depression.
No one expects it to be risk free, nothing in life is. I do expect it to be low risk. So I know my kids can die in a car journey. But I do everything I can to make the risk of that low. I take the same approach with covid 19.

The Department for Education has issued a statement this morning to state no decision as yet been made.

Facemasks have to be a certain standard or you may as well wear a fishing net.

@LondonJax

That really isn't true for general use masks. You can make a beneficial mask out of an old t-shirt. Wash it and reuse it. Discouraging people from basic sensible mask use is not a responsible thing to do.

See the video by us surgeon general for starters.

@HoffiCoffi13 If I say I have a theory with no evidence and is simply an idea I am using to justify what I want to do, then yes it is a lie. I know it is not true. I am saying it to justify my actions.
Our government are lying if they say children do not tend to spread covid 19.

@Piggywaspushed - I feel for you with your DH. My DS has congenital heart disease but is not in the shielded group because he doesn't have additional medical needs or take medication.

I work in a school - so do I insist on the 12 week shielding, with no shielding letter, for him which means I don't go back until the end of June. Or do I take a chance for the 'economy' and go back a few weeks early and send him back. To be honest I would resign if he is forced back because I have to look after other peoples children. He comes first - just like everyone else's child comes first to them. My 12 year old is not going to be put in danger for a government or society that is in a hurry. When the deaths come down, he and I will go back. Before then my school will be one person down.

@HoffiCoffi13

Yes the word lie is not appropriate I agree. "Unfounded speculation" probably better.

Our government are lying if they say children do not tend to spread covid 19

Agreed. But they’re not saying that. They’re saying that it’s a theory that needs investigating.

If children were Superspreadeers why are more teachers in London not dead? (I do not actually know the likelihood of kids spreading CV)

It was rife in London before schools closed.

There are sadly many many TFL staff who have died.

But it has not been much press coverage on the teacher front. So I can only hope that teachers in London have been affected in the same way.

It really is not fair to say kids are super spreaders with Covid 19. This is a new virus and the science is not there.

Its also not fair to say the don't spread the virus as we don't know.

I think the short term pain of this is being massively overstated, we’ve only actually had about 1 week off school so far - the rest of it was easter holidays anyway??!

The difference between going back in June v September is a matter of weeks in the context of 14 years education, given that much of that time is holiday.

Other than the groups at crucial points in their education, surely it’s better to take a handful of weeks “on the chin” than it is thousands more deaths? Particularly given that the education they get will be poor since many teachers won’t work, and probably won’t be much more than a load of worksheets downloaded from Twinkl in some cases.

The daily mail headlines today has a 'traffic light system ' up as proposals for possible phased returns of things. 11th May for some year groups at school.
It is also reporting that many private hospitals that were taken over by the NHS in million pound deals are currently sitting empty. It's a confusing set of headlines and just done to rile the public into believing a lot of this is hype / we should open up ASAP and so on.

allout will your stance change if the WHO say kids are not superspreaders?

@Doihavetogotoworkdotcom1 It is clear though they want us to send our kids back.
School staff if this happens I would urge you to go off sick if you or someone in your household is vulnerable. Lie about why if you need to. This job is not worth dying for.

@MimiLaRue I think you'll find you are wrong there. Depending on the length of service, some teachers have sick pay pays full pay for 195 days - this is the equivalent of a whole year of teaching.

So no - the vast majority of teachers won't have to live on £94 per week.

@alloutoffucks seen that you seem incapable of considering anything aside from covid 19 it seems pointless taking about it. If you get bored though have a look what professionals are saying about lack of access to treatments, and how it balances out with the risk of catching it. Maybe try and empathise with those who are making sacrifices far beyond just staying at home as well.

Floatyboat - I have read scientific arguments going both ways. In my personal opinion, there are massive flaws in the arguments that children do not spread the disease, related, eg, to the fact children are less likely to be tested in the first place and the timing of school holidays, etc, in affected countries. There really is not enough evidence to be arguing children don’t spread this disease.

The actual interesting thing in the Sunday Times was some of the early evidence coming out of Germany on the pathology of the virus in children - which seems to be starting to answer the question of whether children get it but aren’t symptomatic (and therefore can spread it around) or whether they are actually naturally resistant (and therefore much lower risk for spreading).

It will be particularly interesting to see the further results out of LMU Munich where they found that some samples taken from infected children have been so weak they couldn’t be replicated in the lab - leading them to say that so far they have found little evidence of child-to-adult transmission.

This would align with the hypothesis that younger children are uniquely protected and so few get it because the ACE2 receptors in the lungs are a main mechanism for infection, meaning children may be relatively protected from infection because of ‘low expression’ of ACE2 receptors in their alveoli.

If this turns out to have a stronger evidence base than we have at this early stage it would be a game changer for how we think about schools and contact between children for the next few years.

Of course the evidence base is incredibly flimsy on all sides, but it does seem to be pointing marginally more strongly towards the idea that children are biologically resistant, rather than that they are asymptomatic super-spreaders, which gives me hope that children may be able to return to some kind of normality sooner and more safely than the rest of us, which would be a bright point in all of this.

@alloutoffucks

There is lots of evidence kids don't spread it much. There is none that they spread it a lot. Why do you wish to bury your head in the sand. You have an emotionally driven response and are trying to justify it afterwards. That is not helpful on a public forum.

@alloutoffucks I completely agree.

No teacher I know thinks there is a magical cure AT ALL. Every teacher I know accepts a level of risk of course - just not when the death toll is still in excess of 800 people every day.

I do agree that if they reopen schools too soon, teachers won't attend and staffing will be a huge issue. I do believe it won't be limited to teaching though, as many other sectors trying to get people back in will have the same challenges.

I think the selfishness of people and the good of people has really shown through in this whole situation. I think these people won't really learn compassion until it happens in their circle but I wouldn't wish that on them just to teach them a lesson

I completely agree.

Actually I am wrong - it's 100 days full pay and 100 days 1/2 pay of you have 4 or more years of service.

Still not £94 per week.

So no - the vast majority of teachers won't have to live on £94 per week

Yes, youre right- for teachers they would get employer sick pay.
I was referring to people in industries who only get SSP.

But either way, even if you go off sick for say, 3 months. What then? it wont have gone away by then- in fact it might be worse because we'd be coming into winter where all the other normal types of flu are going around. Even in professions with good employer sick pay they wont pay out for ever. Sick pay will stop at some point. When I worked in NHS they only paid full sick pay for 6 months. That would take us until October. So what then?

I don't understand people thinking September will be safer than June. It obviously gives longer for a vaccine and/or treatment to become available, and if that happens, obviously brilliant. If it doesn't, is there anything else that would make September more safe, or are people working on the assumption of a scientific breakthrough?

Fuck me, Gove has just said this isn’t true, the DofE has said it isn’t true. The DofE has just announced plans for an online school and has spent a fortune on IT equipment which will be delivered to the homes of vulnerable and disadvantaged children. They won’t be ‘open’ in three weeks.

Stop playing Murdoch’s games.