Teachers at far higher risk of covid than general population - New data

[noblegiraffe]

"Covid rates among schools staff in some areas are as much as four times the corresponding local authority average, Tes can reveal.

Figures for three councils obtained by the NASUWT teachers' union show that the staff coronavirus infections are far outstripping local rates, casting doubt on the government's repeated assertion that teachers are at no greater risk than other workers."

www.tes.com/news/exclusive-teacher-covid-rates-333-above-average

The government won't release the proper data, I wonder why. They've been given an extension to midday today to show the evidence that schools are safe, as part of a legal challenge by the headteacher unions. Good luck with that.

Here’s some more data for you:

People who tested positive for covid were most likely to have a contact with another positive case in schools.

And that’s only for attending school. For some reason they didn’t include working in schools even though they included working in supermarkets in the supermarket category. Why is that?

Given that the proportion of the population who attend school is far smaller than the proportion of the population who go to the supermarket, this would appear to make schools a very risky place to be.

Why do you think the data was collated and presented in the way it was to put supermarkets at the top and not schools? If we’re talking about misrepresentation?

Noble you are so right and thankyou for constantly seeking to show this.

Even with the evidence in front of them some people just dont want to believe what is in front of them.

Given that the highest rate of infection is among school aged children, it would be very surprising if school staff, who were exposed daily to sometimes hundreds of them, in conditions almost designed to facilitate the spread of the virus, were also not found to have high rates.
What is interesting is the extreme reluctance of some people to grasp or acknowledge this.
My predictions: the evidence quoted by the OP will over time be shown by additional evidence to be accurate, if not understated, and that even in the light of additional overwhelming evidence, some people will continue to deny it.

noble you could also show the other page of that which does have occupations. Hs education staff on it , behind healthcare by a long away but well ahead of any other job which was significant enough to show up.

@noblegiraffe

Surely you can see that taking incomplete data, and deliberately cutting it and presenting it in a way that suits your agenda is political point scoring?

Surely you can see that looking at this data that has been provided by councils and immediately trying to pick at it and find flaws to suggest that maybe teachers aren’t actually at higher risk despite them spending hours a day in the company of loads of the most infected subset of the population with no social distancing or masks is just trying to deny the obvious?

But at the moment we don't know that they are

We know that they are, of course they are, it’s idiotic to suggest otherwise, but the data is being suppressed to show that they are.

I'm really not trying to pick data apart and find flaws. I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious total misrepresentation of partial data.

I'm not trying to disprove teachers risk. I'm simply pointing out that the data being put forward to prove the risk isn't reliable or fairly represented, and, factually we do not have the information needed in order to ascertain whether or not teachers are at higher risk than other workers.

I agree with you that we should have the data. I'm not convinced its being deliberately suppressed, I think the government are just broadly incompetent.

My agenda, if I have one, is that I get really cross about people misusing statistics to try to further their cause, because many, many people do not have the skills to look deeper and understand that they are being misled. It's unfair.

As far as school closures go, I'm pretty neutral at this point. I think its tragic for children that they are missing out on the school environment, but I see that as the fault of the virus and general mismanagement by the government rather than that of schools or teachers. I think, sadly, this lockdown is needed.

I really do think that the priority right now, at this moment in time is to focus on the provision of full, high quality remote education and family support.

Hopefully by the time schools go back, anyone who is likely to be severely affected by/die from CV will have been vaccinated, and things should be on the up. (Although to be fair, I have reservations as per the aforementioned incompetence of the government, but I'm trying to think positive).

Morning @noblegiraffe!

Just popping on as a support-human, & say how glad I am that teachers are going to be safer for a bit.

Rotten for nursery-workers, though. Just, why?

I would have been afraid if I were a teacher.

HOWEVER schools are now shut. It’s now the job of teachers to throw themselves into online learning and connecting with all their pupils to the absolute best of their abilities.

Which is what teachers will be doing.

@mrsm43s I agree with your last post ,especially this

I get really cross about people misusing statistics to try to further their cause, because many, many people do not have the skills to look deeper and understand that they are being misled. It's unfair

but could you say more about why you think the data from these 3 LA's has been misrepresented ?.

Its not falsified data. It's misrepresented data. They've taken data that is correct, and cut it and presented it in a way to tell a story that it doesn't necessarily tell, which just so happens to suit their agenda.

On what basis are you saying this?

@IrmaFayLear

I would have been afraid if I were a teacher.

HOWEVER schools are now shut. It’s now the job of teachers to throw themselves into online learning and connecting with all their pupils to the absolute best of their abilities.

Schools are shut?

Not in England they're not. Primary schools are open for KW and V children, which in many schools is a majority of pupils.

But I think we are also entitled to discuss this. To be told by posters to just move on and focus on homelearning is pretty disgusting. of course that is what schools will be doing.

Noble, you have the patience of a saint.

Do we really even need to wait for hard data to tell us sharing an air supply with 30 other people in a small room for hours is a higher Covid risk than, y’know, not doing that?

It’s magical thinking to claim schools are somehow safe. How on earth would they be?

@noblegiraffe

Here’s some more data for you:

People who tested positive for covid were most likely to have a contact with another positive case in schools.

And that’s only for attending school. For some reason they didn’t include working in schools even though they included working in supermarkets in the supermarket category. Why is that?

Given that the proportion of the population who attend school is far smaller than the proportion of the population who go to the supermarket, this would appear to make schools a very risky place to be.

Why do you think the data was collated and presented in the way it was to put supermarkets at the top and not schools? If we’re talking about misrepresentation?

Actually, as it happens, I think that particular table is totally load of bollocks statistically, and tells us next to nothing. I don't even want to get started on how many ways the way that data is collated and presented is flawed. It's utterly meaningless, and yes, potentially interpreted in a way which misrepresents the underlying data.

To be fair , I guess you should compare teachers to the subset of the population who are working outside the home

And it's for 3 councils ... were they the only 3 who responded or have those 3 been cherry picked ?

it says on the article. they were the only 3 who responded from 28 from whom the info was requested. Very big councils, mind.

@peridito
@donquixotedelamancha

In terms of misrepresentation, at a glance, without even having looked into it deeply, my main concern is that they are not comparing like with like, but are presenting it as if they were.

So they are comparing a profession with the whole community rate.
Anyone in a profession is of working age. The whole community rate is brought down by lower rates of positive tests in the lower age ranges and the 60+ (due to asymptomatic cases and more ability to stay in respectively I presume). So they are comparing teachers against an artificially lowered sample group. If they compared "working age" against the whole community, then "working age" would be a higher rate. This does not prove that "teachers" are higher risk that any other working age person, only against the community as a whole, but they are presenting the information as though it does say that. (I'm not saying its not true, I'm saying that this particular data comparison does not say that)

So on even a very basic level, fairer comparisons would be
teachers compared to working age people
teachers compared to people who are working outside the home
teachers compared to a particular other profession.

These would give a far greater indicator of the risks to teachers over and above other professions.

HTH

@PrincessScarlett

Totally agree with you Noble. But did you happen to see Jeremy Vine yesterday. Both Carol Malone and Doctor Sarah Jarvis said there is absolutely no evidence that teachers are at more risk than any other profession. Sarah Jarvis said her evidence came from the Office for National Statistics.

It was so weird and completely seemed like there was some sort of hidden agenda, especially given the pressure yesterday to close schools.

So the ONS data is different from the data in this study. Why is that?

HOWEVER schools are now shut. It’s now the job of teachers to throw themselves into online learning and connecting with all their pupils to the absolute best of their abilities.

I’m sure that parents will ensure (to the absolute best of their ability) that their DC throw themselves into completing the work set, attend online lessons and respond to e-mails from their teachers.

It's utterly meaningless, and yes, potentially interpreted in a way which misrepresents the underlying data.

When you say you don’t think the government is misrepresenting the data, and is just incompetent, isn’t it interesting that they have consistently misrepresented data or suppressed data about schools in a way that suggests they’re less risky?

For example the PHE report about schools being safe used heavily in the back to school campaign: data collected when schools were socially distanced small primary classes

Occupation data saying teachers not at greater risk of death: collected during lockdown, further updates deemed ‘not in public interest’

Data suggesting parents at only 8% more risk of covid: data only up to August

ONS teacher risk of infection data: so poorly collected and analysed it was reported to the national statistics authority.

Teacher attendance data: the DfE inexplicably stopped publishing this when schools went back

A lot of the shitty data has been headline news and used by the government. Weird.

So the posters saying this doesn’t matter because schools are shut actually want schools to reopen again?? It’s such a bizarre comment. Teachers aren’t occupying themselves worrying about this instead of providing home learning - it’s not an either/or situation. But if we don’t understand the risk of reopening schools then how can we mitigate that risk to make it safer to open them again? Now is definitely not the time to put heads in the sand over this.

Also, of course they aren’t shut and the staff and children attending throughout deserve proper protection in the meantime as well.

If the government had acknowledged amd addressed this a lot earlier, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation now. It’s in everyone’s interests to reduce the risk of this virus spreading. Why on earth would people think this doesn’t matter now of all times??

I must say it would solve a lot of issues if V they had data to back up their position...

@MilesJuppIsMyBitch

Morning *@noblegiraffe*!

Just popping on as a support-human, & say how glad I am that teachers are going to be safer for a bit.

Rotten for nursery-workers, though. Just, why?

Hello! Glad you’re still around @MilesJuppIsMyBitch !

It’s a crap situation either way but at least we know where we are for the next few weeks.

Hope you are keeping well and looking towards the light at the end of the tunnel. We’ll get there.

@noblegiraffe

It's utterly meaningless, and yes, potentially interpreted in a way which misrepresents the underlying data.

When you say you don’t think the government is misrepresenting the data, and is just incompetent, isn’t it interesting that they have consistently misrepresented data or suppressed data about schools in a way that suggests they’re less risky?

For example the PHE report about schools being safe used heavily in the back to school campaign: data collected when schools were socially distanced small primary classes

Occupation data saying teachers not at greater risk of death: collected during lockdown, further updates deemed ‘not in public interest’

Data suggesting parents at only 8% more risk of covid: data only up to August

ONS teacher risk of infection data: so poorly collected and analysed it was reported to the national statistics authority.

Teacher attendance data: the DfE inexplicably stopped publishing this when schools went back

A lot of the shitty data has been headline news and used by the government. Weird.

Maybe they are, and maybe I'm being naive.

I wholeheartedly believe they're incompetent though. I'm not sure I actually believe they are competent enough to meaningfully misrepresent data! If they tried to, they'd probably fuck it up.

It isn’t political point scoring. It is highly relevant data, seemingly hidden, which should impact decisions being made now and in future weeks.