part time would be better than not at all though.
What is the point in part time?
You still have 100s of pupils seeing the same maths teacher, or geography teacher regardless of whether they are full time or part time at high school.
At primary school you merely create a nightmare for childcare issues - especially for key workers. And that has huge knock on effects.
What is the ultimate goal of part time provision? How does it reduce risk to a level which is markedly lower than normal hours to make it worth the loss of capacity elsewhere in the labour provision chain?
I don't believe that allowing 1000 pupils back to school at the same time rather than 2000 pupils reduces risks by the time you look at where there is other social crossover - specialist subject teachers, siblings, children socialising outside school (with children they shouldn't), parents in the same work places but with children in different groups.
By the time you look at the network of social interaction of 1000 pupils it rapidly renders the point of part time attendance 'to reduce risk' as utterly pointless. It does achieve that and is merely an inconvenience.
Part time attendance only has a point with limited numbers returned to school. That's lost when you return them all.
That's my point.
It becomes a farcial exercise to attempt anything but a full school return once you get past a certain number of children. You've effectively got a huge percentage of the local population caught in the social interaction chain.
Ultimately it has to come down to localisation. The schools will have to fully reopen as normal. If there is an outbreak in a local community all the nearest schools in the vincinity will have to shut. That's it. There won't be national closures.
There isn't a viable alternative unfortunately.
That's why keeping the schools closed for longer in the short term may well be preferable because it reduces the risk of later localised closures further down the line.