BMJ: Teachers not at greater risk of hosp'n, and lower risk of severe disease, than general population

[Kokeshi123]

www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2060?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage

Unlike previous studies, this one actually looked at periods when schools were open and compared like-with-like for those periods.

Compared with adults of working age who are otherwise similar, teachers and their household members were not found to be at increased risk of hospital admission with covid-19 and were found to be at lower risk of severe covid-19. These findings should reassure those who are engaged in face-to-face teaching.

This should not be taken to mean that we should do schooling with no mitigations whatsoever--I'd be in favor of doing indoor masks for kids and teachers till the winter is over if it was up to me, and ventilation is always a good thing anyway. However, at least this should provide some reassurance for teachers and families. And in my opinion, this kind of thing should settle the argument on having any further school closures; mitigations are one thing, but schools absolutely must remain open IMO.

Even if all of points 1-4 above were true, your stated conclusion - that schools were closed because of union lobbying - doesn’t follow.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but from what I understood- you said that no one wanted schools to close and therefore it was gaslighting for a pp to say that schools should never be shut again.

No. I didn’t say no one wanted schools to close ever and a PP was not saying in isolation of this thread that schools should never be shut again in this thread conversation (that’s your gaslighty bit btw). I was talking about, with the poster following on from a full thread conversation, that none of us (teachers) want schools to close when we talk about potential issues with no mitigation or guidance in schools. Quite the opposite. Because school staff talk about issues that may well occur in schools and wanting support in stopping them, they are in fact doing so because they want schools to stay open.

The previous poster was changing the flow of chat in their comment that I quoted because we were discussing their empathy towards teachers at the time and therefore that poster was switching the discussion and bringing up something not asked for on this thread in order to deflect.
Too frequently on Mumsnet, to shut down any posts on talking about problems in schools, particular posters will make accusations of ‘stop trying to close schools’ (as you have seen on this thread from multiple posters) as a way of shutting down any talk on it, hence the gaslighting. The previous poster, in my opinion was verging (as I wrote) on gaslighting territory.

I’ll be more precise. Even if the points were all true, they don’t support your conclusion, as stated.

[quote Bizawit]From January:

“A union leader claimed what was right for London was right for the rest of the country and called on ministers to "do their duty" and close all primary and secondary schools to contain the coronavirus.”

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/teaching-unions-tell-pm-do-your-duty-and-close-all-schools-in-england-to-limit-covid-threat-12177145[/quote]
So that would be in response to.

The government taking two schools to court for having to close because they were unsafe due to covid.

And just before they closed the schools and due to the government keeping schools open in areas where covid was higher than in those were the government were advocating closing schools.

Also due to the last minute chaos caused by the last minute testing regime.

So lets have some context for this as it was about a uniform policy being applied across the country not just London.

[quote SD1978]@MissTrip82 - according to British statistics, teachers didn't have a high mortality rate, certainly not third.

More specifically, these were the jobs with the highest death rates from Covid for women:
social workers (32.4 deaths per 100,000 females; 25 deaths)
national government administrative occupations (27.9 deaths per 100,000 females; 26 deaths)
sales and retail assistants (26.9 deaths per 100,000 females; 111 deaths)
managers and directors in retail and wholesale (26.7 deaths per 100,000 females, 24 deaths)
nursing auxiliaries and assistants (25.3 deaths per 100,000 females; 54 deaths)
nurses (24.5 deaths per 100,000 females; 110 deaths)
The figures cover the period from March 9 to December 28, 2020.
Covid-19 death rates for men and women working as teaching and educational professionals, such as secondary school teachers, were not statistically significantly raised compared with rates for the wider working population, the ONS found.

There was a misconception that they did, but the facts don't play out, hence my initial comment. The rhetoric and fear interning was that the teaching profession was at extremely high risk- this wasn't the case. That was my point[/quote]
And from the same article you quoted, ONS also say underneath that The ONS was clear at the time that based on this analysis, “there was no evidence of any difference” within our survey. This is not the same as saying that, “there is no difference”.
www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/onsstatementaddressingquestionsaroundtheanalysisofthenumberofschoolworkerskeyworkersandotherprofessionsinenglandwhohadcovid19
In a linked document for your time period,
www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fhealthandsocialcare%2fcausesofdeath%2fdatasets%2fcoronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales%2fcurrent/reftablesfinal.xlsx, deaths involving only secondary teaches were 29 men and 173 for women. If we include primary teachers and nursery staff, 4 for men and 368 for women. For teachers working with special needs, the rate was 1 for men and 33 for women and ‘other’ education professionals was 8 for men and 7 for women up to age 64. Total for education staff aged 64 and under (many more were over 64) is 717. Nurses as a singular group in contrast were sadly 848. Not at more risk no but still at risk.

@ChloeDecker

What about those who work with children in another capacity eg, nurses/ social workers etc.

Social workers have been working from home and in my area, mostly still are.

@ChloeDecker

Teachers don’t like it when lay people act like they know how the profession works, so please don’t do it to social care workers.

Social workers never stopped home visits and going out and about. Social care never closed. Care homes allowed social workers inside - even during the strictest lockdowns - if there was a professional need.

Even clinically extremely vulnerable social workers have been in environments, up close and personal with people who don’t know how to socially distance (due to a cognitive impairment, for example) with only a flimsy mask. There are certainly risks. I’m not saying it’s the riskiest profession (it’s not) but mostly working from home is not the case in any area.

@JulesCobb

Mehta a surprise the 'special case' teachers are wingeing again. Just like last year. The thread was not started by a teacher. Just someone having an opinion on schools. Again. Just like last year.

FFS this country needs to stop cowering before the great unions.
Closures had nothing to do with unions. It was the government. And that decision was nothing to do with teachers safety either.

Start doing your jobs. Your double jabbed so get on with it!
I’ll start right now. You’re.

Thanks, Jules. You've made me chuckle. Better than ploughing through all this awful teacher bashing which really gets me down - not sure why I'm bothering to read this thread.

@borntobequiet

Even if all of points 1-4 above were true, your stated conclusion - that schools were closed because of union lobbying - doesn’t follow.

🙄. Read my pp. I’ve already said twice, maybe three times? That was poor phrasing and I have taken that back and clarified the points I was trying to make.

that none of us (teachers) want schools to close

But that’s not true because there were a lot of teachers - and through the union- calling for school closures.

You can “contextualise it” all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that they were calling for school closures over the winter and seeking to delay reopening 🤷🏼‍♀️

No one ever wanted school closures.

If the government had managed the situation in schools better they might not have become necessary.

If you don't think that they were necessary in January then there's no helping you.

@noblegiraffe

Right so trying to pin school closures on teaching unions is a special kind of teacher bashing.

Teachers unions were calling for schools to close. Sorry but they were. That’s not “teacher bashing” it’s a description of what they were doing.

We can debate why they were calling for that and whether it was right or wrong, or necessary or unecessary etc.

Bizawit

it doesn’t change the fact that they were calling for school closures over the winter

You can call it a fact, but it doesn't make it true.

and seeking to delay reopening

And a change of tack from you.

@noblegiraffe

No one ever wanted school closures.

If the government had managed the situation in schools better they might not have become necessary.

If you don't think that they were necessary in January then there's no helping you.

There you go. You are trying to say “yes they were calling for schools to close but they didn’t want schools to close”.

For that statement to make any sense you have to start from the assumption that we all agree closing schools was inevitable and necessary.
Well, newsflash - we don’t.

Do I think school closures in January were necessary? No I don’t. I didn’t want schools to close. And i didn’t agree with/ support those advocating for them to close. Closing schools was not an inevitability it was a policy choice. And it’s one that we should be allowed to call out without being accused of “teacher bashing” or “gaslighting”.

@FrippEnos

Bizawit

it doesn’t change the fact that they were calling for school closures over the winter

You can call it a fact, but it doesn't make it true.

and seeking to delay reopening

And a change of tack from you.

Not a change of tack at all. And I literally sent you a news article where a union leader was quoted demanding schools close in January.

Do I think school closures in January were necessary? No I don’t.

No helping you then.

Here’s another

“The National Education Union (NEU) said all primary and secondary schools should remain closed for two weeks following the Christmas break while the NASUWT has written to the Education Secretary calling for an “immediate nationwide move to remote education” for all pupils.

The National Education Union said it will advise its members of their legal right not to have to work in an unsafe environment and said staff should not go back to work on Monday if they feel it is unsafe.”

www.itv.com/news/2021-01-02/covid-government-urged-to-close-all-schools-amid-rising-coronavirus-rates

Does the report say that teachers were at greater risk of catching covid? Or the same level of risk of ending up in hospital as the rest of everyone else. Those are two very different things.

Unions didn’t want schools to close - they actually wanted to have safe environments for teachers and pupils.

The government did nothing to ensure that schools were safer, which is what led to school closures.

And the government are doing it again.

Teachers unions were calling for schools to close

Because the government wouldn’t put in place sensible measures to reduce the risk of covid spreading.

Also, the unions are there to represent their members.

And unions do a fucking good job - it’s funny how messed up our society has become that people welcome shitty pay and conditions (because unions have been demonised) when, if unions were supported, then we would all benefit.

Bizawit

And I literally sent you a news article where a union leader was quoted demanding schools close in January.

Nope you have now posted two links from the same announcement (different sources) that say that the union wants the same policy across the country and not just in London as schools elsewhere had higher covid levels.

It is different to saying that the unions "demanded" that schools close.

@FrippEnos

Bizawit

And I literally sent you a news article where a union leader was quoted demanding schools close in January.

Nope you have now posted two links from the same announcement (different sources) that say that the union wants the same policy across the country and not just in London as schools elsewhere had higher covid levels.

It is different to saying that the unions "demanded" that schools close.

It’s really really not different at all. If you want to call black white I don’t know what to say 🤷🏼‍♀️.

Bizawit

If you don't understand just say so.

but neither of those articles say what you want them to.
And cherry picking statements won't help your cause.

Because the government wouldn’t put in place sensible measures to reduce the risk of covid spreading

Sure. Thanks for at least acknowledging they were calling for schools to close, albeit clarifying their reasons for doing so.

@FrippEnos

Bizawit

If you don't understand just say so.

but neither of those articles say what you want them to.
And cherry picking statements won't help your cause.

Lol.

Here’s another before the decision to close London schools.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/schools-close-tier-4-coronavirus-matt-hancock-b1776741.html%3famp