I think the children of this generation...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

Will, in future years, legitimately ask us why we let them down so badly. Why we allowed them/their peers to be left at home for months with abusive/neglectful/drug addicted/alcoholic parents, with no outside contact, no adult help, relief or respite whatsoever. Why some of those children disappeared, never to be seen again, or were so badly hurt as to have years and years of horrendous struggle ahead of them.

It's only now beginning to be talked about, months too late: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52876226

When everyone is talking about 'protecting' children, where is their concern for those children for whom home is a dangerous place? For whom school is their only sanctuary?

myother well what other explanation is there?
To not respond to emails or phone calls?
To not even acknowledge what had happened to these children let alone offer us any support.

@NinetyNineRedBalloonsGoBy

The effect this had had on all children is disproportionate to the risk to them of covid.

This 100%

In terms of children themselves, yes. But the lockdown was designed to protect the elderly and people with other health problems in order to prevent people dying all over the place with no access to ICU beds. If it was left to run rampant then how many more children would grow up without a parent and other close family members?

I'm sure anyone who cares about vulnerable children must have been really engaged with pushing for better support long before the lockdown. Surely they couldn't have thought that 195 days of schooling a year is enough to save you from the effects of a chaotic and unsafe home life. It seems to me that vulnerable children and battered women seem to have attracted far more public discourse over the last ten weeks. It's a shame that couldn't have happened before they became a valuable lockdown trump card.

Yes, lots of schools are making contact. On my days in, l spend a lot of time in this, and it is all recorded and logged.

So have the other 250 staff at school. It’s the main priority. And it should absolutely be happening. If you are t getting calls, phone and ask for them!

Carbuncle No, that's not what I said.
You are equating 'vulnerable' and 'abused'.
I was making the point that schools can work with children who hit certain markers but the hidden abuse will remain hidden despite contact with teachers.

@slipperywhensparticus

Also @Duckfinger, are you doing that for every child? Or only the ones you know are vulnerable? Because you must be aware that plenty goes on behind closed doors that no one knows about.

If no one knows about it how are people supposed to do something about it? Your bitching because teachers are not there for a problem they know nothing about?

Ok then just to be clear this isnt Hogwarts and divination is a very imprecise branch of magic

Ok, I'll say it again

It doesn't matter whether the teacher knows about the abuse or not - over time, it may become apparent, in which case the child can get help. What matters is that the child is getting out of the abusive household, away from the shit situation, meeting with friends, talking to and interacting with teachers.

Surely you can see that it's better for an abused child not to locked away in the house with their abusive family 24/7 with no outside contact whatsoever? How is that point so difficult to get across??

I agree OP.

Yet you still get many many people protesting it’s ‘too dangerous’ to send children back yet and that we’re ‘dicing with death and our children’s lives’.

I mean the disproportionate hysteria for not wanting schools to re-open, is at best laughable, but at worst very concerning, as it illustrates a clear lack of ability to critically think.

Missus I'm sorry you have had that experience and I'm equally sure there will be an explanation that you may or may not accept. Please don't just assume that the school have washed their hands of the children.

myother to be honest, we were more bothered in the beginning, when we were worried there was information that should be coming from the school that we didn’t know about.
But now we’ve just sort of accepted that it is what it is.
We will follow it up and so will their key worker, because we’re really disgusted by their behaviour, but it’s no longer a big priority (for us - we’re just cracking on as best we can).

@Myothercarisalsoshit

Carbuncle No, that's not what I said. You are equating 'vulnerable' and 'abused'. I was making the point that schools can work with children who hit certain markers but the hidden abuse will remain hidden despite contact with teachers.

I'm not equating vulnerable with abused. I know that many vulnerable children are not abused.

I'm talking about abused children. And I'm saying, as clearly as I can, that it doesn't matter if the abuse is hidden (though being at school means there is, of course, more chance of the abuse being picked up on) the child still benefits from being out of the house, away from their abuser, for six hours a weekday during termtime (I'm being very specific, but I know people will still say 'but they still have holidays and weekends) interacting with other children and with caring adults.

*Ok, I'll say it again

It doesn't matter whether the teacher knows about the abuse or not - over time, it may become apparent, in which case the child can get help. What matters is that the child is getting out of the abusive household, away from the shit situation, meeting with friends, talking to and interacting with teachers.

Surely you can see that it's better for an abused child not to locked away in the house with their abusive family 24/7 with no outside contact whatsoever? How is that point so difficult to get across??

You are being quite rude now.
Schools were closed due to the prevalence of a virus which has no treatment or cure. Schools, at very short notice, moved to support their most vulnerable children as best they could. This was done to protect the wider population, including those children. That children have missed out is not in question. Being hysterical and using vulnerable children to construct strawman arguments doesn't really help.

If you know there ar3 abused children in a school, and they are not attending as they should have been, the school and SS needs to do something.

Like they would if the child didn't attend in normal circumstances

OP, there is absolutely rock solid evidence for the figures I have cited.

Around 6.78% of people who provided blood samples tested positive for antibodies to COVID-19
Source:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/28may2020

UK excess deaths reach almost 60,000
Multiple sources, but chose the Financial Times
www.ft.com/content/4a91a414-4937-4c54-aa78-6d231f4a4e43

Children have been abused and neglected for eternity. School may be a respite, but it is a small one. It in no way makes up for the trauma of home. The stay at home orders are not the betrayal of children, it is the society at large that allows abuse and neglect to flourish.

I speak as a now adult who grew up in an abusing home. The obvious safety nets did nothing to help because from the outside we looked like the perfect middle class family.

@thedailycarbuncle. I think there are 2 groups who argue lockdown is having no effect in children.

Those who have been utterly terrified by the propaganda and truly believe children are safer at home. No matter what home is like. Until there is some kind of cure.

And those who are using this as an excuse to push their agenda...

[quote nellodee]OP, there is absolutely rock solid evidence for the figures I have cited.

Around 6.78% of people who provided blood samples tested positive for antibodies to COVID-19
Source:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/28may2020

UK excess deaths reach almost 60,000
Multiple sources, but chose the Financial Times
www.ft.com/content/4a91a414-4937-4c54-aa78-6d231f4a4e43[/quote]
There is very strong evidence that many infected people do not produce antibodies. Their immune response is indicated in their T cells, CD4 to be exact: blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/15/good-news-on-the-human-immune-response-to-the-coronavirus

So antibody tests are not a good indication of infection - many infected people, with a positive covid test, test negative for antibodies.

No ine is saying lockdown doesn't have an impact on kids.

But all criticising lockdown don't have a workable solution.

@Purpleartichoke

Children have been abused and neglected for eternity. School may be a respite, but it is a small one. It in no way makes up for the trauma of home. The stay at home orders are not the betrayal of children, it is the society at large that allows abuse and neglect to flourish.

I speak as a now adult who grew up in an abusing home. The obvious safety nets did nothing to help because from the outside we looked like the perfect middle class family.

I'm so sorry Purpleartichoke.

I agree that the system lets children down. My point is that this is a further let-down, to take away the tiny bit of support that exists.

My worry is that in September, some children just won't turn up at school and no one will know what happened to them.

couldyou
And there are two types of people who are now very concerned about vulnerable children

Those who are genuinely concerned.

And those who are using 'WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE POOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN!' as some kind of get back to work trump card.

Which are you?

Of course lockdown is having an effect on children. However, pretending we are not in the middle of a global pandemic is not the the solution. Thinking that the choice is between lockdown and no lockdown completely ignores the fact that no lockdown involves exponential growth. There is absolutely nothing (that we are aware of) preventing a second wave of equal magnitude to the first if we lift restrictions. Indeed, it would only be of equal magnitude to the first, if we dealt with it the same way we did with the first, with another lockdown. This is because we do not yet have a Track Trace and Isolate plan in place that actually works and nor is the number of daily infections low enough for it to work if we did have it.

Pretending that we can go back to normal without heinous repercussions is the worst kind of magical thinking.

I guess sadly life is never good for some children. It's outrages and heartbreaking to think what some kids go through. If they go to school then go home to cruel parents they get a break. It's always been a thing. A thing that we all wish we could stop. But without a crystal ball and sixth sense how can we save kids from horrible situations?

Why can kids go back to school but I can't go round my best mates for a coffee? The government are not making much sense at all.

Outrageous

My worry is that in September, some children just won't turn up at school and no one will know what happened to them.
Unlikely - most schools will be looking at families who have not engaged and will be making arrangements to phone or visit.

My worry is that in September, some children just won't turn up at school and no one will know what happened to them.

So kids won't turn up at school and the school will go 'oh well'. Is that what usually happens?

@nellodee

Of course lockdown is having an effect on children. However, pretending we are not in the middle of a global pandemic is not the the solution. Thinking that the choice is between lockdown and no lockdown completely ignores the fact that no lockdown involves exponential growth. There is absolutely nothing (that we are aware of) preventing a second wave of equal magnitude to the first if we lift restrictions. Indeed, it would only be of equal magnitude to the first, if we dealt with it the same way we did with the first, with another lockdown. This is because we do not yet have a Track Trace and Isolate plan in place that actually works and nor is the number of daily infections low enough for it to work if we did have it.

Pretending that we can go back to normal without heinous repercussions is the worst kind of magical thinking.

There is a huge amount of evidence to say that a second wave is not going to happen. That covid was in the UK in December, spreading unnoticed while everyone went about their daily lives and that we've already had a first and second wave. That there is very very little risk to children and that they don't spread it either (one child studied had 100 close contacts and didn't infect a single one).

So you're assuming that everything you're saying is correct. In fact, it's just one guess as to what might happen, with very little evidence to support it.