We come back again to the alternatives and the four areas we need to consider. Spread, safeguarding, childcare and education.
Option 1: provide sufficient childcare for people to return to work as normal. In order for this to be useful, we would need more than 1 day per week, or half days. Infection rates will rise, the NHS will be unable to cope (see Angela Merkel on this, and Germany is in a far better state than we are to deal with this). We will have to go into another lockdown and it will take even longer to bring cases back down. Result : longer, not shorter lockdown. Greater, not smaller adverse effect on the economy.
Option 2: have children in on a limited basis, perhaps with limited year groups. This is better from an education point of view. It would allow us to observe the effect schools have on spread, but obviously with this, it brings with it risks of enhanced spread. It means the rate of cases will lower more slowly and test and trace will be less effective. It does not in any way solve childcare issues for any but the most part time of workers. If it does solve childcare issues, it is because too many children are in and we are back to Option 1.
Option 3: Have every child in for at least some time. This is a variant of option 2, but focuses more on safeguarding as every child is seen on a regular basis, rather than selected years. Again, it does very little to improve people's ability to return to work.
Option 4: Stick with distance learning until September. Commit to getting numbers low enough to test and trace. The aim of this is not to protect snowflake teachers, but to take the quickest route possible to a return to near normality. The aim is for this to be not only the safest option, but the one which restores the full economy most swiftly. The down side is that it does rely on our government actually being organised and together enough to pull it off.
A lot of people want to choose option 1, and pretend that the virus will just go away, or not really be that bad, or that children can't spread it at all, or that it won't affect anyone they really can't live without.
There is, I think, a really small possibility that this virus is much more widespread than we thought, and much less deadly. There's a chance that unlike every other virus we know, this isn't spread through surface contamination and children can't carry it. If this is the case then option 1 would be the right choice. It's a pretty huge risk, though.