Why can't schools all go back at once?

[Trumplosttheelection]

I have seen suggestions that secondary pupils will have to wait a week longer? Why?
Secondary schools have actually managed social distancing quite well and adolescent mental health is in crisis. Not to mention their academic future being in the toilet.
I can't see why they have to wait another week?

Schools aren't shut because of risk to teachers. The government does not care very much about risk to teachers.

Schools are shut because they are hubs of social mixing that drive transmission through communities and sooner or later vulnerable people then get ill.

If you vaccinated all the teachers and none of the kids the situation would be safer for teachers but the kids would still transmit amongst themselves, to their families and then start chains of infection all over the community.

That's why vaccinating teachers is not a priority (sorry teachers) because it would not solve the problem

What we need to make schools safe is
Much higher numbers of people vaccinated in the community so kids have no-one to spread it to
And/ or proper social distancing in schools which I think you could only have with blended learning.

I think staged return from March and then back after Easter makes sense with the rate of vaccination

If kids wearing masks while in the corridors isn't social distancing...

Then is people wearing masks in supermarket = social distancing?

Presumably not, right? Masks never = social distancing.

Bit pointless having masks in corridors if you don't then have masks in classrooms.

Be a bit like having masks in the aisles in supermarkets and then taking off your mask when paying at the till and breathing all over the cashier.

@Trumplosttheelection

The kids at our school didn't move around much either. It is possible though a compromise for some lessons. I don't think they were lucky. I think they worked really hard. Most kids need school and they all need to get back ASAP.

Clearly it was luck at dd’s school too. The yr8s (dd’s year) must have been behaving so much better than some of the other years, especially the yr11s, who obviously couldn’t have given a shit about their GCSE’s seeing as the infections were predominantly in their year and pretty much zero in yr8. Except the reality is some yr8s had sleepovers all throughout school lockdown 1 and have continued in school lockdown 2 so I’m sure as hell sure that’s not true. It was just bloody luck!

Your whole thread is vile op. This is the sort of thread that should be pulled for not being in the spirit tbh.

We had masks in classrooms and have opening windows. With LFTs for asymptomatic cases I wouldn’t have huge concerns about a return to school. The cold is actually probably a bigger concern and if the freezing temperatures remain I don’t think it’s appropriate to go back

Except for the cashier's plexiglass ...

I thought social distancing was a relative change, not an absolute thing with known compliance thresholds. According to posters here, this Google Definition is absolutely wrong.

I forgot to say teachers .

Lateral flow tests are about 50% accurate at best. A negative on a lateral flow means you still have about a 50:50 chance of having COVID. A positive is a positive but a negative means almost nothing so these will not eliminate asymptomatic spread.

I have personal experience as well as having read the science. We used lateral flow tests twice weekly at work and it did not stop us having a huge outbreak. I personally never managed to get a positive on a LFT for me or DH despite both having COVID and multiple PCR positives.

LF Testing is not anyone's saviour.

What is so wrong with the idea of blended learning for a period?
Why does it have to be one in all in?

The risks at secondary are higher and the benefit over home learning is less because secondary DC should be able to benefit from home learning in most cases.

The risks in primary are lower and online learning works much less well for KS1 so in my view they should go back first.

And I don't have a KS1Child so that's an unbiased view

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

What is so wrong with the idea of blended learning for a period? Why does it have to be one in all in?

The risks at secondary are higher and the benefit over home learning is less because secondary DC should be able to benefit from home learning in most cases.

The risks in primary are lower and online learning works much less well for KS1 so in my view they should go back first.

And I don't have a KS1Child so that's an unbiased view

Because for the most part it's not about people wanting children to have access to education and never was.

I'd be fine with home learning or blended learning for much longer.

@lljkk

If kids wearing masks while in the corridors isn't social distancing...

Then is people wearing masks in supermarket = social distancing?

Presumably not, right? Masks never = social distancing.

Yes, masks is not social distancing. In the supermarket you are supposed to wear a mask and stay 2m away from other people. The motto thing is hands, face, space - face is the mask, space is the distancing.

In schools you don't wear a mask or have space in lessons, masks are corridors only.

This interview with an epidemiologist on BBC breakfast sums it up very well.
We can't expect to put children back into school without changing anything and expect the outcome to be different...

Helpful explanation of social distancing here applying it to work places - www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/social-distancing/index.htm

Key sentence - Social distancing means keeping people apart to help reduce the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). Where possible, you should keep people 2 m apart.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

Lateral flow tests are about 50% accurate at best. A negative on a lateral flow means you still have about a 50:50 chance of having COVID. A positive is a positive but a negative means almost nothing so these will not eliminate asymptomatic spread.

I have personal experience as well as having read the science. We used lateral flow tests twice weekly at work and it did not stop us having a huge outbreak. I personally never managed to get a positive on a LFT for me or DH despite both having COVID and multiple PCR positives.

LF Testing is not anyone's saviour.

No that is not correct they detected 50% of positive people. That is not the same as having a 50:50 chance of testing negative and actually being positive! That is also asymptomatic individuals with low viral load, I’m sure not all those in school with covid are actually asymptomatic It’s an additional measure and actually has been quite effective at picking cases up and preventing onward transmission in many instances. I know lots of people who have tested positive and been asymptomatic or have gone on to develop symptoms. It is useful as an additional measure, each individual measure being cumulative

OK I did phrase it incorrectly

I have just re- looked up the stats and it has 70% sensitivity when used by HCPs but only 60% when used by members of the public so that means 40% of people who had COVID by PCR had a negative LF test in untrained hands.

I'm not saying it wouldn't help a bit as part of a variety of measures but I am saying that people shouldn't put all their eggs in that basket or believe that testing makes them absolutely safe or that they can be very sure they don't have it after a negative LFT which is what many, many people do believe.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

OK I did phrase it incorrectly

I have just re- looked up the stats and it has 70% sensitivity when used by HCPs but only 60% when used by members of the public so that means 40% of people who had COVID by PCR had a negative LF test in untrained hands.

I'm not saying it wouldn't help a bit as part of a variety of measures but I am saying that people shouldn't put all their eggs in that basket or believe that testing makes them absolutely safe or that they can be very sure they don't have it after a negative LFT which is what many, many people do believe.

I only support it for screening, the other use to stop self isolation was bonkers!

If you can socially distance in schools, why are hordes of third trimester pregnant staff being made to wfh? Because their risk assessments state that social distancing is impossible in such small, crowded spaces and with young people.

I am desperate to work to the end of this current pregnancy in school, and desperate to go back to in person teaching full stop. However, my midwife laughed at me when we had this chat, and said ‘everyone but the politicians know there’s no chance of distancing in a school’.

Lots of health and social care staff who have regular LFTs believe it means they can't have COVID or spread it. I have heard them saying it so many times. That attitude has actually led to outbreaks because people are then less careful with social distancing and PPE. And that is healthcare staff who should know better. I think teenagers and their parents will believe that a negative lateral flow means there is no risk and it doesn't at all.

I agree that 1 week difference seems a bit arbitrary. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared with the amount of proper school teenagers have already missed (and I’m talking about more than academics - the stuff that you can’t achieve online).

It has infuriated me how all analysis on schools (or certainly that which has been reported) has looked at 4-18 year olds as a homogeneous group. With Wales and Scotland opening doors to younger pupils on 22nd, there is finally some recognition that very young children have lower viral load and spread. Of course, politically, Boris could never been seen to follow Nicola Sturgeon’s example...

I find it very scary that people are advocating for no mitigation in schools when we return. Staff haven't been vaccinated. We will be sitting ducks. And so will the children and their families. Barely any have been vaccinated and are all at risk. I'm actually more scared by this than going back in September

@Timeturnerplease

If you can socially distance in schools, why are hordes of third trimester pregnant staff being made to wfh? Because their risk assessments state that social distancing is impossible in such small, crowded spaces and with young people.

I am desperate to work to the end of this current pregnancy in school, and desperate to go back to in person teaching full stop. However, my midwife laughed at me when we had this chat, and said ‘everyone but the politicians know there’s no chance of distancing in a school’.

Women in the 3rd trimester are advised to wfh whatever their job, whether social distancing is present or not. The evidence isn’t that strong but they are effectively advised to shield as a precaution.

50% of people in ICU are not in the vaccine priority groups, so if the infection rate doubled ICUs would be full. I'm desperate to get back to to school, but I think it's too early to call.

I really, really, really would like the kids to go back ASAP. However, if this means another lockdown for spring or a shitshow in summer I’d rather wait and have a decent summer.

If I don’t get my U.K. summer holiday it’ll probably finish me off - it’s what’s keeping me and the dc’s going atm. So for that reason I’d rather wait until community transmission is lower.

However, if the first priority groups are vaccinated and it’s taking effect and continues to lower transmission I don’t see why the kids can’t go back in March.

It’s all about keeping hospitalisations low - that’s always been the aim.

Schools going back doesn't need to wait for healthy younger teachers and children to be vaccinated because there is a very very low likelihood of them suffering any serious consequences.

I've had COVID myself and so have hundreds of my colleagues and only one person was ill enough to be hospitalised. There's not no risk for under 50s but the risk is very low. Lower than the risk of an RTA certainly.

I'm sorry if that appears harsh but it is true. The aim cannot be to avoid any risk of teachers, supermarket workers or whoever else catching it or we'd have to vaccinate the whole entire population before opening schools and that will mean not opening until autumn. In my view the balance of harms is not to do that.

What is needed is for all the older and vulnerable people who have a higher chance of being seriously ill to be vaccinated.

I don't think we will have achieved enough on that by 8th March myself to not need additional measures.
So I'd rather be patient a few more weeks until after Easter or at least have a blended approach until then or only have younger kids in.

And no I do not take up a keyworker place although I would be entitled to as I view that as not a responsible action given my DC and DH can wfh.

@Trumplosttheelection

Dd was in school the whole term. This is a standard secondary school. 1500 pupils. Year groups kept apart, masks at all times except eating and lessons, staggered and separate arrivals. Around 25 cases in the whole term including staff and that was with levels in the city steadily rising. It can be done. My point is if schools are going back, they should all go back. No reason to prioritise primary aged kids over secondary. If one age group can go back they can all go back.

Our school had 3 cases all winter term. It can be done.