Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Three mothers considering legal action over impact of social distancing on children

162 replies

Fantasisa · 01/06/2020 10:28

I have to admit that I hadn't even thought the long term impact through of social distancing on children although it has made me so sad when my DC have seen their friends around and only waved sadly at each other from a distance.

My DC's primary school hasn't reopened today and no words from the headteacher to update us on their plan.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8374849/Three-mothers-considering-legal-battle-Government-school-closures.html#comments

OP posts:
Underhisi · 01/06/2020 14:01

"In any case these children have been welcome at school throughout."

That was the theory but in practise some schools have been shut or not enough places available so it would be wrong to say that all children in the vulnerable category have been welcome in school.

Myothercarisalsoshit · 01/06/2020 14:02

People dress it up as concern for 'vulnerable children' or 'mental health' (where they've never really cared about them before) but really it's the same stupid competition that spawns the obsession with league tables and OFSTED ratings. You want your kids back in school? You're freaked out because you think some children are 'getting a better service'? We get it. We're sorry. There's an unprecedented pandemic happening. What do you want us to do?

Lostmyshityear9 · 01/06/2020 14:07

@TheOriginalMrsMoss I would take a long ovation but unfortunately need to be teaching year 10 in 3 minutes! Thanks anyway!

pfrench · 01/06/2020 14:34

The Coronavirus Act 2020 will prevent a lot of this stuff getting anywhere. They can pretty much do what they want with their emergency powers. Just be glad that parliament managed to get it down to review at 6 months and not at 2 years.

pfrench · 01/06/2020 14:35

I fucking hate the phrase 'welcome back'. I don't feel like I'm welcoming anyone back to school at the moment.

pfrench · 01/06/2020 14:39

@Lostmyshityear9 bravo!

Teachers are going to leave education in the next year because of this. Some of it because of the opinions of the media and people who don't know anything about actual teaching.

My friend just asked me whether schools will be open in September. This was my response:

We've no idea at all.

Our government has advised the nation via a prime time announcement, that children who are 4-5, 5-6 and 10-11 can start back at school today. Cue parents and business getting excited about workers coming back/being able to work from home. No notice given to schools of this announcement date. They said at the same time that 'all primary children' will be 'welcomed back' to school for a month before the summer holidays.

Reality is that they then issues guidance saying certain safety things must be in place. So, schools all do what they need to do to follow this guidance. It's quite brutal in terms of how primary schools normally operate. It takes 3 or 4 days to work this out, clear it with governors, survey parents and so on. Lots of stress, it's literally a life and death decision for some teachers and children right?

Then 4 days later, after hearing that lots of schools were going to use a rota to make sure all children 'were welcomed by their teacher', rather than a random adult, they issued new guidance saying NO ROTAS.

A day later, having realised that lots of schools had literally no other way of doing it without rotas, they issued more guidance (8pm on a Friday night) saying DEFINITELY NO ROTAS, prioritise key worker children (new list coming out 1st June as to who is a key worker - so after the date that these children are meant to be in school, meaning no school can say yes or no to accepting more key worker children), and vulnerable children (try and get your SEND children into school - no thought given as to whether they are spitters, biters, runners, and whether or not their support adult will be there). Then next priority is reception aged children, who can't socially distance. Next priority is year 1 (5 - 6 year olds), finally address your year 6s. No thought to regions which have middle schools or 'through schools' for whom year 6 isn't a priority at all.

Cue loads of heads, governors and local authorities saying "Even with this new guidance, we can only do this with rotas - lots of teachers are sheilding, we don't have big enough rooms". Government gives up, parents and businesses are all pissed off because it's compeltely inconsistent across the country. Some year 6s will be in, some won't, some schools can't even take the additional key worker children they expect to have today. Schools were sending out emails last night saying "don't just turn up tomorrow" in a panic.

Then on Friday, one of the education ministers said "we're definitely looking at getting all primary school children back for a month before the end of term", and then later in the day another education minister said "probably won't be able to get other children back". There isn't the space in any school in the country to have 'all primary school children back for a month before the summer'. There aren't the staff to cover this.

Then over the weekend all the scientists said "This is fucking insane, why are kids going back to school, we don't have this under control". Head teachers who were due to open today, sat up all night on Saturday changing their plans and deciding it wasn't safe. More pissed off parents and businesses, who have at least another week of children at home. Some have said they are not opening until 15th June anyway.

Then randomly in the middle of the night on Saturday, they also said that anyone who was sheilding, now doesn't need to sheild, all support for this will be withdrawn. Suddenly there are more children who could be at school, and more teachers available. But they don't feel safe, and haven't been planned for in the school system.

Meanwhile attendance is voluntary. So, parents were given the choice - most of them made their choice 2 weeks ago when the initial guidance came out and schools surveyed them. Loads have suddenly changed their minds because they've been ordered back to the office, or similar. Even if your child is in school, it might be week on/week off, it might be 2 days a week, it might be only mornings, it might be Mon - Thurs only. Judgy parenting is rife right now - of each other, and definitely of schools and teachers who are 'lazy and cowards' if you believe the media.

Who is doing sick cover for these teachers? As soon as a child coughs, it's all off for a test. So, a 'bubble' is closed for 3 - 4 days while we wait for test results. If the teacher has it, all off. If a child has it, all off - or maybe not, who knows.. guidance keeps changing.

What I'm saying is, our department of education doesn't know its arse from its elbow. They haven't a fucking clue what is happening around the country today, let alone in September.

SomewhereEast · 01/06/2020 15:13

I'm going to put on my historian hat here (have a PhD - left academia as the workload was crazy) and say that we actually ARE doing something unprecedented. Social distancing is utterly contrary to our basic humanness in a pretty unique way. We're relational social beings, which is why social isolation has such a huge emotional & even physical impact (used to work for a charity supporting the socially isolated - loneliness literally takes years off people's lives). Even in the most utterly traumatic situations (war zones say), people have always continued to seek closeness, to give comfort, to experience desire & fall in love, to mark milestones together etc etc....those aren't luxuries or frivolities. On the flip side, Covid itself frankly isn't that bad from a historical POV. Covid fatalities are heavily concentrated in a demography which wouldn't have been with us anyway two generations ago, because our current ability to prolong people's physical existence into their 80s & 90s and long after their bodies have begun to shut down is really quite new. And our attitude to mortality in general is unusual by historical standards.

Kokeshi123 · 01/06/2020 15:24

Lockdown has no real historical precedent---the closest thing is curfews (which were very partial by comparison). Lockdown wasn't really possible prior to the modern era, because few people could work from home, we did not have automatic payment systems and electronic money, we did not have elaborate welfare systems which would have stepped in and supported people for weeks when they were not working.

Historically, quarantine (shut away only the sick people and perhaps their immediate contacts) was the way that diseases were dealt with, but usually reserved for diseases with much higher fatality or morbidity rates.

Mrskeats · 01/06/2020 15:40

Silly mares.
It's a very tough to just open the schools-pupils and staff need to be kept safe.
Some people are so bloody self centred.

PasserbyEffect · 01/06/2020 16:10

They may have a legal point. The government is bound by law to consider the best interests of children in all their policies. It's not clear they did so re: lockdown and social distancing. A more thoughtful approach would have considered allowing extended family bubbles.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 01/06/2020 16:23

many children with sen who spend years out of school or who are part time in school or if they are allowed in school, are forced to be away from other

Excellent point. It's considered acceptable to home school many disabled children (sometimes for a very short amount of time weekly) because schools don't have the funding to accommodate them. This is presumably because other children are thought more deserving of the funding. Same principle, but this time it's the majority of children who can't attend school for a time limited period. If it was acceptable for some disabled children to go without practical reasons and these questions weren't asked, it's galling to see them being asked now. As if children only suffer in isolation when they're not disabled.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 01/06/2020 16:23

go without for practical reasons

Uhoh2020 · 01/06/2020 21:01

@Saucery I'll sue for being in danger of death or long term ill health by selfish parents who cba to look after their own children
I hope to fuck you are not a teacher because that is one of the most ridiculous vile comments I've seen on all these threads. If you are a teacher then on behalf of every parent in the country for the love of god find a new career Angry

Sweetnhappy1 · 01/06/2020 21:15

@Lostmyshityear9 sending hugs Flowers

cologne4711 · 01/06/2020 21:23

It is very striking that there has been almost no discourse whatsoever about how these measures are going to affect children in the short or long term

I would say that young people, on the whole, aren't Tory voters.

But the elderly are, and they left them to the lions in care homes, so....

...they're just crap at governing?

nowadays we have much higher standards for human health and welfare. So not surprisingly, most parents also apply the same standards to their children's welfare, and don't find "Well, the child evacuees in WWII had it a lot worse!!" to be a terribly convincing argument

Agreed. Although there was a very interesting article on the Guardian website about polio and although you didn't have the full to medium lockdown that various countries have just levied, they did close leisure/arts facilities and churches to try to stop it spreading before they had the vaccine from the mid 1950s. I had not realised that, although my DH had said it was one of the reasons a lot of the lidos in the UK.disappeared.

cologne4711 · 01/06/2020 21:26

I'll sue for being in danger of death or long term ill health by selfish parents who cba to look after their own children

That's fine, you can take unpaid leave and stay away from all the germ-ridden children. Until there's a vaccine.

You are paid to teach.

If parents are meant to do the teaching, we'll sell all the schools (lots of lovely land for new homes) and sack all the teachers.

Myothercarisalsoshit · 01/06/2020 21:27

@cologne4711

I'll sue for being in danger of death or long term ill health by selfish parents who cba to look after their own children

That's fine, you can take unpaid leave and stay away from all the germ-ridden children. Until there's a vaccine.

You are paid to teach.

If parents are meant to do the teaching, we'll sell all the schools (lots of lovely land for new homes) and sack all the teachers.

Go on then! This will be a laugh!
NancyBotwinBloom · 01/06/2020 22:01

These three need to get a grip

MrsWolf2 · 01/06/2020 22:32

OP are you one of the three by any chance?

Kokeshi123 · 02/06/2020 01:53

cologneyes, definitely. Lighter measures like closing busy or crowded areas definitely did go on in previous generations for various disease outbreaks--but no shelter-in-place orders as they weren't really possible.

YounghillKang · 02/06/2020 02:00

So would it be ok for a teacher to sue the child's parents if they caught Covid from said child?

I have started to see articles discussing possible future suits that could be brought by families of people who've died from Coronavirus after work exposure (for example those who have not been provided with suitable PPE); but these seem to be related to corporate manslaughter/gross negligence. So aimed at employers.

eaglejulesk · 02/06/2020 02:48

Agreed. Although there was a very interesting article on the Guardian website about polio and although you didn't have the full to medium lockdown that various countries have just levied, they did close leisure/arts facilities and churches to try to stop it spreading before they had the vaccine from the mid 1950s.

Some countries closed schools for a few months at the height of the polio epidemic. My parents and others of their age were involved - they were so unaffected by this that I didn't even know about it until recently when my father mentioned it. He laughed when I asked if it had blighted his life!

Fantasisa · 02/06/2020 12:54

@MrsWolf2 Nope, but they've got to be Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
Spottyhands · 02/06/2020 22:35

People calling these women self centred are being very short sighted. In my opinion they are acting for the benefit of all children which is about as un-self centred as you can get. I hear a lot of 'only when it is safe' from wealthy middle class parents who can afford not to work and who have the resources to homeschool effectively. School closures will be having a hugely detrimental impact on 100s of children and the 'my children are fine with school being closed so we should wait until it is safe' seems to me to be a more self centred position. Suing is a tad too much but as a pp said that will be just to get it in the public domain. Their website is more balanced than the article. I have signed their petition. Well done them for speaking up.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 02/06/2020 23:16

Looking at the death toll, how poorly we have done compared to others. How many people died that another country would have kept alive. Lockdown was the best way to avoid an even worse disaster. We're teetering now with an R number that is too high for the decisions the government is politically obliged to make in terms of easing lockdown. I think children suffer a great deal when parents have long term health issues and when grandparents die or have serious health problems. Without lockdown measures there would be many, many more children in that position and a number of children who would have been seriously ill. Legal action seems designed to force movement towards a reality that can't exist until we have better treatments or a vaccine. There's no point locking down again immediately. I doubt the parents involve have a deep understanding of this.