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'.

@noblegiraffe

And like I said, teens mixing with each other in the holidays is still safer for them in terms of transmission than being at school.

Yes Mixing outside with a handful of friends is against the rules but much safer than mixing with the rest of the school and staff.

From 2nd December shops are going to be heaving and there will be lots of people spending 15 minutes+ in queues to enter and pay.

But they aren’t, giraffe. Some schools are closed some of the time, to some year groups. That doesn’t mean on balance every school is closed to every year. As you know.

I didn’t say my union favoured full closure. I said ‘partly or wholly.’ Here is what they said:

The NEU has also today supported calls from ASCL and NAHT that heads should have the power to move towards blended learning. As ASCL says: "At the very least, the Government must give school leaders the flexibility to move to remote learning during the final week of term either fully or partially based on their judgement of the situation.

I just can’t get on board with that. I’m sorry; I know it is not what you wish to hear.

The dip in that graph for half term says it all.

I'm all in favour of schools closing a little earlier with online learning BUT surely it has to be on the basis that children not in school don't spend what would have been school hours getting together with their mates for a bit of xmas shopping/socialising. For it to be effective in keeping transmission down they'd need to be at home at least between the hours of 9-3.30 and i'm not entirely confident teenagers would be prepared to follow this rule.

Would also be a nightmare though for parents who can't take time off work/have no childcare in place.

Some schools are closed some of the time, to some year groups.

Nearly a million kids are currently isolating and not in school. Let’s not minimise that.

Calling for heads to be given the power to assess their own situation and move to blended learning/remote education as necessary is a response to the DfE’s latest move to insist that this should only happen if the DfE allows it (which they won’t). That is a massive staffing and safety issue.

It is really unfair to close schools at the eleventh hour with prior warning just before Christmas.

And yes, I recognise bubbles burst, but there is a difference - a big difference - in closing out of necessity and closing just because. Closure should be the absolute last resort.

I don’t think I am minimising it. If a school has to be closed then it has to be closed. But to close every school? Not for me.

@Welcometonowhere,
"My union certainly seem to favour closures, partly or wholly."

But that's not what they're saying! They are recommending that Head Teachers should have the autonomy to be able to make a judgement call according to the specific challenges their schools are facing. That seems reasonable to me; more so than where the Government over-turned an academy trust's (I think?) decision to close their schools.
It's hardly "calling for" blanket closures.

But to close every school? Not for me.

That’s not what your union statement is requesting. It’s asking for heads to be able to make a judgement call based on what is best for their school.

I’d agree with the minority of posters in the thread pointing out that depriving all kids of that week of education (some of whom are vulnerable and need to be there) in order to make it even more convenient for people to insist on Christmas mixing is just silly and pointless.

People already know the consequences and are choosing to go ahead and mix , telling themselves whatever they need to hear to believe that’s a great idea or justified.

Closing schools a week early will not be safer overall. You will not get a huge majority of those people isolating the entire family completely in the home over that time just because the schools closed. People are kicking off enough about doing it for actual symptoms or contact never mind because it’s a good idea pre Christmas spread-fest.

You’ll just get families travelling early to avoid traffic,(which rationally is safer. But not when millions of people all feel they can do it too) visiting early to fit more people in, or teenagers hanging around each other because they are invincible.

People demanded to decide the risk for themselves. That’s all that’s been offered. No one is telling you it’s a safe or sensible choice to visit and mix at Xmas. In fact they are telling you the opposite. But if you want to take the risk and are comfortable with that choice, you now are legally entitled to do it. But you have to take responsibility for that choice instead of whining it’s being made inconvenient for you.
They aren’t going to make it as smooth and convenient for you as possible because they are hoping at least some people are sensible enough to realise it’s a stupid idea and hold off.

I do however feel very sad and scared for the teaching staff and the kids/families who’s risk of picking it up will now be massively increased by those families who insisted on it then came back into schools after.

But that power is precisely what I am uncomfortable with angelina

Closing a school impacts hugely on children, parents and communities. Sometimes of course it is necessary. I think most people are reasonable about that fact. It doesn’t change the fact it has an impact. And I’m afraid I do think some headteachers minimise this impact - hence the recent attempts of a primary academy chain trying to close early for Christmas. It does rather suggest that this autonomy would be mishandled somewhat.

My area (just outside greater Manchester) hit rates of about 500 per 100 in October, we’re now white on the map so very few cases. It has one large secondary and five primaries - there’s been a smattering of year groups out throughout the schools, but they’ve been largely open. Here at least it’s clear the lockdown has worked - it was adults spreading covid, not the kids... They’re not large modern buildings either, just standard schools. And before someone says it, I’m not after murdering teachers my DH is one.

Welcometonowhere - are you saying that you would rather schools went to the bitter end week of 14th dec, and January sees a huge spike - with ICUs potentially overwhelmed/schools closed on a de facto (rather than nationwide basis) but the result is the same) and all the associated issues of additional lockdowns and standard nhs treatments cancelled.... for the sake of a week where many kids will spend time watching films/doing quizzes etc?

I certainly don’t watch films and do quizzes in the last week.

What I am saying is very simple. Schools should remain open unless all other possibilities have been exhausted.

I am in favour of vulnerable teachers and vulnerable children having adjustments made. I am not in favour of school closures.

order to make it even more convenient for people to insist on Christmas mixing is just silly and pointless.

You appear to be mixing safety and convenience.

No one is telling you it’s a safe or sensible choice to visit and mix at Xmas. In fact they are telling you the opposite.

The government is telling you it is not safe to mix at Christmas by relaxing the rules so that you can mix three households for 5 days? That’s an interesting interpretation.

Especially when you put it alongside their insistence, against all evidence, that schools aren’t riddled with covid.

I don't agree with the government's handling of the situation.

But I don't agree with schools closing early for Xmas.

Government should have had strict guidelines at Xmas.

But people need to start taking personal responsibility too.

So why did the covid cases dip during half term?

I do think that a few children need to be in school. Vulnerable/key worker kids etc. (I'm talking secondary here - not expert on primary though many mners are). But those few can be socially distanced much more effectively and I for one, would happily volunteer to do a day supporting them and set home learning (rather than the teams lessons I would be doing otherwise) for my usual classes.

"But that power is precisely what I am uncomfortable with angelina"

But Academy Trusts have always had their own ways of doing things. That's why I would never work for one.

You might not do quizzes. I don't either. But lots DO.

The benefits to DC of being in school on a full time basis far outweigh any risk to them of COVID.

But they are not actually in school. School is closed. They had two days in school and 16 out of school not including weekends. That is in addition to the other 13 1/2 days they missed last half term too. That is half a day off missing six weeks of education.

One of mine is clinically vulnerable in school. Let's hope we don't find out the hard way whether it is serious or not.

It is grossly insulting to the majority of teachers, but that aside, opening schools to the vulnerable only doesn’t work: we know this.

Vulnerable cannot be easily and definitively defined and besides, who actually wants to consider themselves so vulnerable they need to be in school? No one.

Angelina academy trusts do indeed do their own thing to a large extent but this doesn’t supersede the burgundy book or the law. Thankfully

It's for a WEEK. Not 4 months out of school as in the summer.

Sure. But that week will impact on people. And that impact shouldn’t be minimised.

So on the one hand people are saying cases fell over a week long half term, under less restrictive tiers. On the other hand people think a holiday twice as long, with just a few days of “bubbles” that don’t seem that much looser than the old tier 1 that most of the country was under, is going to lead to an explosion of cases in schools in January? Might be an explosion of cases in grandparents, that I can more understand.