Cases rising in secondary school-aged children - more mitigation measures needed?

[noblegiraffe]

The graph that was notable by its absence in this week's briefing has been released and it shows a steep increase in infections in 10-19 year olds. This is backed up by the ONS survey showing an increase in infections in years 7-11.

The Guardian appears to be the only newspaper to have noticed this, with government mouthpiece Prof Viner blathering 'it is likely that much of the transmission among groups of young people may be outside school settings, as we really have limited evidence of transmission within schools', completely ignoring the graph in front of his face that shows the rise looking remarkably coincident with the date schools re-opened.

With people on here insisting that the number of outbreaks in schools ( 13,000 kids in Birmingham currently self-isolating ) is nothing to worry about and that 'educational settings' just means that university data is being misinterpreted as applying to school children, surely this data must give pause for thought?

Maybe cramming kids into small classrooms with poor ventilation and no mitigation measures isn't the brightest idea and a rethink is needed before winter really sets in?

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/02/covid-cases-among-secondary-school-aged-children-rise-in-england

The achool is currently shut for two weeks

But 10-19 actually covers quite a broad range of situations - primary school, secondary school, colleges and workplaces. I'm pretty sure one of the experts broke down the range further, and the biggest increase was in 17-19 year olds, with minimal increases in the other ages in the 10-19 range.

It makes sense that those at least risk are taking the fewest precautions.

What is this supposed to mean? They don't really have a choice about going to school. School has given them very few precautions.

It would make more sense to say 'children are at the least risk so we can put them in the riskiest scenarios (and forget about the adults involved)'.

@Sickofmoaners
"But your constant scaremongering does nobody any good."

I imagine slave trade abolitionists were told the same sort of thing.

It's not scaremongering to point to government statistics.

It's not scaremongering to call for extra measures which are necessary to help stop serious illness or even death, which are being used by most of the rest of the world.

It could even do everyone some good.

But 10-19 actually covers quite a broad range of situations - primary school, secondary school, colleges and workplaces.

Which is why my second graph breaks it down into years 7-11 and Y12 to age 24. Clear rise in years 7-11.

And no I'm not comparing the way schools have been opened to the 18th century slave trade. I meant that when people start pointing to harmful practises in a state condoned system they are often accused of scaremongering and irrelevance.

And tbf, I'm staying away from MN much more now because of threads like this constantly pushing an agenda.

I make no judgement about who is right or wrong but can I ask what you mean here by an agenda?

Is that someone who will personally profit from some outcome they are pushing?

Or is just someone who has a strong opinion about something?

constantly pushing an agenda.

I’ve seen this a few times now. What do you think the “agenda” is, if not to highlight what is actually happening?

And although children and teenagers may be asymptomatic there isn't yet evidence of what this means for these groups in terms of their long term health. Risky just yet until we can prove otherwise.

As far as ventilation, working in schools through the winter, with open doors and windows is going to be unworkable.
Either HSE/PHE advice will have to change - so no need for ventilation or schools are not going to be able to teach so many pupils at a time to allow for SD in an unventilated room.
As union members you have the right to challenge work force regulations.
Interesting that the DfE has just extended legislation around the legal requirement of schools to provide remote education. More closures expected? Changes to the number of children attending school? Recognition of winter weather and ventilation?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/923539/RemoteeEducationTemporaryyContinuityDirectionn-ExplanatoryyNote.pdf

What is this supposed to mean? They don't really have a choice about going to school. School has given them very few precautions.

It means they are happier not to distance themselves socially. You can just see it in the park every day. When DC go to a friends house, no one is asking them to stay two metres apart.

But I myself, as someone over 30, do socially distance.

To be fair, this was just a possibility. Please feel free to disagree. How about my other two possibilities?

Kids are sitting right next to each other at tables practically all day long. They are not 'on the move' keeping away from each other.

As for your other points... I don't really see height making much difference in a classroom where the collective breath (and no doubt sneezes of kids with seasonal sniffles who may or may not have Covid) of 30 seated children are concentrated in a room. On my first day back, three little children tried to hug me. In another class I have 36 kids who barely fit in the room.

What is an MEO??

People leaping on the OP have just as much of an agenda imo.

As far as ventilation, working in schools through the winter, with open doors and windows is going to be unworkable.
Either HSE/PHE advice will have to change - so no need for ventilation or schools are not going to be able to teach so many pupils at a time to allow for SD in an unventilated room.

I suspect the guidance will change so ventilation - the only mitigation we have - is suddenly and inexplicably but very conveniently unnecessary.

As for your other points... I don't really see height making much difference in a classroom where the collective breath (and no doubt sneezes of kids with seasonal sniffles who may or may not have Covid) of 30 seated children are concentrated in a room. On my first day back, three little children tried to hug me. In another class I have 36 kids who barely fit in the room.

I guess facing each other may be different from facing the same direction. But overall you are right. We don’t really know why children seem not to infect adults as much. But it does seem to be true and needs an explanation.

Of course we also don’t really know why children get so much less ill. There are many mysteries here.

OT I know, but I’m baffled by the decline in positive tests for the 5-9 age group on that first graph. Surely there’s still loads of pressure to test that age group for every sniffle which would reduce the percentage of tests which are positive but wouldn’t reduce the absolute number of positive tests.

On my first day back, three little children tried to hug me

They talk about being close for fifteen minutes so a hug might be fine. Being sneezed on probably not so much.

As for your other points... I don't really see height making much difference

This thread is about secondary school children. Most of them are taller than me!

@HipTightOnions I think you are right. And that’s when I’ll resign. I’m a supply teacher in a maternity cover with no contract, so can resign today and be gone immediately.

a hug might be fine.

Such desperation!

No, a hug is not fine. From the guidance:

direct close contacts - face to face contact with an infected individual for any length of time, within 1 metre

You can just see it in the park every day. When DC go to a friends house, no one is asking them to stay two metres apart

Try explaining to a kid who has just spent all day sat directly next to their friends and playing with them with no SD that once out of school they have to be 2m apart. Try to make it make sense.

Then report back.

@notevenat20

And given that they spend the day shoulder to shoulder with other kids in poorly ventilated classrooms - a situation that is acknowledged as high risk by scientists and actually would be illegal outside of school, are we really supposed to believe that school isn't a factor?

No. The question is the size of the factor. I really do think looking internationally is the best way to understand this.

But I’m not aware of any other countries where school is back in the same way as here - they either have smaller classes (as a measure or just because education is better funded) or they wear masks, or they use other mitigations.

@stairway

Noblegiraffe you can’t use university examples for secondary schools. If there were large amounts of asymptotic children then surely we would see symptoms in their parents at least.

Erm, have you seen the number of infections lately? The huge rise in cases? Local lockdowns??

@notevenat20 - are your children all primary school age? You seem remarkably obtuse about the height of secondary school children and very much inclined to refer to data on young children as though it applies to everyone under the age of 18.

It would be really interesting to see data released from those (private) schools that are doing their own large-scale testing. Anecdotally, one of these sent a year group home this week due to finding a significant number of asymptomatic positives in the latest round of testing - very hard to argue that all were infected completely independently from outside the school, given these are boarding schools.