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

[Fantasisa]

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

[Durgasarrow]

Vitamin D also comes in a pill. And lightboxes. And for kids, especially younger kids, being home is a dream come true. Sounds like stressed mothers, not stressed kids.

[Spottyhands]

'for younger kids being at home is a dream come true'

Perhaps for middle class kids with WiFi and parents who are furloughed or don't work at all. Although even for majority of middle class kids I know, the reality is 7 hours a day Infront of a screen. A dream come true perhaps, but in their best interests?! And as for poorer kids or those whose families have fewer resources of all kinds this will be far from dreamy.

[SallyLovesCheese]

@Spottyhands

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.

I can't deny that there will be children whose lives are negatively impacted through school closures. And I wish there was a way round that. But what should the government have done? Schools can't open with pupils in isolation, they open because of a whole load of staff and each child mixes with other people after the school day. That's a lot of people with the potential to become infected.

Do you think the government should have said "Lockdown except for schools who are to run as normal"?

[Spottyhands]

Lockdown and school closures made sense to begin with to protect the NHS. But now we have mounting evidence that kids do not get gravely ill and are not likely to spread the disease, that for the majority of those under 50 the risks are very low, and hospitals have never been quieter. It's about constantly re-evaluating risk and what was right on 23 march is now disproportionate and the damage it is causing now outweighs the risks it is mitigating.

[SallyLovesCheese]

So are you saying that under-50s should go about life as normal, no lockdown, PPE or social distancing?

[piscis]

@missyoumuch I agree with you, it is cruel, there will be consequences.
Not to mention that in Spain most people live in flats, not houses with a garden. Makes it even worse.

[Cremebrule]

‘for younger kids being at home is a dream come true’

Not in my household. My 4 year old is desperately missing her friends, her behaviour is getting more and more challenging and she needs more normality. Her nursery isn’t opening so unless I put her in temporary childcare without her friends (which I might do so she gets some social interaction) she’ll have gone 6 months by the time school starts. That’s not ok and it certainly isn’t a dream come fucking true.

[Mascotte]

It's not a dream come true for children to be trapped at home, isolated from their peers and have no education for six months. No playing. No sports. No activities. Not allowed out other than to go a walk: not usually a child's dream. All for an illness that doesn't affect them much.

These mothers won't be raising an action to get money but to try to protect the interests of their children AND the interests of those children who have horrible home lives, in poverty, violence, addictions, or poverty.

The right to education and to meet friends and do activities is set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rights can be denied in exceptional circumstances but this must be proportionate. It's a balance, and perfectly proper to test it legally.

[Powerof4]

How can no friends, no wider family, no playgrounds for an unforeseeable amount of time be any child’s dream? I think these women are being bold in trying to get children’s interests onto the political agenda, where they should be.

[SudokuBook]

I agree @mascotte. I read something earlier that half the deaths in Scotland have been in care homes. Not that these poor souls don’t matter, and the issue in care homes has been a disgrace, but it’s separate to how the disease has affected the community generally. So for an illness that’s killed less than 2000 people in a population of 5 million, most of whom were over 75, our children have to be treated and treat others like lepers for the foreseeable future. It is totally ridiculous and disproportionate to the risk of anyone dying from the virus. By all means keep social distancing in areas it can be adopted without too much trouble, keep recommending people wfh if they can, but how can people not see that social distancing in schools is completely over the top.

[Hearhoovesthinkzebras]

SudokuBook

So do the people who work in schools not matter then? Does it not matter if they get ill or pass it on to a vulnerable family member?

I get you think the lives of elderly people don't matter but do younger people not matter either then? School staff don't deserve even the most basic safety measures that employees in other workplaces get then?

[Mascotte]

There's no evidence of Increased spread in schools.

[Mascotte]

But @Hearhoovesthinkzebras you and I will never agree.

But in this instance I'm simply explaining the legal basis for such a case. Maybe you could consider it?

[Hearhoovesthinkzebras]

@Mascotte

There's no evidence of Increased spread in schools.

Yet schools have been closed so when did they study risk of spread - increased or otherwise?

Children can catch it they just don't seem to suffer as much with it. Does that mean they can't transmit it to their teacher though?

[Uhoh2020]

Has there been a vast spread of virus between the kids and teachers in school now given that the key worker children are probably more likely to come into contact with a virus due to their parents out working with Joe public ? These children going back have barely been out the front door for months even less likely to be carrying the virus

[SudokuBook]

I don’t think that about elderly people at all, although I do question whether it’s a proportionate response to disrupt the lives of younger people and trash the economy to protect people who are at greatest risk of dying anyway. The point is there weren’t teachers dropping dead all over the place when the virus was rife and schools were fully open. Why is it all of a sudden so much more dangerous after 5 months of suppression measures?

[Mascotte]

I'm with you @SudokuBook

[Hearhoovesthinkzebras]

Uhoh2020

In most schools the number of children in has been very small.

The children of healthcare workers are likely to be less likely to catch it because healthcare workers, particularly I hospitals, have used PPE, GPs have done much less face to face work and have used PPE.

I'm not sure we can compare it to larger numbers of children or with parents going back to work and using say public transport.

I think the best you can say is that it's uncertain. Government have previously said the return of schools will push the R up by 0.2 so there clearly is some risk.

[Hearhoovesthinkzebras]

@SudokuBook

I don’t think that about elderly people at all, although I do question whether it’s a proportionate response to disrupt the lives of younger people and trash the economy to protect people who are at greatest risk of dying anyway. The point is there weren’t teachers dropping dead all over the place when the virus was rife and schools were fully open. Why is it all of a sudden so much more dangerous after 5 months of suppression measures?

It was reported on mother thread, I think from ONS statistics, that more school staff had died than drs or nurses.

[Uhoh2020]

@Hear yes the numbers have been small but so has the space occupied and the teaching staff supervising so the dynamics are still the same

[Mascotte]

This isn't supposed to be yet another thread about saving the teachers.

[Msmcc1212]

It has been hard on children but the alternative would have been unthinkable. Much harder on children if loads of the adults in their life are dead, grieving or traumatised.

[Mascotte]

But @Msmcc1212 that's ridiculous: the vast majority of people, even those over 80 who are most at risk, survive and the huge majority are only mildly ill.

[Msmcc1212]

’I do question whether it’s a proportionate response to disrupt the lives of younger people and trash the economy to protect people who are at greatest risk of dying anyway.‘

Firstly it’s not just the older age group that die, secondly even if you survive there can be long lasting serious complications, thirdly, it was about not over loading health services to protect us ALL!

ICU departments have been filled with people 50years old and YOUNGER at times.

You are also not taking into account the impact of those very traumatic deaths. The grief, suffering, trauma, burnout and mental health issues also need to be considered.

[Mascotte]

@Msmcc1212 that has absolutely no basis in fact and is just scaremongering.