Safe to reopen schools

[askmehowiknow]

Article from oxford professor summarising new data that it's safe for children to be in school. Great pre September reading!

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/18/children-covid-19-english-schools-virus-safe-reopening

So basically it's gone for the kids and young, fit, healthy teachers is what he's summarising here.

Teachers like myself who are older and extremely clinically vulnerable are probably fucked then.

It's ok for the kids (not sure why my phone posted 'gone'!)

Then why have children tested positive for it in some Scottish schools, also in USA 🤔

Is there any reason why some children wouldn't test positive? They have done throughout

It doesn't say it is safe, it says it should be safe. That should is important.

It also says this is for the kids themselves and that it is less certain whether it will drive community infection. And that staff are potentially vulnerable.

It states only a third of youngsters with a positive test had symptoms, which means that asymptomatic youngsters will be mingling with up to 2000 others.

Comparisons with Sweden always ignore the fact that 16+ were taught remotely.

And no, I'm not saying schools shouldn't open, I want them open, I just want some meaningful mitigation measures in place, or at the very worst an admission that yes it's risky, yes we are asking a lot of school staff, but we think it's really important that kids go back.

This article doesn't say it is a good idea to drive community and family infections up, which is what I am mostly concerned about. Plus teachers.

SD is required for older teens imo.

Completely agree with Count.

Im at risk as are many parents and teachers. So it's all very well saying nany kids are asymptomatic- but isn't that exactly how it will spread in crowded groups in enclosed spaces, as asymptomatic people wont realise they're spreading?

Im still shocked at the conditions teschers are expected to return in, and a bit curious about the propoganda on mumsnet....

Moving into autumn, as the effects of other lockdown-easing measures are felt, it is inevitable that the plan will coincide with an increase in Covid-19 cases.

From the article. This is my concern around our school plan. The article also totally ignored over 16s, children with pre-existing conditions, and children with vulnerable carers/family members!

SD is required for older teens imo

Yes it probably is but school buildings aren't big enough to facilitate this and part time schooling isnt feasible as they're isnt enough teachers to be teaching half the school in the classroom and be available to the other half of the school at home. If you scrap any teacher contact for the time children are at home then they are literally only getting a part time education which especially in older ones doing exams isnt good enough.

Btw 1in 10 children have a vulnerable parent or carer.

It will harm those children greatly if their parent becomes ill or unable to work. Much more than it will harm my kids to study part time in distanced groups for a term or two more.

The plan to.open without SD is wrong imo.

The data from the pre-summer limited openings is not adequate. Many vulnerable families stayed away.

The Professor Snape who did the research, wasn't he Professor of Potions/Dark Arts at Hogwarts. And a Death Eater?

@Uhoh2020

SD is required for older teens imo

Yes it probably is but school buildings aren't big enough to facilitate this and part time schooling isnt feasible as they're isnt enough teachers to be teaching half the school in the classroom and be available to the other half of the school at home. If you scrap any teacher contact for the time children are at home then they are literally only getting a part time education which especially in older ones doing exams isnt good enough.

I think the government is very keen that both pupils and parents do not discover that part time in half size groups could deliver very good outcomes.

The young/fit/apparently healthy are of course going to be fine.

What school is entirely populated by people in that category? And which pupils only have similar young/fit/healthy people in their families.

He's saying nothing new. Amongst children, particularly primary age, the risk is low in terms of direct bodily harm to the child.

But that doesn't hold for everyone else (and possibly not for older secondary pupils either)

I hope that articles such as these will not drive policy makers to conclude that any planning for offsite learning in the event of school,p closures can be deprioritised. There is nothing in this that says that bubbles won't burst, or that there will be no local or regional lockdowns, or that teachers won't be off (sick or contact isolation) in such numbers that schools have to close for a while.

@echt

The Professor Snape who did the research, wasn't he Professor of Potions/Dark Arts at Hogwarts. And a Death Eater?

This professor didn't do this research btw, is expressing an opinion.

I agree with their view that healthy pupils with healthy parents are statistically likely to be asymptomatic. That isn't what I am worried about though!

I am worried about community transmission, family transfer and kids with underlying conditions.

The professor ignores all those things really.

@latticechaos but there aren't enough teachers to be able to do it!
Say 1 secondary teacher has 5 different classes each with 30 children thats 150 children. At school that teacher is there in person teaching every class at the same time can answer all questions during that lesson etc. If only half are in the classroom that day there's 75 children she can't help. Of course the children at home who require help can email the teacher but when does the teacher have time to email back upto 75 children when she's got a day full of teaching in the classroom?

I think he addresses the valid concerns above in the article in a better way than I could

@CountDuckulasKetchup

And no, I'm not saying schools shouldn't open, I want them open, I just want some meaningful mitigation measures in place, or at the very worst an admission that yes it's risky, yes we are asking a lot of school staff, but we think it's really important that kids go back.

This.

This is all teachers and parents are wanting. We (I am a parent but on the side of the teachers) are wanting is a safe environment. I want my child in school, but I want it safe. On a selfish note, I don't want school opening and shutting, I don't want the teacher going off sick or worse - all these things will adversely affect my ASD daughter. I also don't want her bringing cv home (asymptomatical or otherwise) and the vulnerable person in our home catching it and either being too ill to care for her or dying (might be slim chance, but definitely increased over a young, fit healthy person).

On a non-selfish note I don't want my dds teacher being sick or worse because she too has children and they shouldn't lose their parent due to blatant incompetence of those in charge.

This disgraceful managing of the situation needs sorting. This really can't be allowed to continue. What school in an area/country of high cases has gone back without any safety adjustments in place and hasn't had increased cases? All those saying that it is safe for school to return as normal without safety adjustments, please give me an example.

I fully support the teachers in all they need to do to get a safe working environment.

@askmehowiknow

I think he addresses the valid concerns above in the article in a better way than I could

Actually he just doesn't address them, really.

1. risk to teachers - he cites Sweden. A) Swedish schools have small groups (i.e. distancing) and B) sixth formers we're not in school

2. community transmission - he just says school.opening will.conicide with it

3. vulnerable children and families - no mention, the article continually refers to 'healthy children' yet 1 in 10 children have a vulnerable adult at home

It really concerns me.

I've not sent mine back yet (Scotland), but I'm getting immense pressure from schools and family.

The syndrome related to Kawasaki disease but more severe worries me. In this study in the Lancet of Italy cases there were 19 Kawasaki cases in the 2 years prior to the COVID. During COVID there were 10 Kawasaki cases in 2 MONTHS.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31103-X/fulltext

20 Children (classed as 0-19) have very very sadly died from COVID in England alone.

I just don't think it's safe. No doubt I'll get jumped on here as I am in real life.

[quote Uhoh2020]@latticechaos but there aren't enough teachers to be able to do it!
Say 1 secondary teacher has 5 different classes each with 30 children thats 150 children. At school that teacher is there in person teaching every class at the same time can answer all questions during that lesson etc. If only half are in the classroom that day there's 75 children she can't help. Of course the children at home who require help can email the teacher but when does the teacher have time to email back upto 75 children when she's got a day full of teaching in the classroom?[/quote]
I think if you start from the position that it can't be done, that's where you'll get.

My view is social distancing should be done this winter, so what is the best we can do.

I believe many many children would be fine with 50/50 school/home. This would be more than most online providers give.

My children emailed about three questions betweens them whilst off.

There are, as always, a small number who need extra help, the help should be targeted.

And those figures are WITH being in various states of lockdown or schools closed for most of it.

Hi @whistlestopsong those 20 children did they have pre existing conditions in any of them? What are child death rates like in England for other illnesses? For instance other illnesses perhaps in those children with pre existing conditions?

In other words: going by absolute numbers (20 in England) tells us nothing. If I researched fatal car accidents as plain numbers I am sure many more than 20 would result. But that’s not how we make decisions do we?

What you are able to do is to keep your own children home, if you have weighed out everything rationally, and have concluded that the costs to your children of being kept home are less than proven, accurate, rational and balanced actual-risks of them attending school. By actual risk I mean a real, statistically sound risk and not perceived-risk that emerges from “20 kids died”.

What one cannot do though is ask for schools to remain closed indefinitely, or for everyone to keep their kids away until a specific form of measures are arrived at.

@latticechaos you believe it can i believe it can't. I also believe if it could be done then it would be.

[quote Uhoh2020]@latticechaos you believe it can i believe it can't. I also believe if it could be done then it would be.[/quote]
I do not believe the government would invest a single extra penny. That is why it can't be done.