The infection rate for pupils last week was 2,509 out of 100,000!!

[SoscaredforJan]

The Times today had reported that the infection rate for secondary pupils last week was 2,509 out of 100,000!! With the rate for primary school pupils close behind.

That’s absolutely shocking.

Rates of 300+ per 100,000 in the South East led to the emergency Tier 4 announcement at the weekend.

Rates among secondary school children are approx nine times this and primaries not far behind.

There can no longer be any conversation about schools remaining open. They need to close to all but key workers and the vulnerable and not reopen until the government has provided the money and means to make them truly ‘Covid secure’ or until enough people have been vaccinated.

How many deaths will we have in a months time when those infections have transferred to the elderly and vulnerable? How many more mutations will we have if the virus is allowed to carry on running through children? I for one do not want to find out that they vaccine no longer works.

It’s time to do what needs to be done. It’s tough and awful for everyone but it has to be done. The schools need to close.

@Theotherrudolph

“I understand that with the actual test cases there will be hundreds more unidentified cases per 100000. But regardless of that, there is no situation where 2.5% of children infected is a good scenario for schools to be open as they are.“

I don’t disagree with your conclusion. I do think the way you have presented the figures in your thread title and OP is unfair, misleading and alarmist. Most people understand the x/100,000 numbers to be the numbers used in government briefings etc based on tests - you’ve not said until much later that your number is ONS and is much higher because it’s supposed to be a sample of the whole population and thus includes a lot of people not captured by testing. You’ve added to that impression you are using test data by saying 2,500 is so many times higher than a test data number, when it’s actually not a valid comparison. That’s a seriously alarming title you’ve put, in part because I immediately mentally compare it to my local case rate of a couple of hundred, again based on tests.

Bollocks, the ONS figures are the best ones to understand what is really going on.

You're right though, the situation IS seriously alarming. Sorry about that.

“Bollocks, the ONS figures are the best ones to understand what is really going on.“

Then don’t compare them to test data?! I’m far less alarmed by the 2.5% now I know where it comes from and that in fact it is nothing like 9 times the rate that put areas into higher tiers.

“Sorry about that”

Yes, I'm sorry that you seem to want to find a way to ignore what is really going on in schools.

I am also even sorrier that 2.5% of pupils are infected according to the best scientific estimate. It is tragic.

You can of course try to bury your head in the sand some more?

Who said I want to ignore it? I accept that in current circumstances schools should be temporarily closed. I’ve written to my MP asking repeatedly for more funding. I follow all the rules, school and government, and since half term we have done nothing outside school and a weekly Tesco trip to minimise exposure as far as possible to try not to bring the virus into school. I have been nothing but supportive of my children’s teachers. What was I meant to do to take it seriously, glue myself to the doors as a one woman barricade?

I just get annoyed by people who fling around misleading and scary numbers without properly understanding or referencing them - because if that 2500/100000 was a test rate, which I believe the op has implied it was (or mixed it up with) that would mean the actual rate was even higher. That is all.

@SoscaredforJan

So because your school has been lucky so far you are happy to let thousands more die?

And trust me, your luck will run out soon with these numbers

Comments like this from an OP are enough to stop reading the thread as generally they bulldoze over anyone not agreeing.

ok stop reading then? (not the op)

@SoscaredforJan do you have a link for the Times article please? I’d like to read it for larger context and match it up with other papers as well. Thank you! :)

No share token sorry:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/staggered-return-if-schools-able-to-open-boris-johnson-admits-07d9xg9vl

The ONS % are very different than the actual case numbers, these are 7 day figures and by million. In terms of actual tests, pupils up to age 14 are not the significant age group, though appreciate there must be more untested asymptomatic cases.

Shutting down the entire schools system across the country and sacrificing millions of healthy children’s education is shocking. People need to get some perspective on this site it’s gone hysterical the last few days.
There have have been no cases in our school either , throwing all children under the bus again is criminal. The constant ‘argument’ about teacher safety is really selfish in its own right , I’m a social worker who has to visit multiple houses every day , they never get a mention on here, the same for many other professions who are all putting themselves at risk to do their jobs.
2000 kids out of every 100,000 mean’s there are 98,000 HEALTHY kids in every 100,000 who need to be in school.

@RuleWithAWoodenFoot

My school went from no cases, to a third of pupils off, within 3 days. It's covid-lucky or covid-unlucky.

What would your cut off be for a school closing? Who decides?

Yeah, the average is a bit under one student per class - that's going to have a massively skewed distribution of most classes having no cases and the rest averaging a much higher number.

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fhealthandsocialcare%2fconditionsanddiseases%2fdatasets%2fcoronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata%2f2020/covid19infectionsurveydatasets2020121817122020180303.xlsx

I’m not sure if this link will work, but if you delve deeper into the ons picture it shows massive regional variations (which we know) all on different timelines. For example in the north east and north west , secondary school rates exceeded 2% positivity in October/November, now coming down. It’s London which has seen the huge rise in the last couple of weeks bringing up the total %.

You can see the last graph shows it’s been around 2% for months for this age group, and if we look back I don’t personally think the schools should have been shut for the last three months. I think it should be reviewed regionally and possibly by tier (as if a school has loads of cases likely to be off anyway for isolations), but I’m not sure a blanket England approach would be the best balance of education vs pandemic response.

Of my three local primary schools...
A) approx 500 pupils age 3-11, plus staff. One case, one class closure, plus a few staff to had had contact with that class.
B) approx 250 pupils age 3-11, plus staff. One case, one bubble closure.
C) approx 500 pupils, age 7-11. As of a week ago, they had 13/16 classes closed. Plus other closures throughout the term.
The schools are all within a mile of each other. Similar demographic. Main difference between C and A&B (except being a junior as opposed to primary) is the building age and type. Schools a&b are relatively modern builds, one floor, external doors to playground, classes kept apart. C is very old, still in the original Church school building (at least Victorian, but maybe a lot older) with 3/4 floors, narrow staircases, tiny playground, small hall...
A&B have obviously been lucky, but it took a hold in school C.

I want my kids school to stay open if it can. They didn't really receive an education from the school from March to July. Especially from May, when every teacher was occupied teaching the open years plus KW. They have put more stuff in place now just in case. But the other issue is our dodgy internet connection out of town (and it's acknowledged that the broadband where I live is insufficient- an Army camp.) So that's a worry.

Just listen to yourselves! Yes, there are more positive tests because we are testing more.
But a positive test result does not equal serious illness or death.
It just means that all other pupils and teachers around the positive person have to isolate. That does not mean that they have the virus, are ill with the virus or going to die from it.
Increased testing in school will probably increase the positive number but also decrease the amount of pupils and staff isolating.
On that note, I am hoping my DC will continue to attend school, as they have done throughout the last term. Like some other posters, I am in a medium sized town, (tier 3), but both my DC school have had about 10 cases between them. That is an infection rate of approx 1% between both schools.

This is why Greenwich wanted to close its schools, isn't it?

Just for the last part-week of term, citing advice from PHE that cases were doubling in that area every 4 days.

The government threatened prosecution, and I think that shows how little they care about infections in schools.

The plan to use lateral flow tests instead of SI for close contacts of confirmed cases (only for school based close contacts) just puts the tin lid on it.

@Ylvamoon

Just listen to yourselves! Yes, there are more positive tests because we are testing more. But a positive test result does not equal serious illness or death. It just means that all other pupils and teachers around the positive person have to isolate. That does not mean that they have the virus, are ill with the virus or going to die from it. Increased testing in school will probably increase the positive number but also decrease the amount of pupils and staff isolating. On that note, I am hoping my DC will continue to attend school, as they have done throughout the last term. Like some other posters, I am in a medium sized town, (tier 3), but both my DC school have had about 10 cases between them. That is an infection rate of approx 1% between both schools.

Testing more doesn't account for a higher percentage of people testing positive in the ONS survey. The number of positive tests has also increased a lot more than the number of tests carried out.

It just means that all other pupils and teachers around the positive person have to isolate

Isn't the plan that, uniquely for schools, close contacts do not have to do this? They will be tested daily instead. And lateral flow tests have a high false negative rate.

If they were using these tests to pick up asymptomatic cases, great - more will be found and dealt with, and the false negative rate doesn't matter, because finding some is better than finding none. But instead of SI? Plain risky. Not so much for the pupil, but the community as a whole

Just listen to yourselves! Yes, there are more positive tests because we are testing more

Number of positive tests is up 61.2% over last 7 days
Total number of tests up 13.7%

So no, it's not that

@AuntieStella

This is why Greenwich wanted to close its schools, isn't it?

Just for the last part-week of term, citing advice from PHE that cases were doubling in that area every 4 days.

The government threatened prosecution, and I think that shows how little they care about infections in schools.

The plan to use lateral flow tests instead of SI for close contacts of confirmed cases (only for school based close contacts) just puts the tin lid on it.

Yep. The lateral flow tests just aren't good enough for that purpose. They're good for identifying if a cluster exists but not for ruling out any particular person having covid.

Testing more doesn't account for a higher percentage of people testing positive in the ONS survey. The number of positive tests has also increased a lot more than the number of tests carried out

I think there is a difference in testing fewer people almost randomly- at the beginning- to targeted testing (the criteria for tests has changed and keeps changing).
That in turn will give you a higher infection rate.
My question: Is the increase in cases because more people get tests? Are they attending tests because they have more time (holidays), want to see relatives or even go abroad for a holiday?
(I know someone who is in a very sunny location- she had 3 tests before even leaving the county, an otheroneat the airport and one more at current location... )

My question: Is the increase in cases because more people get tests?

No. Because the number of positive tests has done up 61.2% when the total number of tests has gone up 13.7%

So a higher proportion of all tests are positive.

@Ylvamoon

Testing more doesn't account for a higher percentage of people testing positive in the ONS survey. The number of positive tests has also increased a lot more than the number of tests carried out

I think there is a difference in testing fewer people almost randomly- at the beginning- to targeted testing (the criteria for tests has changed and keeps changing).
That in turn will give you a higher infection rate.
My question: Is the increase in cases because more people get tests? Are they attending tests because they have more time (holidays), want to see relatives or even go abroad for a holiday?
(I know someone who is in a very sunny location- she had 3 tests before even leaving the county, an otheroneat the airport and one more at current location... )

Less targeted testing would lead to a lower positivity rate (someone with one of the three main symptoms or in hospital with bilateral pneumonia is way more likely to have covid than someone with no symptoms), we're seeing an increase in the positivity rate.

I wonder why that graph wasn't shown in the briefing. Covid secure schools are an absolute joke.

I think they know they have to close the schools but don't want to announce it until after Christmas.

And those figures are just the ones they know of? If you think how many kids properly have it but are asymptomatic the true number is probably a lot higher.