If it's OK for Dominic Cummings to break lockdown because he was concerned about the welfare of his child, why isn't it OK for parents to decide when it's safe to send their children back to school?

[jomartin281271]

My message is in the question. What a massive double standard from the government. One law for them, and a completely different law for the masses.

I am not protecting my (secondary school)child if I am putting them at risk of losing a clinically vulnerable parent however.

The lack of precautions in UK schools mean that we are putting society at whole at risk of a major upswing in infection and this is not in the interest actually of anyone.

The answer is not to keep schools shit but to be discriminating about school transport, allowing some vulnerable families to educate at home, considering other community options that would allow social distancing.

Not simples, thanks.

He’s obviously got serious dirt on several senior Tories hasn’t he? Considering what the Pm gets away with that we know about you have to wonder if he literally knows where the bodies are buried.

One of the problems is that they government can’t fairly put it on teachers to deliver an education both at home and at school, that would just be completely unrealistic and would lead to even more teachers leaving the profession.

Every child has a right to a full time education, schools can only educate if children are in, there is no space to socially distance in most schools so that isn’t an option, so what are the alternatives?

I’d love to see some other reasonable suggestions, but there haven’t been any so far, probably because it really is that difficult to find one.

@MrsPerrywinkle

Because all of the data, all of it, shows that your child is going to be safe in school. So it’s a false equivalence, you are not protecting them by keeping them out of school, the opposite in fact is probably closer to the truth.

So why was my child shielding for nearly 5 months? Why would I not be protecting them if I decided it was safer to keep them home? Why is the only way to work with families like mine, to deal with their legitimate concerns by threatening them with fines?

@MrsPerrywinkle

Because all of the data, all of it, shows that your child is going to be safe in school. So it’s a false equivalence, you are not protecting them by keeping them out of school, the opposite in fact is probably closer to the truth.

Do you really believe that all children will be safe in school? Do you think that the virus is a hoax or not a risk? If true why are there still worldwide restrictions? Do you think the virus cant infect in school buildings? What makes schools the only place that is safe? Do you think children cant catch covid? What about those who have? Do you think children can catch but dont spread it? Where is the evidence that this is absolute? Ive seen research that disputes this.

What happens if some of these deshielded children die? They will be classed as with underlying conditions. Does this mean they dont count.
What if a child who wasnt shielded dies? Will this be died with no underlying condition? Or will they use any health situation to bracket them as underlying condition. Eczema, mild ashma, deathness, blindness, wheelchair user, autism, down syndrome etc.
We thats ok right because they had underlying conditions?