We may have to give up more to keep them open

[notevenat20]

From the BBC quoting Ferguson this morning

"We think that infections are probably increasing, doubling every two weeks or so, in some areas faster than that, maybe every seven days," he said.

The former government adviser said the "most important" measure to drive down infections was reducing contact between households.

He said schools should be kept open, but "we may have to give up more to keep them open"."

Can we give up any more?

Ferguson has zero credibility so I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

No visiting other households would be my guess. Other option is shutting pubs again but I think they will go for the option that is least harmful to the economy.

We could
Close pubs
Close shops
Close entertainment/sports
Decrease contact
Be only able to travel a 5 mile distance from home
Be only allowed out for one hour a day.

So, yes there is quite a lot more we could give up to keep schools open

Government and scientists back in the summer said that pubs may have to close to allow schools to stay open.

We could return to a lockdown situation but schools could still be open this time. If they can find enough well staff.

Shall we close all schools then?

It’s rubbish...I don’t want to spend my life at work (school) with no option of seeing wider family or socialising with friends but children in general - and my dc specifically - are a million times happier for being at school and seeing their peers.

So, yeah, I’ll give up other stuff - and to a degree my own safety - for them.

Government & their test, track & trace failures are firmly to blame here imo.

It’s only really really socialising that can go.

Missed half of NF this morning but did hear Sunak. I’m glad he’s strong on keeping economy going.

School priority should be reiterated too.

It is ripping through schools in the NW now and it is getting scary.
They need to do something. They also need to stop the pretence that children do not transmit as it is becoming obvious that they do in my area.
Allowing temporary home schooling would be an excellent way of reducing class sizes and helping to protect families that are vulnerable to covid.
I am in a local lockdown area, I am clinically vulnerable. I go nowhere at the moment. I can no longer visit my family due to lockdown rules. The main risk to my family is schools and the blanket policy that it is safe for all children to attend. It isn't and something needs to give.

@Foobydoo

It is ripping through schools in the NW now and it is getting scary. They need to do something. They also need to stop the pretence that children do not transmit as it is becoming obvious that they do in my area. Allowing temporary home schooling would be an excellent way of reducing class sizes and helping to protect families that are vulnerable to covid. I am in a local lockdown area, I am clinically vulnerable. I go nowhere at the moment. I can no longer visit my family due to lockdown rules. The main risk to my family is schools and the blanket policy that it is safe for all children to attend. It isn't and something needs to give.

Yeah, I don't understand the insistence that every child needs to be in school. If people were free to home school without the worry of losing school places then it would be a lot safer for everyone that was still going in.

Schools and universities need to stay open at all costs. End of. We cannot sacrifice our children’s futures like this.

They can shut gyms, pubs and restaurants to try and keep schools open. I've managed to go without since Feb.
I just want the dc's educations to scrape through to next summer.

Are children not wearing masks?

Only asking as I live in Spain and all kids have to wear masks and of all the cases I know (ds' class and a few classes at the school I work in) have been where there has been a confirmed case so then half the class has had to isolate and have two tests (10 days apart) and so far none of the kids have caught it off the confirmed case. It seems to be more in-family/in bars transmission.

I hated that ds had to wear a mask all day long (he is 6) but maybe it does make a big difference. I saw on here that there was debate about whether the kids and teachers were going to wear them but what was the outcome in the end?

@QuentinInQuarantino my children are in primary school (aged 5 & 10) and they are not wearing masks. I believe that secondary schools are making pupils wear masks to move around but they remove them once sat down in class.

If they removed the fines lots of parents would keep their children at home and support remote learning which would mean much smaller classes and would lessen the risks in our schools. Seeing groups of parents huddled together spouting how it's just the flu infuriates me because if they stuck to some basic rules we could live with it but selfishness prevails.

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

We could Close pubs Close shops Close entertainment/sports Decrease contact Be only able to travel a 5 mile distance from home Be only allowed out for one hour a day.

So, yes there is quite a lot more we could give up to keep schools open

How do we then pay for the schools (and the NHS which we are doing this to protect and save)?

I’d rather we went part time or remote than shut down the economy. I’m not using pubs, restroom, gyms etc but they employ a lot of people and out money into the economy. Much better to stop the large daily gatherings in schools where there is little or no SD, PPE etc and where cases are spreading as they then take it home. It said recently schools, and care homes with the two highest places so if we want to slow the virus surely that’s the place to start.

No I wouldn’t close schools again. Last thing to close even on part time basis.

[quote ScatteredMama82]@QuentinInQuarantino my children are in primary school (aged 5 & 10) and they are not wearing masks. I believe that secondary schools are making pupils wear masks to move around but they remove them once sat down in class.[/quote]
Ah ok. I am finding the rules in schools here very strict but on the other hand I really can't afford for them to be closed again, I am self employed so when they close my income stops! And Spain didn't help its self employed workforce at all
DS isn't even allowed to play within 1.5 metres of his classmates (although I can't see how that is enforced).

No I don’t think we can give up much more although I’m sure we will be made to. Pubs shouldn’t close as they are people’s livelihoods. We are only allowed a very limited social life now and it is vital to many people.

Ferguson has zero credibility so I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

I know this is sometimes said online but I really don't agree. This view is normally was associated with distortions of what his papers have said. The paper from march had a mean estimate of 250,000 deaths if the govt didn't lock down at all. We had around 60,000 excess deaths with the lockdown so it doesn't look far off to me.

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

We could Close pubs Close shops Close entertainment/sports Decrease contact Be only able to travel a 5 mile distance from home Be only allowed out for one hour a day.

So, yes there is quite a lot more we could give up to keep schools open

I’m not doing all that just to keep schools open. There are other people just as important as school age children (pre-school children, older teens, adults). If they bring in all that there’s no way I’ll comply, and I have stuck to everything so far.

Infections may be increasing but deaths are still relatively low are they not? There’s not really any need to shut down further than we are atm.

@BoggledBudgie

2 words, exponential growth.

The numbers are liable to get a whole lot bigger really quickly.

Pubs, gyms etc are mostly barely covering costs at the minute anyway. It’s not the restrictions, it’s the virus. A majority of people are sensible and make decisions to limit their risk by not going to pubs, cinemas, gyms or by radically reducing the number of places they go. It’s the virus that is causing most of the lost income, not restrictions. Personally I think of it as having a sort of risk budget. We use up most of our household risk budget on two kids in school and they attending things like swimming lessons. They can stop the extra curricular stuff if that’s necessary (and I kept paying for their classes through lockdown, to and would do again to minimise the impact on small business). But I will be pissed off if keeping Wetherspoons Open is prioritised over keeping schools open and older people safe.

Schools need to be given priority and kept open at all costs. Let’s prioritise our youngest vulnerable and dependent members of society from now on. They are not at risk, have sacrificed enough and are our future. They need education and socialisation to equip them for the future given that they’ll end up picking up the bill for the lockdown we had this spring/now and the economic fallout over future generations.

Any more school closures would be lunacy and to little gain for anyone. Teachers at my children’s school are totally in agreement.

I do however think that vulnerable parents or guardians should be given the choice to keep their children off when they deem necessary without losing their school place.

Racoonworld, I agree it’s not worth closing all that for schools. Education doesn’t have to stop because schools are closed, it can be done numerous other ways. Far better our children have a health system and jobs in the future.