Government denial over schools issues will cause deaths this Christmas

[noblegiraffe]

I just can't get my head around how utterly crazy the government Christmas policy is.

Secondary school kids are the most infected subset of the population with it now estimated that more than 1 in 50 of them are positive. As they are children, most of them will never be tested as they either are asymptomatic, or will display different symptoms to the main three that are required to trigger a test (councils are overruling this in some parts of England and asking parents to use a more sensible list of symptoms).

Schools mostly break up on 18th December, 5 days before the Christmas relaxation period begins and people start taking advantage of this to mix with other households indoors, in poorly ventilated small rooms, which as scientists warn, is a terrible idea. twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1331931594400149506?s=21

Closing schools a week earlier (or moving online) would give 2 weeks out of school before Christmas day, which would reduce the infection rate in school children significantly (we saw a dip in the infection rate just in one week over half term) and make it safer for them to mix with other households, particularly if people took advantage of those two weeks to significantly reduce their contacts and other risks.

Some schools took it upon themselves to protect their own communities by changing the term dates to close a week earlier. The DfE has overruled this and forced them to stay open.
schoolsweek.co.uk/overruled-dfes-sweeping-coronavirus-powers-force-trust-into-early-christmas-holiday-u-turn/

Because of the tier system, if families don't get together at Christmas during the relaxation period, when their children pose a much higher risk, they will not be able to see their families properly for Christmas at all. Essentially Christmas is being funnelled into a time period which is insanely risky due to it coming shortly after children mixing freely in unsafe schools with significant numbers of undiscovered infections.

I know the DfE have been reading this board. I understand why you want schools open, but lying to people about the risks as you have is dangerous and immoral. Transparency is needed so that people can make their own informed risk assessments, not propaganda about 'safe schools' and 'saving Christmas'.

Your Op states that Closing schools a week earlier (or moving online) would give 2 weeks out of school before Christmas day, which would reduce the infection rate in school children significantly (we saw a dip in the infection rate just in one week over half term) and make it safer for them to mix with other households, particularly if people took advantage of those two weeks to significantly reduce their contacts and other risks.

Have I misunderstood?

Don't be silly Nicknacky.

Why can't you engage with this on a public health level, rather than just your own little box?

We are all in our boxes.

Those boxes are worried about our children, our jobs, our health, our future, our parents, our lives.

Let’s try to be kind.

@Covidnomore

Christina do you think some parents may not have got their children tested over half term?

My city was on the upward trend during and after half term. Its only in the last week or so, probably due to lockdown that cases have really dropped.

Parents getting or not getting their kid tested over half term is irrelevant to the graph posted showing the half term dip, because the graph is of infection rates based on random sampling, not numbers of cases detected by parents getting their kids with symptoms tested.

christinarossetti19 I think will find my first post said “on a personal level”......

Oh and there are other deaths happening apart from covid, you know? We are coming into our busiest times for them.

What random sampling is happening in kids?

christinnarossetti19 So can I presume you don’t have childcare issues then?

So you've no intention of actually engaging with the public health issues discussed on this thread?

Okay, got you.

@Welcometonowhere

Your Op states that Closing schools a week earlier (or moving online) would give 2 weeks out of school before Christmas day, which would reduce the infection rate in school children significantly (we saw a dip in the infection rate just in one week over half term) and make it safer for them to mix with other households, particularly if people took advantage of those two weeks to significantly reduce their contacts and other risks.

Have I misunderstood?

It’s an observation followed by another observation that the government stopped this from happening followed by a concluding paragraph stating that transparency was needed topped by a title saying that government denial over schools issues will cause deaths this Christmas.

Obviously it suits some to see it simply as a demand for schools to close rather than part of a bigger comment on the actions of the government and their ultimate responsibility for the deaths their poor decisions will cause.

christinarossetti19 What are you talking about?

What is it you want me to say?

Oh and suicide and drug death is more of a public health issue to me right now.

But it is a preference, it is what you believe should happen.

Others don’t agree.

@BungleandGeorge

What random sampling is happening in kids?

A random sample of the population is being tested weekly, regardless of symptoms, including children. The Office for National Statistics run it. Those are the figures used to generate the graph showing the dip.

Parents getting or not getting their kid tested over half term is irrelevant to the graph posted showing the half term dip, because the graph is of infection rates based on random sampling, not numbers of cases detected by parents getting their kids with symptoms tested.

What was the sample size? I know when it was showing a very low level of infection in primary age children people were questioning the size and also the demographics.

I hope that it is the case btw and parents were getting their kids tested.

But my concern would be that if a child has minor symptoms over half term many parents may not have got them tested so they could return to school at start of term.

I refer to children with symptoms and not asymptomatic children.

@HateIsNotGood

Are you really a part time Teacher giraffe? Or on ML? How do find the time to keep your continual posts going? Besides ML or maybe another possibly better paid Union role how do you do it?

That's even assuming you have no other life or responsibilities besides your 'teaching' and MN posting.

You are truly magnificent, how on earth do you do it?

To reply to this, yes I’m a part time teacher, no I’m not on maternity leave. No I don’t work for a union.

And it’s a Sunday during lockdown.

@Nicknacky

christinnarossetti19 So can I presume you don’t have childcare issues then?

You presume wrongly.

But my perspective is about the broader public health issues rather than just my own situation.

The thing about the Xmas bubbles that appals me that most is that the workers who have been keeping the country going since March, health care, teachers, care staff, transport staff, retail staff etc, will be put at increased risk with the increase in cases that will inevitably happen after the Xmas mixing.

Not to mention the knock on effect on the people they care for, teach, transport around, run services for etc.

The data says that closing schools a week earlier would mitigate some of that risk. Not as much as not going through with the Xmas mixing, but it's the best public health strategy on the table at the moment.

No, it wouldn't be convenient for me. But that's not my point.

christinarossetti19 So what will you do with your primary age children if you and your partner (if you have one) are out working? You might give me ideas!

Oh I’m definitely one of those key workers who have kept the country going!

But all the workers you mention are then screwed with short notice school closures.

@noblegiraffe thank you for always speaking so much sense and persevering when a lot of us have switched to banging our head against a brick wall instead.

I will be very surprised if the government don’t u turn on this.

They must be concerned that parents are going to realise that they have to act to protect their own families.

It’s like the whole 5 day at Christmas tulle, it’s not there because they want us to have a break but because they don’t want people to break the rules so they have to make it look like they’re following the rules.

The lie that schools are safe, combined with the tacit encouragement to mix more at Christmas, will make covid cases rise again and harm a lot of people (not just grandparents). But even without the childcare issue, the government can't close schools for a week, or even encourage schools to allow some children to finish a week early if their parents can keep them home, without having to admit to the lie. So they won't do either, even though the second one - allowing schools to reduce their in-class numbers for those weeks either side of Christmas by optional remote learning - might actually have a public health benefit without removing vital childcare.

I hope a lot of parents keep their kids off anyway for those weeks. (Maybe the government is hoping that too, but can't say so because that would mean admitting schools aren't remotely covid safe.)

@Covidnomore

Parents getting or not getting their kid tested over half term is irrelevant to the graph posted showing the half term dip, because the graph is of infection rates based on random sampling, not numbers of cases detected by parents getting their kids with symptoms tested.

What was the sample size? I know when it was showing a very low level of infection in primary age children people were questioning the size and also the demographics.

I hope that it is the case btw and parents were getting their kids tested.

But my concern would be that if a child has minor symptoms over half term many parents may not have got them tested so they could return to school at start of term.

I refer to children with symptoms and not asymptomatic children.

I looked at the ONS site I couldn’t find the response rate for that week. It says just over 130000 households have provided at least one swab (since April) and talks about 28000 swabs per fortnight in another place. Couldn’t see any figures for that week prior to being put in the statistical model though. What I do think may be relevant is that they have actively increased the proportion of households from areas of high incidence more recently- Manchester, Lancashire, Yorkshire and London.

What I do think may be relevant is that they have actively increased the proportion of households from areas of high incidence more recently

And yet it is only secondary children where the rates continue to increase. Weird, huh?

Apart from London, those places were in tier 3 with many industries closed down, so yes I expect that will affect the figures somewhat

You’re agreeing that transmission occurs in secondary schools.

I think without knowing how big the sample was and the distribution of areas that were sampled it’s difficult to draw any conclusion about what is happening in the country as a whole from those figures. Can you remove the bias that comes from sampling specific areas which have totally different rules in place to other areas and totally different background infection rates? That graph is set up to show total infections, you may postulate that transmission is occurring in schools but you would have to then go on to study that specifically and eliminate that it happened by chance. There’s no specific measure of transmission in those figures

Independent sage had a lot of very interesting things to say about schools in their Friday briefing

The school data starts at about 9mins in