How long before schools are closed again?

[2X4B523P]

How long do we think it’ll be before schools are back to being closed to most children for the foreseeable future?

I, along with many other posters on here were advocating part time schooling to hopefully keep them going throughout the winter. As it is I couldn’t see them lasting much more than another three weeks.

On the 19th August I estimated there would be close to 7000 schools affected by the end of week four and the path to that figure is playing out at the moment.

I took the outbreaks reported in Scotland after one week of opening and scaled up for the difference in Scottish daily positive tests at that time and those in England. That gave a figure of 490 by the end of the first week. I didn’t differentiate between any nation, I just applied it into a UK total. I then calculated the figure if the cases were to double each week.

In excess of 490 schools were affected by Thursday 10th. That point was pretty much one week as for England no children started before Tuesday last week but I know of many schools which started back on the Thursday after two teacher training days. There was some children I know personally that didn’t start back until the Monday of this week. Also take into account that there will be a day or so lag in receiving a positive test.

I had no scientific fact to cases doubling each week in schools, just an opinion that this could happen due to the lack of any social distancing. This is playing out nationally with cases said to be doubling every seven to eight days at the moment. What makes it worse is there has been a recent increase in middle aged people becoming infected and could also start to affect the older generations with the associated high hospitalisations and deaths.

IF we get to 6900 schools affected by the end of week four I can’t see that schools won’t be on some form of national closure. Particularly if, heaven forbid, teachers and school staff start dying.

Using my formula the total figure at the end of each week would be:

Week 1: 490
Week 2: 1380
Week 3: 3220
Week 4: 6900
Week 5: 14260
Week 6: 28980

@Timeforanotherusername
“Op is suggesting the rise only really started when schools went back. We know this is not the case.”

The graph tells a different story. I did say up thread there could be a number of reasons for the increase in cases but the sudden jump was from the 6th onwards.

Another graph, cases reached the lowest near 1st July where they gradually increased. Near 1st September you can see a marked jump in numbers.

Scotland (which I never forget about btw) has a population of ~5.5 million. The number of positives is not really enough to make a significant difference.

With some exceptions schools in England went back from 1st September. Mine were the following day and they went back before the majority of the county schools.

Many did not go back until the following week.

If there is significant in school transmissions then it happened very quickly not only for someone to contract, but show symptoms and get a positive test result.

You cannot say that the increase on 6th Septmeber is due to schools going back.

Also many of those tests will have been done in the days before and not on that day.

Your argument is strengthened when you correctly interpret the data you have.

I think we'll have agree to disagree on this one.

sunseekin

I knew what you meant, I’m sure he’s both, go with your gut, I think it will only be another three weeks of education.”

Thank you. We did first time round in early March, took our son out 2 weeks prior to lockdown after the head would not ask a trip returning from Italy to isolate because they were all “fine” with no symptoms. Spent an increasingly frustrating couple of weeks beforehand, could see so clearly what was coming, banging our heads again at a solid wall.
You’d think it would all be so much easier this time round, we’ve all been there before, but we’re still being told there’s no case to up the online provision from the current 3 days per week to five for vulnerable students or those with vulnerable family members. In a college community of over 3,500, with hundreds in that category, the lack of foresight and planning is unbelievable. Head-banging again.

It is all a complete joke.
The whole point of getting children back to school ( for parents) is for their education.
Newsflash......
Education wont be happening. Cant possi ly be happening when:
Children are off, then in, then off.
Teachers are off, then in, then off.
The whole system.breaks down anyway with the lack of continuity.
We will be mere babysitters soon.
You might as well have your children at home because learning at school will not be happening!
Its a fact!

The whole situation was completely unsustainable from the start.
Creative approaches should have been the focus instead of this shit show.

We are 'lucky' in scotland. Not had the cases England have had and thats because community transmission was gotten down to low levels but it will be here soon.
We need to take action now to avoid the shit show in England.

Creative approaches should have been the focus

Agree with this. The denial of the reality of this virus is now getting in the way of really mitigating the impact.

There is so much we could do if the government would accept it should be done.

The testing system is clearly not coping, the government have known since mid-August apparently, but ploughed on regardless.

I would give my right arm to be able to say to my kids 'you have this thing in place and I am 98% confident it'll last beyond next weekend'. Full time school is so precarious, and unis are not even back yet - the testing demand then will be ballistic.

Full occupancy school without testing is a mirage, with potential serious consequences.

The testing system is clearly not coping, the government have known since mid-August apparently, but ploughed on regardless.

The number of tests carried out every day has been hugely increased. It just still isn’t enough. It was over 230,000 last time I looked.

Full occupancy school without testing is a mirage, with potential serious consequences.

I think it’s important to understand we are choosing between evils, evils which fundamentally are no one’s fault but the virus. It’s no good just shouting “option A has so many problem” because all the other options do too.

If we don’t have full time school, huge damage is done to women, the economy and children. I don’t think anyone disputes this although they may disagree about the degree.

If we do have full time school then some teachers are scared and some worry it may spread the virus. The fear is real but whether teachers are at a much increased risk is disputed. Similarly whether there is much contribution to the spread of the virus from schools is disputed.

Remember some schools were back before 1st September, namely Leicestershire (already hot-spot) and Scotland. Also, the problem with schools is the attitude of if they're in school all day in a bubble of 200 then it's okay for us to have a party with ten. A lot of people will have relaxed their thinking in the week or two before schools start, trying to ready their children for mixing with others again. How many play dates were organised with multiple families the week before with the excuse well there all back at school next week? This is school related but the government won't admit it until the last possible moment, then they'll do another U-turn. We should be getting used to it by now.

NotEven agree, especially re damaging to children.

If we don’t have full time school, huge damage is done to women, the economy and children. I don’t think anyone disputes this although they may disagree about the degree.

Those same women will be disadvantaged by the mirage of full time school. And the economy will be damaged by rising infection levels, with or without formal lockdown.

In Spain they've legislated to protect workers' rights where covid impacts. We need to address the workplace vulnerabilities, not just pretend covid is no threat.

Full time school was a mirage. How can a mirage really help anyone? We need to get something real and solid in place, upon which working people (like me!) can rely.

As for the testing - no one disputes they increased it. But guess what, it isn't working (in part due to the failure of the tracing aspect) and they knew by mid-August. They knew and carried on saying it would be fine. Notably this week Dido Harding said demand was outstripping supply by 'three to four' and the next day downing Street said they weren't aware of problems getting tests. They can't both be telling the truth. Anecdotal evidence says Harding is right.

If we do have full time school then some teachers are scared and some worry it may spread the virus. The fear is real but whether teachers are at a much increased risk is disputed. Similarly whether there is much contribution to the spread of the virus from schools is disputed

We won't be giving quality education. We will be babysitting.
Every other virus is spread by children. Why shouldn't this one?
The only difference is children seem to be asymptomatic.
If they don't spread it why is it we are to have SD in schools from the teacher.
Whoever said full time school is a mirage is spot on.
Even if children are at school the disruption alone will ensure children will not have learning going on.
That and the fact that children WILL bring the virus home to everyone they know unintentionally.

I'd be interested to know, why dc with lap tops and a willing parent can't do some days at home, watching the teacher remotely?

Eg I work from home 2 days per week, I'm happy to have my youngest dd on those days, she could follow the classroom from home.
The dp I know have all been working a few days from home.
Those that can, with the lap tops, the WiFi and the resources, why can't they be taught like that?.

Remove bodies from the classroom where possible. Many dp are sahm too. The dc are also in a win win being taught properly, keeping up with the curriculum, and still going into schools to physically see their friends?

The fear is real but whether teachers are at a much increased risk is disputed.

It is only 'disputed' in the same way climate change is disputed imo. Without decent test and trace, schools will drive transmission, to teachers and parents, and then the wider community.

I am loathe to clutter this thread with conjecture, but how much do people think seasonality will impact on Covid?

I know the north of England seems to be doing worse than the south, I've heard people wonder if weather could be a factor (though it is still quite mild). Is this a pattern that is reflected in other countries? Could this have contributed to say, New York being hard hit at the tail end of last winter, or was that down purely to being a hub? South America has fared poorly, but could it have been worse if it had been colder as well? Has the vitamin D theory stood up? Is there too much other noise to draw out the correlation?

Those suggesting kids part time remote learning from home .. how long for? A couple of years? Isn't that disruptive.

Cases have risen yes, but not because of schools.

Only one year group has closed where I am (just outside London) on day 2 so not transmitted in school.

All this ... schools shouid do this, schools shouid do that - none of you are scientists are you with your bright ideas!!

www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-talking-children-families-about-returning-school-guiding-principles

Some evidence here but obviously we have bigger classes etc.

@RepeatSwan

The fear is real but whether teachers are at a much increased risk is disputed.

It is only 'disputed' in the same way climate change is disputed imo. Without decent test and trace, schools will drive transmission, to teachers and parents, and then the wider community.

I don't think it's "being a teacher" that places me at higher risk, I think it's having 14-16 year olds cough continuously in my face from a distance of under 2m and a duration of an hour on several occasions per week. I cannot see how this will not increase my risk, compared to being sat at home working on a laptop.

We won't be giving quality education. We will be babysitting. Every other virus is spread by children. Why shouldn't this one?The only difference is children seem to be asymptomatic.

I disagree with all of this. Let me explain.

First DD has now moved to a good state primary and is receiving a full education. What do you mean they are only babysitting?

Second, there is something medically mysterious about covid where children hardly get ill at all. It is also spread through droplets and it seems the quantity of virus you receive affects how ill you get as an adult,

So an asymptomatic child will not be coughing and is unlikely to have their face close to your face for prolonged periods. This good news for adults in their vicinity.

This could all be nonsense but we can see from the open schools all around the world that teachers are not getting ill in large numbers and the schools have not created dramatic clusters of infections.

@Remmy123

Those suggesting kids part time remote learning from home .. how long for? A couple of years? Isn't that disruptive.

Cases have risen yes, but not because of schools.

Only one year group has closed where I am (just outside London) on day 2 so not transmitted in school.

All this ... schools shouid do this, schools shouid do that - none of you are scientists are you with your bright ideas!!

Am happy to leave experts to work on precise solutions, but I think I'm capable of grasping the basic problem!

Yes part time schooling would be a disruption. But so would repeated school closures and unwell teachers be a disruption.

I don't think there's an option that doesn't involve disruption, is there?

@RepeatSwan whole schools have not closed!!!

I have 3 children in 3 different schools - large schools? Not one year has closed.

My dc are being taught currently not babysat.

The issue that mostly disrupted the schools here were colds etc forcing tests.