Once vulnerable dc have been vaccinated, secondary age dc with asymptotic coronavirus shouldn’t have to take time off school

[solarlights]

www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years-jcvi-statement/jvci-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17-years-15-july-2021

Children and young people who have SARS-CoV2 infection generally do not become so unwell that they need to take much, or any, time off sick from education. Moreover, recent changes to national policy on NPIs in schools, in the context of a successful adult vaccination programme, should substantially reduce the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people’s education

At last it seems sanity is beginning to be restored.

Great news! A glimmer of sanity starting to show through the madness we’ve been living with.

This is excellent and I completely agree.

Not sure why the JCVI are commenting on educational matters, seems a bit outside their remit.

To be fair from 16 August only those who test positive will have to isolate anyway.

That is stupid, but no more stupid than many other government decisions.

I agree with the USA - don't visit the UK, it is a mess.

'sanity'

Children may not become unwell but adults may well do, even if vaccinated and now there’s concerns about the lack of protection from the AZ. I’m double vaccinated like most of m colleagues with the AZ. Teachers won’t be receiving boosters so once Autumn term hits our immunity will begin to lessen. Pupils won’t be isolating but there may be disruption anyway I’d there’s aren’t enough staff to open.

This isn’t a government decision, this is a vaccines committee rambling on about education inequality.

I pity those people who can’t take the vaccine, it doesn’t work for them or are elderly with underlying health conditions. They are fucked then!

Hopefully 12-17 will be offered the option of the jab before too long.

@Twoforthree

I pity those people who can’t take the vaccine, it doesn’t work for them or are elderly with underlying health conditions. They are fucked then!

Including some teachers

Oh what's that sound?

Oh yes, it's teachers moving the goal posts again, to prevent a normal return to the classroom... As seen from @motherrunner
s post.

And I say that as someone who was in the profession.

Even vulnerable children has been vaccinated, what if the vaccine isn't working well enough for them because of their condition? Those children are fucked, no matter if they are vaccinated or not, if the virus are circulating through out the school. Along with many other who are healthy but end up seriously ill or with long covid.

If a child tests positive I'd still prefer them to take time off, even if not really poorly. Schools will have CV/CEV children in them and only those aged 12+ will have had the chance to be vaccinated, plus some vulnerable people (adults and children) either can't be vaccinated or the vaccine won't work so well for them.

Also, often parents already do send children into school already whilst poorly. If we move to this route we know we'd have parents sending children in with symptoms, or off colour, but claiming they're not ill.

Yet more attacks on teachers to come on this thread no doubt.

Letting covid spread is stupid.

There are too many people who are emotionally incapable of dealing with this complex problem, so their answer is to pretend it isn't happening.

I’m not “moving any goal posts”. I’ll be teaching come what may, just like I have done for the last 21 years. I’m concerned that school staff will once again be tarnished as ‘difficult’ if education once again becomes disrupted due to levels of staff illness (or even multiple cases of pupil illness and PHE steps in).

If you’re sick with anything infectious I’d rather you stayed home.

@5zeds

If you’re sick with anything infectious I’d rather you stayed home.

Exactly.

We isolate children who have chicken pox, measles etc to protect others more vulnerable to it. Many children aren't ill with chicken pox but we know it can be dangerous to some children and others such as pregnant woman, so we isolate children for several days when they have CP even if they aren't feeling poorly. Likewise for things like measles - where we know most people are vaccinated against it.

So why should covid be any different?

It's an infectious disease so what is so wrong with isolating those with the virus for a few days? We shoul ld be considering whether we send children to,school, and whether adults should be working, when they have an active infectious illness - not just covid, but others too. We need to readjust our way of thinking when it comes to spreading bugs around all the time, without mitigation.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation of the report?

The paragraph you quote OP is referring to the potential benefits of vaccinating all 12 to 17 year olds.

This part you didn't quote refers
Vaccinating secondary school students would provide direct protection against symptomatic infection and reduce the risk of outbreaks in secondary schools. This may allow more students to remain in school and reduce days off school because of SARS-CoV2 infection. The adverse educational impacts of school closures or days off school fall disproportionately on students from more deprived areas and may be of long-term importance. Reducing days off school could mitigate some of the health inequalities related to COVID-19.

Moreover, recent changes to national policy on NPIs in schools, in the context of a successful adult vaccination programme, should substantially reduce the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people’s education

should is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Out of interest OP can you explain what these NPIs are, how they have changed in schools, and what the JCVI is alluding to?

@5zeds

If you’re sick with anything infectious I’d rather you stayed home.

in fact if you have any sense or compassion you will do this

@5zeds

If you’re sick with anything infectious I’d rather you stayed home.

This!

But it's never been the case anyway in pre-covid times. I remember colleagues coming into the office with tummy bugs telling everyone how many times they've had to rush to the loo already in the hour or two they've been there. And everyone with streaming colds and coughs spreading their germs in small unventilated offices...

If we want infectious people staying at home, we need to stop Ofsted and the LEA making 100% attendance amongst school children, no matter what’s wrong with them, so vital.

Well yes, if you know you’ve got something. But at the moment we’re testing for asymptomatic infections so people who aren’t ill are being forced to isolate. Up to ~70% of flu cases are asymptomatic each year. Can you imagine the disruption if we were testing for it every flu season?

They have just announced that immune suppressed kids can have a vaccine.

I am on the phone right now, while I am typing, trying to work out how and when this can be given to my son.

Meanwhile, even if he gets a vaccine tomorrow (how unlikely is that), it will be several weeks before the second, and then 3 weeks or so before immunity kicks in.

There will be a load of families with clinically extremely vulnerable children / who were shielding etc who will have difficulty getting vaccines.

Possibly they are going to be in tight supply because we don't have enough supply for the children (hence very tight limits on who gets them).

I think we should be careful with this, it is going to be a winter with a lot of respiratory illness.

@Appuskidu

If we want infectious people staying at home, we need to stop Ofsted and the LEA making 100% attendance amongst school children, no matter what’s wrong with them, so vital.

And this! People dosing their children up on Calpol so they get their full attendance. Where was ‘the greater good’ and ‘protecting the vulnerable’ then?