The rate of infections in schools is being suppressed from public knowledge

[noblegiraffe]

...claims Karam Bales of the NEU.

I’m pretty sure I agree. When the newspapers are going mad about university cases and 13,000 kids and 700 teachers being off school in Birmingham doesn’t make national headlines, then something dodgy is going on.

This twitter thread collates all the evidence and is pretty damning twitter.com/karamballes/status/1315067136394625032?s=21

My own thoughts:
Why are the government ignoring the WHO recommendations on masks?
Why have they stopped PHE deciding who is sent home when there are cases in schools setting up their own helpline instead which sends home far fewer kids?
Why are the figures not being presented in a way that makes it clear which cases are in schools and not universities?
Why did Chris Whitty use a graph of test positivity rates instead of actual infection numbers in his briefing when it came to claiming that schools aren’t an issue?
Why are they insisting that children only get a test if they exhibit one of the three main adult symptoms, ignoring that the majority of children who test positive don’t have any of them?
Why are they insisting on vulnerable children being sent in with the threat of fines for non-attendance?
Why did they spend the summer pretending that unions were blocking the re-opening of schools and then paying social media influencers to say schools are safe, without taking any steps to ensure that they are?
Why did they announce a Plan B of rotas for schools in tiers of lockdown and then never actually use it?
Why did they say that an effective test and trace system was vital to opening schools and then also say they were surprised when demand increased when schools opened?
Why do they keep saying schools are a priority and that be the only thing they say about keeping them open?

And where the fuck is Gavin Williamson?

@3littlewords larger, better rooms and more of them - better dispersion of children to minimise spread

Higher staff/pupil ratio meaning more resources to set, deliver and mark any remote learning

A greater motivation to continue to provide High quality learning Material in school or remotely to avoid parents voting with their feet and money being taken away from the school

Saying that our local state juniors is fabulous and the staff Amazing but they couldn’t provide much for remote learning during lockdown

@PracticingPerson

What does getting real mean to you then? Sorry it’s just we both know the virus doesn’t really hurt children, and that if they attend school then they shouldn’t socialise with older or vulnerable relatives other than outdoors etc. We know that inequalities will increase for children if schools close repeatedly. Do we accept that? Does getting real mean we accept that outcome for children in the full knowledge that it’s not temporary?

[quote Ouchy]@PracticingPerson

What does getting real mean to you then? Sorry it’s just we both know the virus doesn’t really hurt children, and that if they attend school then they shouldn’t socialise with older or vulnerable relatives other than outdoors etc. We know that inequalities will increase for children if schools close repeatedly. Do we accept that? Does getting real mean we accept that outcome for children in the full knowledge that it’s not temporary?[/quote]
The virus does hurt children, just indirectly. Children are harmed by the fact this virus is damaging our economy, clogging up our health systems, shutting down social life and killing older people.

The inequalities are increasing now due to the virus.

Getting real for me always meant and still means full time school this winter was a bad idea.

School is driving transmission, transmission is harming society, my children are harmed by that as members of society.

Whereas some children are liable to be harmed by the illness or death of their parents or teachers.

@PracticingPerson

Is the virus damaging the economy or is it lockdowns and limitations for working age people and younger who are not at risk from the virus? Given the context that the virus will not go? These groups could frequent restaurants and shops without becoming severely ill in the most part. (Not that I am fussed about shopping and restaurants personally, but I would like the wide population to keep their jobs).

The virus is not shutting down social lives, but lockdowns are.

As long as schools stay open though at least we’re not completely ignoring the needs of the young.

Totally get your points though and thank you because they help me weigh it all up in my own mind. It’s an awful balancing act for everyone but I remain convinced that schools should remain open for those who still wish to send their children and feel lack of education and socialisation is a greater risk to their children than the virus.

It’s all just so awful

@Ouchy

I know that whilst people see things differently we are in the same boat and ultimately want very similar things for our children

My view is lockdowns are a symptom of high levels of virus + low levels of control infrastructure (testing, distancing etc).

I believe the virus out of control will kill the economy as much as lockdown.

The UK has badly mishandled this crisis and we are all paying now

@PracticingPerson

Totally agree especially in regards to the mishandling - not locking down early enough in Feb/March and not closing down routes into and out of the country in particular.

Totally agree we’re all (all generations) paying the price for the inaction at the earliest stages.

I’m sure you’re behaving responsibly like me in terms of socialising, masks and all the rest - and let’s hope things get better sooner rather than later

or all round

So we’ve got vulnerable kids should stay away from school, kids in school should stay away from vulnerable relatives.

What about vulnerable teachers?

Vulnerable teachers should absolutely be able to work from home. As should any teacher who does not feel safe. If online learning was an option they could teach the children at home.

As should any teacher who does not feel safe

No. They should talk to someone to allay their fears (see Germany and also this is what all businesses are instructed to do).

The other big thing our local private schools offered from week 2 was full time timetables of online learning, IT equipment provided if needed. Parents could work, kids were learning.

Some schools very much did the minimum, and that will be a big driver for some parents having wanted their kids back into school asap. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If we can accept that some schools went above and beyond based on posts and anecdotes, we have to accept the opposite is equally feasible.

the virus is not spread to.older people by them going into school, but by school pupils taking the virus home to the rest of society

^^ lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of school staff - and teachers are older. Older than 40. Older than 50, older even that 60!

Have there been lots of cases of teachers catching covid since September?

[quote Ouchy]@PracticingPerson

What does getting real mean to you then? Sorry it’s just we both know the virus doesn’t really hurt children, and that if they attend school then they shouldn’t socialise with older or vulnerable relatives other than outdoors etc. We know that inequalities will increase for children if schools close repeatedly. Do we accept that? Does getting real mean we accept that outcome for children in the full knowledge that it’s not temporary?[/quote]
For me the frustration of hearing people say categorically that Covid doesn't hurt children, is extremely frustrating. Especially in light of the fact that it has been made extremely difficult to keep children home, if they are medically vulnerable.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I was Bupkis (then had a glitch and 're registered with a variation on my old name) - and posted on many of these school threads, wrt my dilemma about ds - 10 years old, previously shielded, rare condition, complex needs, medical vulnerabilities including lung issues, asthma, heart problems, chronic gastric issues. We have a tricky relationship with school after years of fighting for the correct support - our options were - de register (potentially losing all EHCP support) or get fined (school said they would pursue fines).

We have worked closely with school, to make sure we maintain a dialogue, we eventually got a letter from ds's Dr to say he would be safer at home....and then, had the call to say ds's class (of children with additional needs) had a positive case....all the fucking prevarication, trying to do the right thing, trying to avoid a fine....we jumped through all the hoops and now we are possibly too late!

I know it is rare for it to have a negative outcome for children, but when you have a child who is extremely rare, this is little comfort. As ds's Dr said, alongside the unknown risk of Covid, there is the risk of repeated periods of isolation for the whole family (ds was ill 7 times with a fever last Winter) and the risk of hospitalisation for other illnesses, which would be best avoided this year.

Why it has been made so bloody difficult for families in our position, I do not know, but it is appalling.

Vulnerable teachers should absolutely be able to work from home. As should any teacher who does not feel safe. If online learning was an option they could teach the children at home.

Not if they've got young children of their own.

For me the frustration of hearing people say categorically that Covid doesn't hurt children, is extremely frustrating

You do realise that of course they don't mean medically vulnerable children?

@Autumngoldleaf

the virus is not spread to.older people by them going into school, but by school pupils taking the virus home to the rest of society

^^ lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of school staff - and teachers are older. Older than 40. Older than 50, older even that 60!

Me!! 50 plus and many more are older!

@Janevaljane

For me the frustration of hearing people say categorically that Covid doesn't hurt children, is extremely frustrating

You do realise that of course they don't mean medically vulnerable children?

Ssorry, I hadn't seen a post that said they didn't include medically vulnerable children.

@Autumngoldleaf

the virus is not spread to.older people by them going into school, but by school pupils taking the virus home to the rest of society

^^ lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of school staff - and teachers are older. Older than 40. Older than 50, older even that 60!

Yes, absolutely - but I was answering the point that if older non-teachers don't go into school then cases won't get to them.

I just consider teachers frontline workers at risk, rather than 'community'

And please note I have always and still want half time school to enable distancing - in large part for teachers but also because of general transmission.

I'm gloomy.

The latest Covid and flu report just released. Much the same as previous 4 weeks, 330 clusters linked to education and 40 to hospitality. (4 week totals: 1284 for education and 122 for hospitality)

Does "education" include universities?

@2X4B523P

The latest Covid and flu report just released. Much the same as previous 4 weeks, 330 clusters linked to education and 40 to hospitality. (4 week totals: 1284 for education and 122 for hospitality)

Is cluster the same as an outbreak? Ie two or more iirc

Better if it’s similar to previous weeks not rising.

330 is a small percentage of overall schools and even lower if it includes universities

What's a "cluster"? How is it defined?