If the government were honest about the next 4 months

[RuleWithAWoodenFoot]

They'd say that children are probably going to catch covid, there is nothing to stop this happening. Lots of families will probably catch it off their children, school staff will probably catch it off children too.

Education is going to be disrupted again if the above happens. No way around it. But it could be 'over' by November when the bad weather kicks in and older folk start getting ill as per usual circumstances. At that point booster vaccs could start.

It's definitely 'an approach', but not telling people that this is the plan is unfair. Do you think people have realised this yet? Or are the Emperor's new clothes still in view?

@Mybalconyiscracking

Fine let’s shut the whole fucking country down for good, everyone can buy a rifle and wait for the food riots!

I don’t think that’s necessary, especially as far as schools are concerned.

What we should do is:

-Vaccinate as many 12+ children as possible
-Provide boosters for school staff (not just teachers)
-Install portable ventilation/air purification systems in all classrooms and communal areas such as gyms/dining halls
-Re-mandate mask wearing in communal areas and encourage it in the classroom
-Emphasise the need for good hand hygiene and encourage social distancing where possible in school - this might mean retaining one way systems and similar, where they work
-Make it obligatory to report contacts with positive cases to the school
-Keep PHE/local authorities involved as much as possible

Also:

Start planning now for this year’s exams, with comprehensive back up arrangements if it all goes to shit again

Of course, all this should have been in place weeks or months ago. With anyone half way competent in charge, it would have been.

@Mybalconyiscracking

Fine let’s shut the whole fucking country down for good, everyone can buy a rifle and wait for the food riots!

That is the reality, though probably slightly dramatised!

People say “oh, the children, the case numbers, we should do something”.

And then promptly roll out ideas that would make no difference, or only a tiny one.

Generally it is well meaning, but usually it ignores the practicalities.

Just sometimes it would practically make a real difference and be effective, but then they promptly forget all the other measures needed to actually get both transmission and cases down for good.

Consistent to all of them is a total disregard about the negative impact of measures on anything in life that isn’t covid. (Including family finances, future job prospects, education, mental health, and even just the freedom to think and act differently.)

At least your idea has a chance of getting numbers lower. (Being that it’s AUS/NZ-style in approach.)

"And then promptly roll out ideas that would make no difference, or only a tiny one."
Those "ideas" helped quite significantly to keep a (sort of) lid on things last academic year.

Maybe.

But now we have delta.

And the backdrop has changed. There are generally fewer restrictions elsewhere. The social backdrop has also changed, and people are less fearful about the virus, and more concerned about disruption. There’s even one recent and straight up genuine thread suggesting some might be going out of their way to actually get the virus.

So for the same effect you have to do more, probably much, much more.

Is it acceptable to let covid run through schools and expect CEV children to attend?

@RedToothBrush thank you for your calm considered posts they always restore my equilibrium!

You say people are fearful about disruption but I don't understand why they are not fearful about the approach we are about take. It just seems glaringly obvious that it's going to cause massive disruption on top of the health risks however small they perceive these to be.

I look at other EU countries and they seem far more measured for example in France and Germany. I'm not saying they have the perfect systems but they do appear to be more in line with 'living with covid' whilst controlling transmission to a point.

@HalfShrunkMoreToGo

We went back to school on Wednesday here. The first case in DDs class was announced on Thursday and all the kids have been asked to do a PCR test but no one is isolating. They are mixing freely within the playground, have full school assemblies and lots of the kids in her class have siblings in other classes in the school.

They spent all of Wednesday and half of Thursday in close contact with the child who tested positive. We're then told Thursday afternoon to get PCRs. I imagine most of those will come back negative as they hadn't had time to develop the virus yet, they then spent all day Friday together.

I expect more cases in her class by the time they go back in on Tuesday.

With restrictions, bubbles and additional measures they have managed to go the last year and a half with no cases.

Without restrictions they managed a day and a half.

Could be different behavioural patterns in different social groups.

Over the summer the more affluent have been mixing and travelling more whilst those who can't afford to have been more likely to stay home.

I think prior to holidays more affluent families were more likely to stay home and will probably revert more to that when back in school (especially with rising cases).

And then theres the pure luck element.

DS's school hasn't been affected by covid much but the neighbouring schools with similar social circles have. It only takes a single case before a whole school gets a problem.

What we are seeing atm is areas which hadn't been as badly hit previously are being affected more and vice versa too. So we are likely to see schools previously unaffected have more cases.

That doesn't mean that overall we will see cases rise at a rate faster than in July. Its just that we might see it happening in different places.

My point being its not necessarily the restrictions in school changing, but changes to patterns of behaviour over the summer which have changed where cases are located.

Vaccinating 12-15 year olds would make a significant difference in schools (though it is very late to be starting now for schools going back in September).

The risks of covid, though smaller to children, on balance outweigh the very small risks from the vaccine at age 12-15 (and that is the consensus for the greater part of America and Europe).

@RedToothBrush

It being at the same rate as pre-summer isn't a good place to be in if you consider last September, i would stress. But i always don't think the situation in terms of lifting of restrictions will lead to an acceleration of cases compared to how fast it was going up in late July. It will go up, but not at a high rate of infection.

We'll have fewer restrictions in schools? and also fewer restrictions outside schools, come to that? and a high level of transmission in the community.

How would there not be an acceleration of cases in schools in September, other things being equal? why wouldn't the level of infection be high?

(It would be great if you're right, but I can't see how)

My take is that people are seeing and talking to others. And despite persistent attempts to explain that it’s not a trivial infection for some, people are seeing that it is for most.

Case in point, I spoke to a lady I expected to be quite cautious yesterday. She said both her and her partner had had it a few weeks ago. Thought it was a cold. And tested anyway, found positive. Worst symptom meant a day in bed for the dad. Mum was a bit under the weather. Children didn’t even report symptoms.

Threats of disruption for health reasons centre mostly around pings and isolations which people are beginning to see as just part of the bureaucracy — more harmful than helpful.

Overall, my sense is that people are not seeing health disruption as an issue at all. The disruption is what comes from the measures.

Presumably there'd be even less disruption if children were vaccinated.

There would also be less disruption if children wore masks for some of the time in secondary school, as fewer kids would get RSV and flu as well.

Better ventilation in schools would lead overall to, well, less disruption.

Win win, you would think.

I suppose they are resigned to the likely possibility they will become infected and have 10 days isolation but then assume they will have the following 6 months with immunity. Although as the usual winter coughs and colds will be circulating more frequently it is likely we'd have multiple times when due to symptoms a pcr test will be required with isolation until a negative result. And what of the increased viral load we were told about. If infections are going to be higher all around what effect will this cause?

@Peteycat

No it's not for a virus that's very mild to children.

Rubella is very mild for most healthy children. We still vaccinate healthy children against it to protect others.

@herecomesthsun

Vaccinating 12-15 year olds would make a significant difference in schools (though it is very late to be starting now for schools going back in September).

The risks of covid, though smaller to children, on balance outweigh the very small risks from the vaccine at age 12-15 (and that is the consensus for the greater part of America and Europe).

Do you think many children would actually have it though? Vaccine take up for 16-18 years old is very low. Not sure that enough 12-15 year olds would have it to make enough of a difference.

@noblegiraffe
I’ve joined just to post on this thread.
My son is 15 years and 8 months, he has Down Syndrome and autism. He has also finished puberty which means he’s a young man, a vulnerable to covid young man.
When I heard on the 19th of July that he could be vaccinated I was overjoyed. I waited patiently for 2 weeks for an invitation to have him jabbed. No invite arrived.

I rang my GP surgery, the GP I spoke to was blissfully unaware that CV teens were to be vaxxed. She said nobody is vaccinating at the surgery so to call 119. They couldn’t help me because a GP has to vax an under 16. I won’t bore you with all the calls and emails in between, being bounced around all over the place and hitting a brick wall every time.
Last Tuesday I had a call from my health centre to say a GP surgery 23 miles away has agreed to vaccinate my child and to wait for a call or text, as of today I’ve not had a call or text. I am beyond fuming.

My son is due to return to school in the 6th and I don’t know what to do, his SEN school has had few cases due to the staff taking so many precautions but with restrictions lifted this may change and change very quickly.

The treatment of disabled children throughout the whole pandemic has been disgraceful.

@Waxonwaxoff0

1. mine wanted it & has had it

1. we could offer it to them and find out?

[quote herecomesthsun]@Waxonwaxoff0

1. mine wanted it & has had it

1. we could offer it to them and find out?[/quote]

Yes, yours might have but overall data is showing that take up is low. Of course we could and should offer it but I doubt enough would take it to make much difference in schools.

Vaccine take up for 16-18 years old is very low.

Are you sure? Vaccine delivery to 16 and 17 year olds has been low so far - because it has been extremely difficult for them to access. For much of the time it has been supposedly ‘available’, no appointments have been open to them on the main national system. The information that some drop ins will vaccinate them has been poorly publicised and provision extremely patchy. Invitations have now been sent out - but that is of no use to those who have had Covid in the past 28 days (the rate in this age group is 2-3% locally, just on actual positive tests on a rolling 7 days, so over the holidays a very high number), those who are away and those whose vaccination centres for their age group are 20+ miles away since few have independent transport.

It is only when - as was the case for older age groups - every local vaccination centre has high numbers of appointments available for this age group at sensible times, and those who have had Covid have waited 28 days, that we can see true uptake in this group.

@cantkeepawayforever

Vaccine take up for 16-18 years old is very low.

Are you sure? Vaccine delivery to 16 and 17 year olds has been low so far - because it has been extremely difficult for them to access. For much of the time it has been supposedly ‘available’, no appointments have been open to them on the main national system. The information that some drop ins will vaccinate them has been poorly publicised and provision extremely patchy. Invitations have now been sent out - but that is of no use to those who have had Covid in the past 28 days (the rate in this age group is 2-3% locally, just on actual positive tests on a rolling 7 days, so over the holidays a very high number), those who are away and those whose vaccination centres for their age group are 20+ miles away since few have independent transport.

It is only when - as was the case for older age groups - every local vaccination centre has high numbers of appointments available for this age group at sensible times, and those who have had Covid have waited 28 days, that we can see true uptake in this group.

Yes, that all could be a factor. There's been plenty of advertising for drop ins in my local area on social media though. Maybe it is a case of waiting to see.

We haven't actually even offered vaccine to very many 12-15s yet, not even vulnerable onjes, so it's a bit early to say that take up is low.

@herecomesthsun that’s right, see my post above. I’ve been fighting to get my 15 year old vaxxed since the 19th of July, I’m getting passed from pillar to post with no answers.

@RuleWithAWoodenFoot

I agree with you. There seems little point suppressing a virus that won't be going anywhere if the health service isn't being overwhelmed.

It makes sense for Covid to be allowed to be allowed to pass through schools in the first half-term. It's like taking off a plaster... better, and ultimately less painful, to rip it off than do it slowly.

@CallmeHendricks

"And then promptly roll out ideas that would make no difference, or only a tiny one." Those "ideas" helped quite significantly to keep a (sort of) lid on things last academic year.

The swiss cheese approach / layered approach i.e. no mitigation on its own is sufficient. Vaccines have been great, but aren't enough on their own. Schools are primarily an unvaccinated population. Absolutely ventilation should have been addressed. We can vaccinate and mitigate but government have chosen not to. I think mass infection in schools, whilst we know about long covid and neurological impacts is awful. I think providing a choice between 'all' or 'nothing', especially as case rates are so high is nonsensical. Compare this with DfE guidance. t.co/uHCtWzRMZV Look at the hospitals and deaths where this advice has been ignored.

Schools as a workplace should also be kept safe www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/equipment-and-machinery/air-conditioning-and-ventilation/air-cleaning-and-filtration-units.htm

Rishi Sunak's comment that we can't control the virus can be translated as we don't want to do anything to suppress the virus until it's too late. We have all seen where that leads. As for the 50K deaths a year, along with longterm illness, when there are measures we can take to reduce that is abhorrent. Those people are somebody's kid, parent, sibling, teacher etc. Doing nothing for too long will either lead us into lockdown, a needlessly brutal death toll, long term sickness etc - none of which are 'living with it' or great for the economy.

@noblegiraffe

Is it acceptable to let covid run through schools and expect CEV children to attend?

Quite possibly not, but how much at risk are most CEV children?

We automatically assume CEV = high risk of Covid complications, but given that Covid risk increases exponentially with age, and child death risk is c.1 in a million, is it objectively more of a risk than Flu or norovirus for which we have never suggested Covid type restrictions.

I'm not trying to minimise, and if the risks are significant measures should be put in place to support CEV children, but it needs to be proportional to the risk.