The government is trying to make you think schools will be socially distanced

[noblegiraffe]

The government are currently running a (well publicised) propaganda campaign to say that schools are safe. They are using social media influencers, journalists and friendly scientists (firmly ignoring any unfriendly ones like the Royal Society). Branwen Jefferys of the BBC tweeted “So how high is government anxiety about school return? A PR company acting on behalf of the Cabinet office is now emailing media offering experts to support the “messaging”. Strange way to approach news journalists ..”

And just about every news outlet running stories about schools seems to be rotating stock footage of half empty classrooms with teachers miles away from the kids. There have even been photos of kids getting temperature checks (not allowed). I was watching Sky news where a commentator was saying how awful it was that kids would be sent back to socially distanced schools. The PM gave a rambling speech to carefully spaced kids in a library. And in a visit to a classroom it’s clear that the kids were all shoved down one end in order to give some lovely spaced kids at the other end for the PM to pose in front of.
metro.co.uk/2020/08/27/boris-johnson-staged-school-visit-social-distancing-13188600/

Matt Hancock was on the news saying it was really important for teachers to stay 2m from the kids to avoid spreading the virus between all the bubbles they’ll be working in, despite knowing that this will be utterly and hopelessly impossible.

Why are the government lying? Why are they sending the ‘right’ experts to the press? Why are kids being spread out for staged photo shoots instead of honest pictures?

And why are the press largely going along with it?

Schools are going back, in a lot of cases to an estate that is unfit for purpose. Old buildings, no ventilation, large class sizes. Pupils will be crammed in facing a teacher who won’t be able to stand 2m from them. If it’s so safe, why aren’t they showing and acknowledging the reality?

YABU: what they are doing is fine and there are perfectly reasonable explanations for all the suggestions of socially distanced classrooms and schools in the media

YANBU: the lying liars are lying to us again

Well, they were warned about care homes. And the care home managers warned the discharging hospital.
And wasn't there that "well if some old people die..." comment?
I think they knew, and thought it worth the cost.

@noblegiraffe

I think it's both incompetence and dishonesty. They presented lockdown as a vital, necessary thing that everyone had to get on board with to save lives, while at the same time they knowingly increased deaths with policies that exposed vulnerable people to the virus.

You think they knowingly killed off the elderly? Blimey, you're more cynical than me.

I totally disagree with you about lockdown being unneccesary because of exponential growth. You can't have a hope of controlling something and protecting anyone vulnerable if cases are spiralling upwards.

Chris Whitty recently claimed that the government was 'unaware' of the issue of care workers spreading infection around multiple nursing homes, which was an outright lie as there is a record of the care industry warning of it being a problem in March.

[quote locked2020]@noblegiraffe I haven't rtft, but I've read your responses...I think you make a lot of sense, don't think it's scaremongering etc, it's pretty factual. I personally find it really unnerving that the government keep taking this line - if they were honest about what was really happening, I'd bizarrely probably feel more secure. I'd also feel better if they allowed testing for some of the other main symptoms too, but that's another thread I guess. [/quote]
Thanks. I agree that it is unnerving that we are being lied to and when I read stuff and go 'wtf are they on about' it is actually reassuring to go on social media and see other people having the same thoughts.

If they said 'yes, teachers are up shit creek in terms of social distancing but we will implement regular tests in schools to try to keep a lid on things' then that would be better.

@noblegiraffe @SaltyAndFresh if I am called a wimp or weird at any point in the next few weeks for being scared then I will be going off with stress. My GP thinks schools going back like this is stupid and will happily give me a note. I have had one day off since 1988 and that was when I was in hospital with a split pelvis. I don't do sick but I'm so fed up of being told how to feel.

TheDailyCarbuncle
Chris Whitty recently claimed that the government was 'unaware' of the issue of care workers spreading infection around multiple nursing homes, which was an outright lie as there is a record of the care industry warning of it being a problem in March.

In a similar vein they were also warned of the inefficiency of the algorithm for the exam results.

Chris Whitty recently claimed that the government was 'unaware' of the issue of care workers spreading infection around multiple nursing homes, which was an outright lie as there is a record of the care industry warning of it being a problem in March.

Gav was 'unaware' of the issues with the algorithm despite them being raised in July.

Deny, deny deny.

What some posters might not be aware of is that one reason I post these threads is to have them on the record.

There was another thread recently where a poster was complaining that they had literally no idea that schools were an underfunded mess and why hadn't teachers said anything. So I linked to my threads...

Regular testing isn't a bad thing per se, but how does it actually help? Again this is a genuine question - schools aren't the only source of infection so testing may identify that a child has it, causing the class or multiple classes to isolate, but when they come back, the risk hasn't gone away and both children and teachers can still catch it from any other number of sources.

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get. You can manage things to a certain extent but at some point it's just a losing game isn't it?

infection will keep coming around and around, meaning repeated isolations no matter what the size of the class. 'Reducing' infection is a bit meaningless when over the course of the year potentially every single person could get infected at various different points.

But the whole point, if systems are in place, is that transmission is stopped.

In a year one would not expect everyone to get it, that would be a total failure.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Regular testing isn't a bad thing per se, but how does it actually help? Again this is a genuine question - schools aren't the only source of infection so testing may identify that a child has it, causing the class or multiple classes to isolate, but when they come back, the risk hasn't gone away and both children and teachers can still catch it from any other number of sources.

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get. You can manage things to a certain extent but at some point it's just a losing game isn't it?

The only way of preventing schools closing is to stop the virus from getting in to schools.

If testing were robust enough and done on a regular basis to all pupils and staff members. We wouldn't be able to stop it entering schools fully but it would prevent schools from having to close because fewer people/pupils/parents would be isolating.

After all schools need to be open for the mental well being of the children.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Regular testing isn't a bad thing per se, but how does it actually help? Again this is a genuine question - schools aren't the only source of infection so testing may identify that a child has it, causing the class or multiple classes to isolate, but when they come back, the risk hasn't gone away and both children and teachers can still catch it from any other number of sources.

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get. You can manage things to a certain extent but at some point it's just a losing game isn't it?

Do you remember back at the beginning all those infographics with matches burning out, or loads of mouse traps triggering, or how many people you are in contact with leading to how many people are infected a week later? Well that still applies....

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get. You can manage things to a certain extent but at some point it's just a losing game isn't it?

That would be a policy choice, but given its seriousness, not really an actual option.

This is why whitty said SD would be in place until there is a vaccine.

@latticechaos

infection will keep coming around and around, meaning repeated isolations no matter what the size of the class. 'Reducing' infection is a bit meaningless when over the course of the year potentially every single person could get infected at various different points.

But the whole point, if systems are in place, is that transmission is stopped.

In a year one would not expect everyone to get it, that would be a total failure.

How would transmission be stopped? Do you genuinely expect that to happen?

Regular testing isn't a bad thing per se, but how does it actually help?

Because kids are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders and so removing them from the school population and isolating them will stop the spread from them.

Because teachers are (on past experience) likely to ignore minor symptoms as they don't want to drop their colleagues in it and positive testing will force them to stay at home.

Because there are parents who will send kids in when ill and lie about tests.

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get.

I think it's way too early to write off the idea of a vaccine.

I'm in Scotland, my 5 yo has just picked up a cold (which has given her a fever, so she's off being tested) in a small class (undersubscribed school, 70s classroom with 19 kids in it so probably about the equivalent of 50% occupancy). I'm not convinced half time would improve the situation as there is more cross school mixing potential when they're not in...

Not sure what the answer but definitely not convinced that part time is the panacea it's supposed to be!

@noblegiraffe

Regular testing isn't a bad thing per se, but how does it actually help?

Because kids are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders and so removing them from the school population and isolating them will stop the spread from them.

Because teachers are (on past experience) likely to ignore minor symptoms as they don't want to drop their colleagues in it and positive testing will force them to stay at home.

Because there are parents who will send kids in when ill and lie about tests.

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get.

I think it's way too early to write off the idea of a vaccine.

But unless you test every child every day how are infected children/adults going to be identified before they spread it?

One of the key reasons covid has spread so quickly is because the symptoms vary so much or can be so mild that people just don't know they have it.

Yes I think it’s worth it to be direct and simple with messaging to get people to do the best thing en masse.

There should be, and assume there is, more direct communication to ECV students and parents. The campaign needs to work to the majority and the very low percent of ECV families (under 3% as that’s overall in society, there will be fewer children) need to get targeted information specific to their situation to risk assess properly. Letters were sent out initially and I’d hope parents feel they can contact medics for specific info.

I’m actually fine with the initial stay home message for same reasons.

What about all the people who aren't quite as clear cut as ECV with letters though? And the people who have family members in that group, but not children? I understand what you're saying, and it's not the simplicity of the basic government message that I have a problem with, so much as the extra deception and spin used to back it up. It just shouldn't be necessary, and if I was to approve of the deception while knowing it's a deception it would feel a bit like saying it's OK for me to make informed decisions but the peasants should just do as they're told.

If you discovered that a friend of yours believed that secondary schools were going back pretty much as in June, with lots of space between kids, would you tell them that that that's not actually how it's going to be? Or would you keep quiet in case they decided not to send their children back to school straight away?

I think everything should be out in the open, the government can still send a clear message that they think that at a national level kids should be going back, but at the very least it would give more respect to all parents in letting them make their own individual assessments based on their family situation and an accurate picture of what things will be like.

There are plenty of political reasons why the government wouldn't want to do that, mainly because it would highlight school funding issues and risk starting discussions about how schools could open more safely, which they really don't want to have, but I'm not sure there are any non-political justifications for the deception and spinning.

@latticechaos

I'm thinking of it in terms of covid being around as an illness permanently, something you can always get. You can manage things to a certain extent but at some point it's just a losing game isn't it?

That would be a policy choice, but given its seriousness, not really an actual option.

This is why whitty said SD would be in place until there is a vaccine.

What if there is never a vaccine?

@noblegiraffe

They do actually give a good impression of that, but of course according to you they are all liars.

If I didn't want to teach kids, I wouldn't have been teaching the last 15 years?

It is entirely possible to want to teach kids and to want improved safety measures to keep schools open and to think that the government are a bunch of lying shitheads.

This and agree with everything you have said Noble.

[quote mumsneedwine]**@noblegiraffe* @SaltyAndFresh* if I am called a wimp or weird at any point in the next few weeks for being scared then I will be going off with stress. My GP thinks schools going back like this is stupid and will happily give me a note. I have had one day off since 1988 and that was when I was in hospital with a split pelvis. I don't do sick but I'm so fed up of being told how to feel. [/quote]
It's the logical solution to being told we're not well enough to do our jobs. I mean, we keep pointing out that we can't and won't just quit, so the logical response is to go off sick.

Or demand repeatedly and loudly that the current plan is not good enough and it needs vast improvement.

I assume the people who requested this be moved from AIBU didn't like that the poll wasn't going their way? You could after all argue that any topic in AIBU should be moved to its own topic

How would transmission be stopped? Do you genuinely expect that to happen?

What do you think social distancing is for?? Do you think we've all just gone off each other?

It isn't a binary choice between 'zero transmission' and 'fuck it let everyone catch it'.

The nation is trying to limit spread, because it is better if people don't catch it.

But unless you test every child every day how are infected children/adults going to be identified before they spread it?

I didn't say it would be perfect, I said it would be better. In areas of low transmission there shouldn't be huge numbers of cases to pick up so less regular testing would keep a lid on things. In areas of high transmission, then we could consider other measures as well as testing such as rotas or closing schools.

I'm a mathematician not an epidemiologist but proactively testing and removing positive cases from the general population and not just those showing symptoms would lessen the spread.

What if there is never a vaccine?

Treatment more likely and could hopefully make it unconcerning. That is why the same thing to do is just give the scientists a little time.

Even if there is no vaccine, there is nothing to be gained by letting the virus spread fast the way people like TheDailyCarbuncle would be comfortable with. I think those people massively underestimate the risks of large number of people being ill at once, and it's far too soon to say hospitalisation rates won't still go up again. Letting the virus spread fast won't help the economy, it won't make things go back to normal, it won't help people get hospital treatment. We need to keep transmission as slow as possible, not just give up and say it's difficult to stop so let it run.

@latticechaos

How would transmission be stopped? Do you genuinely expect that to happen?

What do you think social distancing is for?? Do you think we've all just gone off each other?

It isn't a binary choice between 'zero transmission' and 'fuck it let everyone catch it'.

The nation is trying to limit spread, because it is better if people don't catch it.

Social distancing is to slow transmission, not stop it. Limiting spread is about reducing the numbers who have it any one time, not limiting the absolute numbers. Even with social distancing, thousands of people have had it and thousands more will get it. It's not just going to stop.