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?

"Schools received guidance in July setting out the measures they should implement from September, including maintaining increased hygiene and ventilation, but removing bubbles and face coverings.

The Department for Education has also updated its guidance for schools on how to respond if they see an increase in cases. Any reintroduction of measures such as wearing of face coverings should not be taken lightly, only be for a defined period, and should account for the detrimental impact on the delivery of education."

Also on the guidance for September back to school.

Face coverings should only be for a defined period, and not taken lightly.

Should account for the detrimental impact of delivering education

It's all there for everyone to see.

@Peteycat

Should account for the detrimental impact of delivering education

It's all there for everyone to see.

No one is denying mitigation policies like masks/isolation have drawbacks and disrupt education, not at all.

It's balancing the risks of these against the risks of rapid transmission of COVID in school settings.

Tbh it's just really frustrating that vaccination of 12-15 year olds has been so delayed as this would have made a real difference for the start of term.

"..if the government were honest.."
I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at this! 😆🤦🏼‍♀️

Tbh it's just really frustrating that vaccination of 12-15 year olds has been so delayed as this would have made a real difference for the start of term.

It's been delayed for a reason.

@Ollyollyoxenfree

No one is denying mitigation policies like masks/isolation have drawbacks and disrupt education, not at all.

Perhaps not you personally, but posters on here have. The DofE are telling us all that the mitigations as you call them are and have been and will continue to be/cause disruption to education.

No, the vaccination of immunosuppressed kids was announced several weeks ago, but they only got around to organising it this week (too late for kids to have full immunity going back to school)

It doesn't actually look like a master plan from here.

@Peteycat

"Schools received guidance in July setting out the measures they should implement from September, including maintaining increased hygiene and ventilation, but removing bubbles and face coverings.

The Department for Education has also updated its guidance for schools on how to respond if they see an increase in cases. Any reintroduction of measures such as wearing of face coverings should not be taken lightly, only be for a defined period, and should account for the detrimental impact on the delivery of education."

Also on the guidance for September back to school.

Face coverings should only be for a defined period, and not taken lightly.

But deliberately sending vulnerable kids into schools with no mitigations, unprotected by vaccines and in the middle of a pandemic, that is to be taken lightly is it?

Seems a bit well, sociopathic to me.

@Peteycat

Tbh it's just really frustrating that vaccination of 12-15 year olds has been so delayed as this would have made a real difference for the start of term.

It's been delayed for a reason.

@Ollyollyoxenfree

No one is denying mitigation policies like masks/isolation have drawbacks and disrupt education, not at all.

Perhaps not you personally, but posters on here have. The DofE are telling us all that the mitigations as you call them are and have been and will continue to be/cause disruption to education.

The JCVI advised on the 19th July that CEV children and close contacts of CEV individuals should be vaccinated.

Yet many of these children still haven't had appointments - yes these are delays and means they are going back to school unvaccinated.

@Ollyollyoxenfree

It's balancing the risks of these against the risks of rapid transmission of COVID in school settings.

Gov. Uk updated guidance:

As COVID-19 becomes a virus that we learn to live with, there is now an imperative to reduce the disruption to children and young people’s education - particularly given that the direct clinical risks to children are extremely low, and every adult has been offered a first vaccine and the opportunity for 2 doses by mid-September.

*But deliberately sending vulnerable kids into schools with no mitigations, unprotected by vaccines and in the middle of a pandemic, that is to be taken lightly is it?

Seems a bit well, sociopathic to me.*

It clearly says that the risk is minimal. That's not sociopathic, that's being rational.

Who says most people will allow there children to be vaccinated any way. My sons school is inviting each year in twice this coming week to do lft test and when they went back in March my sons year group had to have the test the first day back out of 180 children there was only about 80 that had given consent to have it done.
My son is 13 and I asked him about the vaccine and he said I would rather take his chances with covid then the vaccine. Both my husband and I are fully vaccinated so don't know where its coming from. But I will have to listen to him and not make him have a vaccine he doesn't want.

Sal

[quote Peteycat]@Ollyollyoxenfree

It's balancing the risks of these against the risks of rapid transmission of COVID in school settings.

Gov. Uk updated guidance:

As COVID-19 becomes a virus that we learn to live with, there is now an imperative to reduce the disruption to children and young people’s education - particularly given that the direct clinical risks to children are extremely low, and every adult has been offered a first vaccine and the opportunity for 2 doses by mid-September.[/quote]
Yup, that doesn't contradict my statement in the slightest?

For example, they are still asking testing and isolation to go ahead whilst removing things like bubbles. It's a balance of risks.

Sadless, your son is lucky to have such lovely parents who listen to him. Yes I know alot of kids aren't testing anymore.

@Sadless

Who says most people will allow there children to be vaccinated any way. My sons school is inviting each year in twice this coming week to do lft test and when they went back in March my sons year group had to have the test the first day back out of 180 children there was only about 80 that had given consent to have it done. My son is 13 and I asked him about the vaccine and he said I would rather take his chances with covid then the vaccine. Both my husband and I are fully vaccinated so don't know where its coming from. But I will have to listen to him and not make him have a vaccine he doesn't want.

Sal

It's an offer though, of course if someone doesn't want it they'll turn it down and that's fair enough.

But there are a significant proportion of parents/children in the 12-15 age bracket who do want to be vaccinated.

@Ollyollyoxenfree, no, it's not a balance of risks because the risk is minimal.

I'm not sure where you think the significant proportion wanting child vaccinations are coming from because I don't have a clue.

@Sadless

Who says most people will allow there children to be vaccinated any way. My sons school is inviting each year in twice this coming week to do lft test and when they went back in March my sons year group had to have the test the first day back out of 180 children there was only about 80 that had given consent to have it done. My son is 13 and I asked him about the vaccine and he said I would rather take his chances with covid then the vaccine. Both my husband and I are fully vaccinated so don't know where its coming from. But I will have to listen to him and not make him have a vaccine he doesn't want.

Sal

The polls suggest that most parents would prefer their teenage children vaccinated.

@Peteycat

I'm not sure where you think the significant proportion wanting child vaccinations are coming from because I don't have a clue.

The majority of parents of secondary school children, quite a widespread group.

We can't help it if you don't have a clue

@Peteycat

*But deliberately sending vulnerable kids into schools with no mitigations, unprotected by vaccines and in the middle of a pandemic, that is to be taken lightly is it?

Seems a bit well, sociopathic to me.*

It clearly says that the risk is minimal. That's not sociopathic, that's being rational.

This is discussing children who are most at risk and have been approved for vaccine by the JCVI.

So presumably an element of risk then unfortunately.

@Peteycat

I'm not sure where you think the significant proportion wanting child vaccinations are coming from because I don't have a clue.

Why so abrasive? I saw someone posted you the ONS stats reported in the times on another thread, but here it is again. Even if it was a minority, why are you so deadset against those in this age bracket who want it being denied access?

Parents appear much less concerned, with nine in ten saying they would definitely or probably vaccinate their children. Four per cent of parents of primary school pupil and 3 per cent in secondary schools would definitely not give their children a Covid jab, the Office for National Statistics found.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/most-parents-want-their-children-to-get-the-covid-vaccine-6sr0rz5qw

[quote Peteycat]@Ollyollyoxenfree, no, it's not a balance of risks because the risk is minimal.[/quote]
We're in a pandemic, of course it's a balance of risks between cases rising and the use of suppression measures. Another question - why are you so insistent to deny COVID is a problem at all?

In the gov document you linked, they clearly explain the measures they are taking, including testing and isolation, because the problem hasn't gone away.

@Peteycat Right here in the information you linked (you cropped out this first relevant paragraph though):

Main messages
From 19 July the government continues to manage the risk of serious illness from the spread of the virus. This marks a new phase in the government’s response to the pandemic, moving away from stringent restrictions on everyone’s day-to-day lives, towards advising people on how to protect themselves and others, alongside targeted interventions to reduce risk.

Look. I have posted gov.uk guidance. Can't get any clearer than that. That's what they recommend. That's what is happening from next week. That's what is pretty much indefinite from now on. If things change in the governments eyes, small changes will happen for short bursts.

We are however allowed to discuss the discrepancies and problems with the published guidance. That is what a discussion board is for.

Remember that this is a Government who said schools were safe on 4th January- and announced their closure after half a day. I am not inclined to take their guidelines as Gospel - they are political documents, and change regularly, rapidly and without warning.