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?

And I don’t see what’s wrong with playing outside might be better all round. At one school we went to which was opposite a playground so all year everyone would just go there. Maybe not in driving rain but cold and dry is fine

@CarrotInATree

I think it’s a bit pathetic to say ‘it’s not just kids that matter’. No, it’s not. That’s why schools were closed for months to protect older people. But if your coping skills are lower than those of the average 8 year old, you have an issue.

Ok so there are two groups in there, school age kids and older people. what about the rest of the population, do they not matter too/ what about my non school age DC, does she not matter? I will not give up the one bit of normality we have getting to see friends and family occasionally and allowing my DC social development and getting to know her grandparents and other family in favor of other kids. We are either all in it together or we aren't. If they put a ban on household mixing but keep schools open I won't be sticking to it, I'll do what's best for my DC.

@GoldenOmber of course education is important but it’s of little use if there aren’t jobs at the end of it. Is there a balance where we try not to decimate more of the economy just so kids are in school 100% of the time all year groups......yes.

Personally if I were in charge I’d prioritise exam years for face to face.

I think we’re tending to ignore the implications of what we’re demanding. Transmission amongst kids/wider community is still a moot point. When the data comes out then it’ll be possible to have a more educated discussion about trade offs if it’s shown schools impact on community transmission. It’s recognition of the trade offs that I’m keen people appreciate rather than glibly saying shut x,y,z.

Racoon perhaps then we should ensure fairness.

So your child gets 1 less years education?

So they don't have and advantage over older kids.

It is not fair that your DC is kept in. There are hopefully playgroups etc reopening and I hope it stays that way as they are essential.

It is no more important that your child sees family as any other child.

Household transmission is the biggest issue here.

And the sooner we accept that the better we will be. And we might not be blaming outbreaks in schools as the problem, when it's the actions that the parents take outside of schools that is the root cause of the problems we have.

Maybe kids could wear a thin piece of fabric lightly over mouth and nose in order to reduce transmission and stay in school?

Maybe we need to give up this ridiculous insistence that masks matter in shops but not schools, and actually mask up indoors everywhere - and yes, including kids in school - like in so many other countries.

Would you rather lockdown or masks on kids in school? This is probably the choice now.

Also, though I am a mother to school aged children, I don't think it's going to help social cohesion that much if those without school aged children are expected to give up relatively non risky activities that they love (such as restaurants or gym) in order that children can be crammed in schools as normal with no mitigation (such as that found in restaurants and gyms) with all their out of school activities carrying on too. I think it would be reasonable for those people to say - why can't kids wear masks like in so many other countries? Maybe try that and see if it works?

@Timeforanotherusername you cannot say that for certain. It’s still an unknown which is why there is so much research ongoing.

The Government would like you to think it’s not schools. Explain why random testing has found so many asymptomatic cases in schools.

Also don’t fall for the gaslighting that this is people’s fault. The fault lies squarely with our Government.

I know for a fact that if I catch coronavirus it will be from my kids via the school. They may well be asymptomatic of course. The same is true of DH - we both wfh completely and have food deliveries. We go nowhere else, the kids have stopped all activities.

So if we get it, we know where from.

@Timeforanotherusername if playgroups were open I would absolutely support it. As it is they aren’t and none in my area have plans for opening yet. Seeing family and friends (every couple of weeks, not every day) is the only social interaction she gets at the moment and it is vital to her development. We won’t stop this unless there is some provision for her same as school age kids, unless schools are closed so it’s the same for everyone.

Note I don’t want schools to close, I want them open and also allowed to see others as it is now. But if we get more restrictions it should be for everyone as everyone is equally important.

Where's the actual evidence that the two are connected, given that infections were already decreasing by the time we locked down and death totals started following a short while later?

It's a great question. Infections were indeed coming down for about week before. If you recall the PM made an announcement about a week before and everyone become very worried and started to change their behaviour.

If you go to www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/ you can see the estimates for the number of new infections from the MRC. I have attached an image too. You may or may not find that convincing. You can also see data on how people changed behaviour following lockdown and if you believe that covid is passed through social contact then this would be more evidence for why lockdown might have worked.

There have been a number of local and national lockdowns internationally too and one can look at the numbers from those.

But overall, you are right, that we can't prove an association. It's much like the question of whether smoking causes cancer. For decades it was still possible that a subset of the population both liked to smoke and was more likely to get cancer.

It's much like the question of whether smoking causes cancer. For decades it was still possible that a subset of the population both liked to smoke and was more likely to get cancer.

Which of course seems like a laughable question now!

But doesn't the locdown/Covid situation have so many more factors at play?

So actually a conclusion to draw is that people had started to police their own behaviour, which was already having an effect by the time that lockdown started.

If only there was a Sliding Doors scenario and we could see what would have happened if the government had held its collective nerve and stuck to what they said at the outset.

Mental health is always trotted out when it comes to children in schools. But it's based on nothing.

My daughter's mh was much better at school in June/July with small class sizes and social distancing (something the school could repeat if given money for TAs). She knew she was reducing transmission - now she's scared all the time she'll bring it home. No-one off ill in summer term, now there's loads - every kid off they're all speculating whether it's coronavirus. Having to isolate for a week while her sister, with one of the 3 symptoms, had to wait for a coronavirus test was the lowest I've seen her - she was really down, far worse than lockdown. No schoolwork provided.

It's interesting that the mh argument only goes one way usually - i.e. it's bad for their mental health for them not to be in school not 'it's bad for their mental health to have obviously no measures to prevent the spread unlike everywhere else in society' or 'it's bad for their mental health for them to be worrying they will bring home a disease that could kill their parents' or 'it's bad for the mental health of children if teachers or parents are seriously ill or die'.

@IloveJKRowling

Mental health is always trotted out when it comes to children in schools. But it's based on nothing.

My daughter's mh was much better at school in June/July with small class sizes and social distancing (something the school could repeat if given money for TAs). She knew she was reducing transmission - now she's scared all the time she'll bring it home. No-one off ill in summer term, now there's loads - every kid off they're all speculating whether it's coronavirus. Having to isolate for a week while her sister, with one of the 3 symptoms, had to wait for a coronavirus test was the lowest I've seen her - she was really down, far worse than lockdown. No schoolwork provided.

It's interesting that the mh argument only goes one way usually - i.e. it's bad for their mental health for them not to be in school not 'it's bad for their mental health to have obviously no measures to prevent the spread unlike everywhere else in society' or 'it's bad for their mental health for them to be worrying they will bring home a disease that could kill their parents' or 'it's bad for the mental health of children if teachers or parents are seriously ill or die'.

So because your DD's mental health was great you are assuming that all.other children are the same?

My DDs Mental Health was good.

My DS started with a phobia the day after schools closed which meant he was terrified to go outside for 8 weeks.

Hard work on our part, and then a part time return to school all helped.

But please don't dare say that it is based on nothing.

Why is it always me me me on MN?

Mental health is always trotted out when it comes to children in schools. But it's based on nothing.

It’s definitely not based on nothing. But I don’t recognise what you describe here for school aged dc I know (the speculating and being scared etc) but it does sound like your dd is having a difficult time, which is always hard.

JK would you move to homeschool?

I accpet for some being back at school might be more damaging.

There is no one fit solution. I would prefer children were not forced in to school.

But I don't think we can under-estimate the detrimental impact of lockdown on many.

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.

And vulnerable teachers, TAs, other school staff? Could they be given this option without losing their jobs?

Ah so because your DDs MH was fine you can speak for all children in schools, haha sure.

It seems to be a common theme that most don’t like forward thinking or debating what may happen. However given the emerging data re rising case numbers in U.K. and given we’re only early October and not even in winter yet I think it’s pretty evident there’s some very hard trade offs coming this winter. Pretending it won’t happen and everything will just bump along is head in sand. Personally I think we all need to think more widely about the implications and long term effects of what we all personally want. There’s no easy answer.

@Oaktree55

It seems to be a common theme that most don’t like forward thinking or debating what may happen. However given the emerging data re rising case numbers in U.K. and given we’re only early October and not even in winter yet I think it’s pretty evident there’s some very hard trade offs coming this winter. Pretending it won’t happen and everything will just bump along is head in sand. Personally I think we all need to think more widely about the implications and long term effects of what we all personally want. There’s no easy answer.

There is a plan in place? Tier 2. Would you change it to something else?

But doesn't the locdown/Covid situation have so many more factors at play?

My own view is that it's clearly true that lockdowns stop the spread of covid.

The question is, is there an alternative that is less damaging?

@MarshaBradyo there isn’t a plan that we’re aware of. You can see that from Frances reaction and Nicola Sturgeon today. The “plan” is changing daily depending on emerging data from the effect of restrictions. You’re most naive of you think there is a plan. It’s firefighting as data emerges.

[quote Oaktree55]@MarshaBradyo there isn’t a plan that we’re aware of. You can see that from Frances reaction and Nicola Sturgeon today. The “plan” is changing daily depending on emerging data from the effect of restrictions. You’re most naive of you think there is a plan. It’s firefighting as data emerges.[/quote]
Are you talking about a plan for schools or a general plan?

I was talking about schools and it is tier 2 atm. Not naive just staying what it is currently.

@MarshaBradyo you are one of many who clearly like to feel an element of control which is understandable. If you think however that banning play dates will stop Covid spread when kids are 8 hours plus in badly ventilated classrooms, unmasked, then you’re not being scientific in your thinking. If your school has escaped burst bubbles it’s luck not judgement.