Primary schools from September...

[SandyStarfish]

Good that contacts will no longer have to isolate... however, Covid will run wild through the classes won't it? And the viral load will be high for children and staff in those classrooms because of all the particles in the air. And in winter it's too hard to ventilate much. It's going to be horrible working conditions again.

Some will be, if their parents give permission

@lavenderandwisteria

Some will be, if their parents give permission

Which age group are you referring to here?

Well, it is primary aged children who are offered the flu vaccine, and year 7s, I believe.

Extended up to Y11 this year.

Is that to keep pressure off the NHS?

Assume so, they are expecting a bad flu season to make up for last year.

With my head, I know that what we need to do in September is to accelerate the spread in all children as fast and as effectively as possible - aiming for so many to catch it that 80-90% of all 0-16 year olds will have had it by October so as not to interfere with the difficult winter season in hospitals.

So ideally we would not isolate anyone at all within schools. Children and adults in schools should come in as long as they physically can, and spread the virus as efficiently as possible.

With my heart, I find this troubling - for CEV children (and those perhaps too young to know they are CEV), for parents and grandparents who live with children of school age whose vaccinations may not be fully effective, and for the likely extra severity of the illness of those who catch it in this accelerated manner, due to the very high viral load they will be exposed to, which may mean that even the vaccinated will have a more significant illness than they would otherwise have done.

Morally, I am not sure about whether schools should be used in this way, as planned viral transmission locations in order to achieve herd immunity for the rest of the population?

*Warhertisuff
*
True, but why does this have to be the case now?

It is the case that positive cases have to isolate. At some point we will have to change that, but it is a massive jump to go from where we are now, to having positive cases not having to isolate. At that point there would be little point of testing at all.
Whilst it is the case that positive cases have to isolate, it is going to put pressure on staffing in schools.

@noblegiraffe

Time to treat it like we do the flu

Primary and secondary schoolkids will be vaccinated against the flu this year. Is that what you are arguing for?

Covid risk increases exponentially with age - unlike flu - with the risk from Covid being comparable to flu for children, with certain studies showing that flu is a higher risk for this age group!

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210614/Study-suggests-COVID-19-in-children-is-milder-than-the-flu.aspx

Flu vaccines aren't especially effective, having an efficacy of about 50%, and sometimes as low as 10%!... so far better than nothing, but they aren't extremely effective. Also, schools operated normally without vaccines for many years, certainly when we were pupils, and even now is only generally available for primary pupils.

So, yes, in my opinion, we should treat Covid as we do the flu... which means children and teachers should attend until they are too unwell not to do so.

As a previous poster wrote, this would allow Covid to blow through schools in a far shorter time-span than continuing to try and suppress it and ensure it wasn't so much of an issue during the peak of the winter flu season.

Having Covid go through schools rapidly would also potentially make it easier for CEV children to avoid it... Any policy change which did treat it as flu would need to go hand in hand with support for CEV children and potentially their siblings, to be educated from home whilst Covid blew through.

Essentially you would be concentrating the risk into a few weeks that would otherwise be extended over many months or even terms.

Over the course of, say, a year a CEV child would be as exposed to Covid if we continued to try and suppress it with masks and isolation, as they would be in the weeks at the start of the autumn term if Covid were treated as the flu. All you would be doing with the former is extending the time of risk exposure, not reducing the overall risk.

It seems that by allowing Covid to take its natural course at the start of the autumn term and putting short term measures in to support CEV children, is far more protective of CEV children than suppression measures that will only slow the spread whilst expecting CEV children to be as exposed as every other child.

We can't put Covid "back in its box", and it's time we accepted that.

@laselvar

*Warhertisuff * True, but why does this have to be the case now?

It is the case that positive cases have to isolate. At some point we will have to change that, but it is a massive jump to go from where we are now, to having positive cases not having to isolate. At that point there would be little point of testing at all.
Whilst it is the case that positive cases have to isolate, it is going to put pressure on staffing in schools.

@laselvar

I agree with what you're saying. Forcing infections to isolate for ten days will cause significant issues... I'm just arguing that we shouldn't do that.

My understanding was that people are most infectious in the two days before and after symptom onset, so even if isolation continues (and I accept that it probably will even if I don't agree with it) ten days seems excessive.

Flu and covid are very different things.
As this summer has proved and very hot countries also having covid crisis its not seasonal.
Theres no flexibility in the system for kids to have time off schools and the DFE have threatened fines to cev kids, kids of vev parents and told them to deregister and home school if they not happy.
The lack of safety mitigation in schools either puts cev families at serious harm or means they socially cut off and unable to access a free education they pay their taxes for .

I think even the daily mail understand herd immunity not possible.
We know from past autumn/ winter that infections in schools bled out into older age groups.
We know double jabbed parents or teachers could possibly contact the virus again.

We know the vaccines we currently have do on the whole stop us from getting seriously ill , being in hospital or dying.
But we now accept maybe they don't block transmission as well as thought they did.
So this still means anyone ill with covid teacher, TA , pupils will be off school.
So the adults job role will need cover.
The child's parent won't be able to go to work although new rules mean the whole household doesn't isolate so dad can spread the virus to his workplace and the sibling that perhaps attends a different school can potentially spread the virus further.
The best way without vaccines to reduce the risks of parents, teachers and kids getting the virus is to have struct control measures, masks bubbles smaller classes distancing and better ventilated.
We need to lower the amount of infections to low level in age group 5-10.
But 10 to 19 seems bigger problem and we could give 12 plus option of vaccines but we haven't.

Its clear professor Dingwall who advised the government and was in the jcvi committee opposed to vaccinating children wanted to pursue herd immunity policy and deliberately let covid rip through schools.

We have anti vax and us for them campaign against vaccinating kids as they don't want kids used as guinea pigs.
Yet letting a virus uncontrolled infect the schools population seems more risky than a controlled dose given within a vaccine.

@3asAbird

I'm not disputing that Covid and flu are very different, and have different characteristics, but with vaccines now rolled out, the risk of each is comparable. Covid is arguably less of a risk than flu to children.

I agree that we are extremely unlikely to reach herd immunity, if by that you mean that we eradicate Covid from the country. If that was a possibility then continued suppression may be worthwhile, but it's not so all we're doing in continuing measures and restrictions is trying to be King Canute and pointlessly trying to hold back the tide.

Far better to let Covid blow through schools to get a decent base level of immunity to blunt any future infection waves. If we did that then measures to protect CEV children by home schooling for a period. I appreciate that's not being proposed at present, and that sucks for the CEV children and their parents, but there are relatively few so a few "Covid-secure" hubs per local authority area might help. Then, come late autumn or spring, Covid numbers should be far lower than they would be if we continue with suppression (as per models which show very low case numbers by spring if we let it pass through).

@3asAbird

As for the article you linked, closing schools doesn't "deprive them of the opportunity to get Covid", it merely "delays their opportunity to get Covid"....especially as, by your own admission, there is no realistic chance of "herd immunity".

I hate to see how we’ve all been reduced (by the government ) to arguing about two rubbish options for our children and teachers.

It is always isolations (awful, disruptive, broadening disadvantages, unhealthy) for everyone

Versus

High levels of exposure to a novel virus which currently has a habit of mutating to higher viral load and increased transmission. Something that most adults have gone out of their way to avoid by vaccination.

what’s your alternative?

1. Improve ventilation in schools e.g. HEPA filters and ventilation standards for schools

1. Invest in and roll out more expensive, less invasive spit tests for asymptomatic daily testing

1. Fast track and scale up existing trials for Covid vaccination in under 12s

Any policy change which did treat it as flu would need to go hand in hand with support for CEV children and potentially their siblings, to be educated from home whilst Covid blew through

So we’ve had months and months of threads about the mental health of children and young people, not able to be with their peers, struggling etc etc etc. And you now think it acceptable to pursue a policy that means CEV children, CV children and children with CEV and CV adults living in their households can’t be in school? Can you tell me why the mental health of not vulnerable to covid children matters but that of CEV and CV children doesn’t matter?

@everythingthelighttouches

I hate to see how we’ve all been reduced (by the government ) to arguing about two rubbish options for our children and teachers.

It is always isolations (awful, disruptive, broadening disadvantages, unhealthy) for everyone

Versus

High levels of exposure to a novel virus which currently has a habit of mutating to higher viral load and increased transmission. Something that most adults have gone out of their way to avoid by vaccination.

what’s your alternative?

1. Improve ventilation in schools e.g. HEPA filters and ventilation standards for schools

1. Invest in and roll out more expensive, less invasive spit tests for asymptomatic daily testing

1. Fast track and scale up existing trials for Covid vaccination in under 12s

Absolutely this with bells on.

Yet letting a virus uncontrolled infect the schools population seems more risky than a controlled dose given within a vaccine.

Maybe because we have over a year’s worth of data showing that covid is usually mild in children?

CV children 12 and over are being offered the vaccine. It isn’t licensed for under 12s.

@bumbleymummy

Yet letting a virus uncontrolled infect the schools population seems more risky than a controlled dose given within a vaccine.

Maybe because we have over a year’s worth of data showing that covid is usually mild in children?

We equally have a huge amount of data showing vaccine safety in children.

@bumbleymummy

Yet letting a virus uncontrolled infect the schools population seems more risky than a controlled dose given within a vaccine.

Maybe because we have over a year’s worth of data showing that covid is usually mild in children?

I think there are two possible queries here:

• If the virus is 'usually' mild in children - which just means does not often lead to hospitalisation - is that OK, especially for those for whom it is 'unusually' more severe?

• Are children the only people who will be infected if Covid runs uncontrollably through schools without any mitigation or isolation? Also, will those - children, adults - who are infected via schools potentially have more severe illness due to the viral load from many children within a single class all being simultaneously infectious, due to lack of isolation? I don't think that this is yet known for Delta, but I do seem to remember that higher viral load on infection is correlated with more severe disease.

• If the virus is 'usually' mild in children - which just means does not often lead to hospitalisation - is that OK, especially for those for whom it is 'unusually' more severe?

I would say, yes. Iirc RSV hospitalises more children every year (sadly some will die) and we’ve been living with that.

The teachers/other staff will all have had the opportunity to be vaccinated this year so their risk of serious illness will be reduced.

The teachers/other staff will all have had the opportunity to be vaccinated this year so their risk of serious illness will be reduced.

I appreciate that - as a CV, over 50 teacher. However, what is not known - I think - is the balance of that reduiced risk vs the increased risk of very high viral loads from high numbers of simultaneously infectious pupils close contact for 6 hours a day. Up till now, the change of having many simultaneously highly infectious people in the class was somewhat reduced due to self-isolation rules. From September, with no isolation even if all the rest of a child's family are ill with Covid, and with the most common symptoms of delta in children not on the 'reasons for testing' list, that situation will change.

@cantkeepawayforever

The teachers/other staff will all have had the opportunity to be vaccinated this year so their risk of serious illness will be reduced.

I appreciate that - as a CV, over 50 teacher. However, what is not known - I think - is the balance of that reduiced risk vs the increased risk of very high viral loads from high numbers of simultaneously infectious pupils close contact for 6 hours a day. Up till now, the change of having many simultaneously highly infectious people in the class was somewhat reduced due to self-isolation rules. From September, with no isolation even if all the rest of a child's family are ill with Covid, and with the most common symptoms of delta in children not on the 'reasons for testing' list, that situation will change.

That’s a scary thought.

I can’t imagine sending mine if household members are positive but presume others won’t feel the same way.

@Getawaywithit

So we’ve had months and months of threads about the mental health of children and young people, not able to be with their peers, struggling etc etc etc. And you now think it acceptable to pursue a policy that means CEV children, CV children and children with CEV and CV adults living in their households can’t be in school? Can you tell me why the mental health of not vulnerable to covid children matters but that of CEV and CV children doesn’t matter?

Not at all...

Firstly, the number of CEV for whom Covid is such a risk is tiny. I have a CV child and his consultant doesn't believe he's at any particular risk.

Secondly, requiring all pupils to continue to have their schooling severely disrupted to ensure that all CEV remain in school is disproportionate.

Thirdly, my plan would protect CEV children far more than continuing with current plans, or even increasing measures by reintroducing masks in classrooms, as the risk will remain at lower levels for months. If we suppress Covid then it just means that it will take longer for all children to be infected... The cat is out of the bag. Increasing suppression measures simply extends the time over which the average child will be exposed, it does t reduce overall risk.

The best way of protecting CEV children from catching Covid is for them to be present whilst it is passing through, not them being present whilst it passes through more slowly.

@sherrystrull absolutely. 💯