As the parent of a school-aged child who is a close contact of a positive case

[Achristmaspudsskidu]

Would you rather

1. They sent home for 10 days self-isolation like during the autumn term like would happen in any other sector.

1. They continue to go to school and get the nose/throat swab tests in the hall together every morning for 10 days by volunteers, and go back to lessons, if negative.

What if your child wasn’t a close contact? Would you be happy with the close contacts remaining in class and sitting with your child every day?

I would support option 2 for my year 11 DD who has had already had to do 4 lots of isolation. The testing regime sounds far from ideal but further isolations could totally mess up her exam year.

Both surely - the ones in the close contact (so very close friends those sitting by them) self isolate. The rest test.

Option 1
Not to protect us but to protect the more vulnerable
Tests aren’t good enough

@Quartz2208

Both surely - the ones in the close contact (so very close friends those sitting by them) self isolate. The rest test.

No, that’s not what the government plan is.

Close contacts will continue to come to school.

What you suggest is far more sensible!

Why is it an either/or question?

It shouldn't be. Mass testing randomly is daft if you are on limited resources anyway.

If you targetted it where there are positive cases and worked from there, you could have a proper trained team doing it too rather than dumping on every school.

Option 1 for close contacts

And ten lateral flow testing for all other pupils in the bubble/year group to try to identify asymptomatic cases.

The false negative rate for lateral flow testing is way too high to rely on for those known to be closely exposed to a confirmed positive case, especially as those DC (and those they are still associating with) may be in contact with vulnerable or exceptionally vulnerable household members and other staff. Nightmare

Well both options are a bit shit, but option 2 is a bigger pile of shit overall (rather than just an individual child level)

So it would have to be option 1.

Option 1. After watching my 12 year old ds try and do a test on himself, I would hate for my 7 year old to have to have that done every morning. Would much rather keep him them at home.

Option 1. Too many false negatives going into class.

If they go for option 2, and kids are catching covid and spreading it in the 2 days before they show positive on a test (or the 10 days, for the 50% who never show positive) then lots of kids are going to catch it and be off school. It’s surely going to be apparent very quickly that this is a bad idea? Cue a DfE announcement at 11pm with a change of plan.

They definitely shouldn’t make different arrangements for kids who’ve had covid, even if they are likely to be immune for a few months. That way lies the madness of covid-catching parties.

I wonder what the take up of the testing, rather than keeping their child at home, will be like amongst parents?

Our council has asked that we get tested before we return to school as well and what box to tick to get a test. So in theory pick up some cases that way

Still think it should be a mix of both

Option 1 because the tests only catch 50% of positive cases.

As has been pointed out on other threads, this will lead to positive cases going into lessons, never mind all the hanging around together getting tested / waiting for results.

This means that the missed cases are then going to infect others, so more positives, more close contacts, more people testing every day.

It's going to mean that potentially positive students aren't isolating.
At the weekends, they won't even be tested (presumably? Waiting on Gavin telling schools they have to open Saturday and Sunday for this!)
so could be wandering around town, going to sports clubs, meeting granny.....

The government plan is also that siblings of positive cases don’t need to self-isolate and they can continue to go school daily, taking the volunteer tests.

I think a lot of vulnerable pupils, staff and family members should be quite worried about the wider implications of this.

Option 1.

I'm glad you've started this thread, OP - the use of lateral flow testing in a "test to release context" is fucking dangerous. They're rolling it out to schools making it look as though science is coming to the rescue of our kids' mental health, but these tests are not designed, or approved, for use in this context - they're useful for testing across the asymptomatic population as a whole to catch cases that would otherwise be missed.

The Liverpool trials showed them to be (IIRC) roughly 50% effective at picking up positive cases when administered by non health care professionals (and about 2/3 effective in the case of high viral load). I don't think that's safe enough to be the basis for releasing people from self isolation. There's a piece in the BMJ about it.

I noticed that the government's guidance to schools quotes a 99% specificity rate (ie a low level of false negatives), but TOTALLY OMITS the sensitivity rate of 50%. I'm still reeling from that, I think it's properly misleading over the science. But no one seems to have really picked up on it.

Option 2 if the tests were reliable. But it sounds like they aren't.

A one off isolation is fine, but my kid has had to isolate 4 times this half term. They've barely been in school. It's really not good for their mental health or education.

Option 1 without a doubt I have no confidence in the lateral flow tests

Option 2. I have a year 11 DS who has had 3 episodes of self isolating this term. Everyone I've spoken to thinks it's preferable to another term of disruption.

Sorry, during my rant I forgot to acknowledge the awful damage of to-ing and fro-ing and unpredictability and missed learning for our kids. I do really get that. But I don't feel parents should be sending their kids in thinking it's safe because close contacts have been tested - for many vulnerable children, or children with vulnerable family members, this is a huge additional risk that's.just not being disclosed.

It's not been mentioned in the media. Plenty on the news about the last minute decision etc. But nobody has mentioned how dangerous this is.

Ooh hurray - I've just seen in the Guardian that the unions are opposing the plans generally (in the govt's planned timescale), but that the Royal Statistical Society is specifically kicking off over the use of lateral flow tests for test to release;

"The Royal Statistical Society said it had concerns about the scientific basis and safety of the government’s plans for testing in schools, and about “inaccuracies and omissions in the information provided to schools” by the DfE, noting that trials in Liverpool found tests missed more than half of positive cases, including 30% of those with high viral loads.

“In the new testing programme for schools, individuals who have been exposed and have received a negative result will still have a significant risk of having the Covid-19 infection and spreading it to others,” it said."

What a shit show - but hopefully may be reversed....

Option 1 but it's still not good enough as it means that if my child is not a close contact, those that are will still be in class so they are more likely to get infected. Obviously assuming the 48% effective lateral flow test doesn't catch them all... which it clearly won't. This is very dangerous. What on earth are they doing.

@Agoodbriskwalk

Option 1 but it's still not good enough as it means that if my child is not a close contact, those that are will still be in class so they are more likely to get infected. Obviously assuming the 48% effective lateral flow test doesn't catch them all... which it clearly won't. This is very dangerous. What on earth are they doing.

I agree-it is utterly reckless.

I really won’t be happy with my kids going back in classrooms after Christmas with people who have been close contacts/siblings of positive cases. They will be taught by teachers whose own family members are at home as they’ve tested positive.

These people should be self isolating for 10 days like anywhere else in the country.