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'.

That's lovely Marsha.

So all the dc you see are somehow immune from the mental health challenges everywhere else in the country which even the government has acknowledged?

@christinarossetti19

That's lovely Marsha.

So all the dc you see are somehow immune from the mental health challenges everywhere else in the country which even the government has acknowledged?

Not immune as they were hit in lockdown.

But only one case so far in each school so very lucky and yes happy.

Marsha see my previous post which shows very clearly that I have indeed read the links.

@Welcometonowhere

I would be very careful about posting things that could be said to be a personal slight. That is exactly what is wanted.

Yup, I have been very careful since being seriously flamed on a thread because I had previously, on a different thread, mentioned I don't like the ranty sweary posts. That is why I have been very careful who I have engaged with here. It really upset me, especially when it was actually within the context of me still being very unwell with covid at that time. First time I ever ever hidden a thread. I would definitely urge caution.

@christinarossetti19

Marsha see my previous post which shows very clearly that I have indeed read the links.

So why is asking whether DfE should have said yes or no not engaging?

It’s the point of op that they have failed by saying no

So you don't think teachers in schools which have had to close completely due to too many cases and/or staff sickness or SI have any valid imput?

christina the problem is that any mental health arguments have too many variables to make a decision that impacts on 100% of children on the grounds of mental health by some.

I think again this is where personal responsibility and autonomy comes in. If a parent sees their child exhausted, struggling and anxious and makes the call to give them an extra week off school on those grounds then I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with anybody saying that because some children are exhausted and struggling all children should have an extra week off.

It isn’t going to help a child’s mental health if his mother loses her job and their home is repossessed, it isn’t going to help a child’s mental health if he has no internet access and is completely cut off from his friends, it isn’t going to help a child’s mental health to fall further behind and underachieve. Poverty is the biggest challenge to mental health out there. I think we’d all be wise to bear that in mind.

You too PrivateD00r? Interesting. Thanks for speaking up.

PrivateD00r And then you have the poster on here wouldn’t answer my question as she felt bullied and hectored🤷🏻‍♀️. And the irony is, she shouts the loudest on these threads and shouts everyone down who doesn’t agree with her.

No need for searing and also no need for bullying comments.

@Welcometonowhere

christina the problem is that any mental health arguments have too many variables to make a decision that impacts on 100% of children on the grounds of mental health by some.

I think again this is where personal responsibility and autonomy comes in. If a parent sees their child exhausted, struggling and anxious and makes the call to give them an extra week off school on those grounds then I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with anybody saying that because some children are exhausted and struggling all children should have an extra week off.

It isn’t going to help a child’s mental health if his mother loses her job and their home is repossessed, it isn’t going to help a child’s mental health if he has no internet access and is completely cut off from his friends, it isn’t going to help a child’s mental health to fall further behind and underachieve. Poverty is the biggest challenge to mental health out there. I think we’d all be wise to bear that in mind.

Yes to this

@Welcometonowhere

You too PrivateD00r? Interesting. Thanks for speaking up.

I am already wondering if I will regret posting it to be honest! Ah well.....

You must be being deliberately obtuse Marsha, no-one can be that myopic without trying.

The OP is about the government downplaying/lying about the spread of the virus in secondary schools to underpin its Xmas plans.

If there were transparency about the rates of infection in secondary schools, no way would these plans be on the table as they stand.

OP is suggesting that reducing rates of spread in secondary schools would likely mitigate some of the community spread that will happen over Xmas. This is because this is what the data showed happened after half-term.

This suggestion wouldn't be necessary if the govt were transparent about the rate of infection in secondary schools. As they are not being, and are not likely to be, OP is suggesting another possible way to mitigate community spread.

What the DfE did or didn't do in relation to one small MAT is neither here nor there tbh.

"I think again this is where personal responsibility and autonomy comes in. If a parent sees their child exhausted, struggling and anxious and makes the call to give them an extra week off school on those grounds then I have no problem with that."

FFS, we've just had pages upon pages of people explaining why schools can't close a week early because of childcare and now you're suggesting that parents can just take their child out if they feel like it.

And please don't patronise me about mental health challenges within families.

There is absolutely no way people would comply with a ‘lockdown Christmas.’ Let’s be realistic here. The government could say whatever they wanted: people would not cooperate. That’s even aside from the impact on the economy. I know no one wants to hear about money, and I’m not talking about prioritising a turkey and bottle of Prosecco over someone’s life, but the fact is the NHS and schools for that matter are funded by that economy. It’s in no ones interests for countless businesses to go under and for the unemployment to soar even more than it has already.

There had to be a compromise. People will for the most part comply, some more than others, that’s the way of the world. Shutting schools is another way of removing that level of cooperation and compromise. Away from educational circles, all it does is get peoples backs up. That’s also why strikes don’t tend to work: we alienate the very people we need on side.

cheistinarossetti19 If my child was struggling as badly as you say, exhausted and anxious then I would be straight in the phone to my work and I wouldn’t be in.

That’s personal responsibility.

I wasn’t intending to patronise and I don’t think I was.

I have maintained all the way through this thread that I have no issue with people making decisions for themselves. That includes taking children out of school should they wish to.

But if I choose to do this then that’s my decision as a parent, not my child’s headteacher.

I’m not sure why that warranted that response, tbh. It isn’t contentious and it wasn’t expressed rudely.

Not all of us want our children in school for childcare reasons. I certainly don't - I could have mine at home no problem. But they regressed without social interaction and the kind of structure I can't give at home.

Some of us just want our children to have as normal as possible a life whilst adults lose their heads over a nasty cold and fake statistics. Poor kids man.

How easily some of you want everything shut down on the flimsiest of evidence. Screw businesses. Screw school children. Screw everything to make myself feel a little bit better.

@christinarossetti19

You must be being deliberately obtuse Marsha, no-one can be that myopic without trying.

The OP is about the government downplaying/lying about the spread of the virus in secondary schools to underpin its Xmas plans.

If there were transparency about the rates of infection in secondary schools, no way would these plans be on the table as they stand.

OP is suggesting that reducing rates of spread in secondary schools would likely mitigate some of the community spread that will happen over Xmas. This is because this is what the data showed happened after half-term.

This suggestion wouldn't be necessary if the govt were transparent about the rate of infection in secondary schools. As they are not being, and are not likely to be, OP is suggesting another possible way to mitigate community spread.

What the DfE did or didn't do in relation to one small MAT is neither here nor there tbh.

So why make such a point of DfE being culpable with the decision?

Anyway I’m finding the interaction unpleasant with constant insult of obtuse so I’m leaving it there.

Eh? You've said repeatedly that your work couldn't cope with you being off before Xmas.

christinarossetti19 I didn’t once say they couldn’t cope without me (and not just before Christmas, or anytime). I’m really not that special 😂

Have we got any evidence the DFE is downplaying statistics in schools?

Welcometonowhere you were extremely patronising about mental health challenges within families.

You also completely disregarded all the concerns about childcare should children need to be off school that have taken pages upon pages of this thread.

dividedwefall the graphs that noblegiraffe has posted several times show the rates of the spread of the virus among random samples of population by age.

Have a look at them, then answer your own question.

Along with considering why the govt hasn't and won't bring in routine testing in schools (unlike in universities).

In general however I have said remote after Christmas for secondary is a better solution to SI risk for students.

NickNacky did you know that you resort to silly emojis when you know that you've lost an argument?

You've done it a couple of times now.