Now we know why the govt were suppressing the schools infection data

[noblegiraffe]

...because for secondary it’s very worrying.

They choose to release it the day before we break up for half term, too late for any circuit breaker like the other U.K. countries.

They’ve quietly removed the assertion that schools aren’t high risk settings from the guidance. At what point are they going to start to be honest about the risks, particularly in sixth forms and colleges?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928749/Weekly_COVID-19_and_Influenza_Surveillance_Graphs_W43_FINAL.pdf

@walksen

Ok, perhaps the “on the way to school” part was an exaggeration but people who are under 65 and not vulnerable do have more chance of dying in a road traffic accident than from COVID.

There have only been 307 deaths with COVID of under 60s without underlying conditions. That compares to 1870 deaths from car accidents. This figure has actually fallen significantly in recent years- there were 3508 deaths from car accidents in 2003 and 5217 in 1990.

[quote Ecosse]@walksen

Ok, perhaps the “on the way to school” part was an exaggeration but people who are under 65 and not vulnerable do have more chance of dying in a road traffic accident than from COVID.

There have only been 307 deaths with COVID of under 60s without underlying conditions. That compares to 1870 deaths from car accidents. This figure has actually fallen significantly in recent years- there were 3508 deaths from car accidents in 2003 and 5217 in 1990.[/quote]
Well it’s still a ridiculous thing to say as probably half of people schools would be classed as more vulnerable due to age, weight and other conditions. In my daughters school there’s at least 8 over 50, about 5 larger staff, 2 with diabetes that I know about, 1 teacher who has recently recoverEd from Hodgkin’s lymphoma and probably some more.

Why should any of them be without any protection at all, vulnerable or not?

Come now ecosse. Back up your claims

You specifically said "run over" not car accidents. Of those deaths you quotes how many involved pedestrians bring run over as opposed to accidents on motorways etc and what proportion of those pedestrians were teachers?

In my experience it is very unusual for teachers to walk to work at all. Most don't work in their catchment area and either drive or get dropped off.

You still haven't explained your source of mortality risk nor the proportion of people who count as having no underlying health conditions.

You quote 307 as evidence for the low risk for healthy staff . For this to be useful we need to know the definition of "no underlying health conditions".

I dont understand why ecosse is only counting those without underlying conditions.

Remember underlying conditions includes asthma, diabetes, etc. All of these staff are currently IN school. Working it tout as if they aren't makes no sense.

These "underlying conditions" affect a lot of people. If you want to exclude them then those staff need to be off not working and being put at risk. However if we did that there wouldnt be enough staff to run schools.

Im sure some people still think underlying conditions means "nearly dead" anyway, and dont realise its actually a reasonable proportion.

Theres a whole ton of children with ur hidden from statistics too.

I have friends with it. They both tested positive so isolating themsleves and their children. Children havent been tested as dont show classic symptoms. But that means they dont show for statistics, and that their friends aren't isolating.

I wish there was easier access to testing for close contacts. Or for teachers on a regular basis. Or just for a wider range of symptoms.

Posted on the studies thread by BigChocFrenzy

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

Could be referenced whenever middle-aged teachers expressing concern about COVID risk are asked if they would travel in a car

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v3.full.pdf

Results:
Our analysis finds an exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19

The estimated age-specific IFRs are close to zero for children and younger adults,
but rise to about 0.3% for ages 50-59,
1.3% for ages 60-69,
and 4% for ages 70-79,
15% for ages 80-89,
and 25% for ages 90 and above.....

Discussion:
These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly
but for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is more than 50 times greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident.

There have only been 307 deaths with COVID of under 60s without underlying conditions.

This type of statement is grotesque, as though a) everyone with underlying conditions is expendable and b) as though we all know what underlying conditions we have. S

Have not RTWT so may have been addressed but where, if anywhere, can you get data on specific school partial/ bubble closures -is this collated anywhere (clearly should be)?

@ohthegoats

Info is going out about lap tops and tech being issued... Shoring up those who don't have access it seems.

Schools are having laptop allocation reduced. Only allowed to apply for them if community transmission proven. In reality this means 38 down to 3 laptops for example.

I saw a post in an slt group where they'd been given 5 devices for a school of 350 in a deprived area

They had 15 kids self isolating

And @NeurotrashWarrior, was it the case (as with ours) that those laptops wouldn't load the platform the school were using for delivering home learning?

Ecosse your stats, as usual are bollocks. You sate that 307 people aged unde 60 with uhc have died with Covid . You then state 1870 poele died In RTAs in the ENTIRETY of 2019.

But you seem unaware how many of those were over 60 and/or had health conditions. And neglect to notice that that is for a 12 month period so would actually need to remove a good proportion of those 1870.(clue : quite a lot of fatalities are quite elderly)

Dying in a car accident is also not contagious or a threat to the NHS 's ability to manage. Both ate terrible events for all those involved and by making these trite comparison , you minimise both types of event.

Please return to data thread so people can remind you not to talk nonsense. Or find the R4 More or Less podcast which utterly debunks this particularly nasty line.

OK, found it : 435 people aged under 60 killed in 2019 in an RTA (of any kind) . Doesn't look so very different now, eh?

Who knows, many of those may have been asthmatic or diabetic or had autism or certain MH conditions - all classified by statisticians as 'underlying health conditions.

Ecosse,

For someone who is a consultant, you are either very biased or scarily illogical.

Your argument runs something like this:

Driving is intrinsically safe as very few people these days die from it. Therefore, as getting from place to place in a short time is important for the economy, we need to remove all the traffic lights and speed limits.

I have a history of eating disorders and depression. Currently have diagnosed anxiety and OCD (MH)
I also have eczema and get migraines.
Despite being physically healthy (I run and do yoga regularly) I am slightly overweight with a BMI of 26.

I suspect if I died of Covid I would count as having "underlying health conditions" due to the MH history and auto immune eczema...

What mitigation would you recommend?

MiniTheMinx How about what Germany are doing:

"This common framework provided guidelines for a wide range of hygiene measures, wearing of face masks, ventilation and disinfection of classrooms, social distancing rules, separation of groups to facilitate contact tracing and regular testing of teachers and students. Students, teachers and parents showing symptoms related to COVID-19 were not allowed to enter the school perimeter. When new infections were detected, relevant groups were immediately quarantined, with other groups remaining in school and being closely monitored for additional new cases."

We could start with an effective test and trace system, which we were told was essential for the safe re-opening of schools, but we opened without.

We could move onto making sure that all classrooms have windows. And then that those windows open. A national WEAR A VEST campaign to stop parents and kid complaining that it's cold.

Masks.

Marquees/covers on the playgrounds so that kids aren't inside for wet break.

For it to be mandatory (not simply 'where possible') that classrooms are arranged so that teachers are 2m from the kids when teaching. If smaller class sizes are needed to facilitate this, then solutions must be found even if the government needs to pay money for bigger spaces.

Parents to be supported/sanctioned to avoid kids being sent into school with symptoms or when they're supposed to be isolating.

Regular testing in schools.

There are some pretty basic fixes that could be introduced almost immediately. The longer it's left, the more likely more kids will be at home isolating like the 412,000 last week.

I suspect if I died of Covid I would count as having "underlying health conditions" due to the MH history and auto immune eczema...

No, relevant underlying health conditions are only those that weaken your immune system eg being obese, diabetes etc.

They are including MH

Where did you read that?

I'm surprised that a mental health condition counts as an 'underlying health con' that raises your risk of Covid.

Sorry condition (not con)

whynot is correct. You are thinking of the health conditions which make you vulnerable or ECV sunflowers. As has been discussed on the data thread many times, the list of deaths including underlying health conditions includes many many conditions, mental and physical, including certain ASD.

Don't attempt to shut people down if you are incorrect.

Who am I shutting down?

I asked an honest question. I'm genuinely surprised that someone dying of Covid with MH conditions would be reported as 'having had underlying health conditions'.

But I apologise if that came across as rude.

I think this reveals -no offence- people's ignorance (as fuelled by the likes of Ecosse) about the death stats. It is very convenient to the government every day to release the stats and say 'all but three had underlying health conditions' whilst allowing us to labour under various illusions about what this means, and conflate and confuse this stat with the shielding list. It is certainly , however, true, that most who have died are very elderly and/or have the high risk conditions

I suppose I thought you were shutting whynot down because you began with no but happy to be corrected on that score.

@sunflowers246

Who am I shutting down?

I asked an honest question. I'm genuinely surprised that someone dying of Covid with MH conditions would be reported as 'having had underlying health conditions'.

But I apologise if that came across as rude.

It's been discussed all throughout people have thought is ok to minimise deaths because they're 'just old people' or with 'underlying conditions'.