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.

I went to Tesco today. I had to queue for the traffic light system. Most people wore a mask. I can't just see my doctor, if I do I'm met at the entrance by a receptionist in a mask and plastic apron talking my temperature before I can enter. This is our everyday life at the moment. In school this week I had no mask, no sd, sat in assembly for 30 minutes with 350 humans. Quite a few coughing, sneezing.

Schools limited students the world over (I won't say closed) because as a TA I was covering a double keyworker bubble with another TA in freezing and saturated Covid conditions It was horrendous and much harder work than my normal job. I would go as far as to say there is a high chance i would quit if "schools closed" again. We want some safety procedures like the rest of the world. NOT LOCKDOWN.

Let’s park the unions argument here. Can someone explain why it’s okay for children and staff to attend school if there’s someone in their household with Covid? This relaxation seems a step too far.

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.

They still don’t support your conclusion.

@Bizawit - what's your problem with teachers?

Desperately searching for sticks to beat people with isn't normal behaviour.

Maybe step back and look at the impression you are giving. It is not rational. You are not coming over well at all.

@Bizawit

That isn't what you said. You said that schools were closed BECAUSE of the advocacy / lobbying of teaching unions

Ok you are right, that was badly worded. What I should have said was : closing schools is a political decision. The government closed schools due to political pressure. Part of that pressure came from the unions.

There are people on this thread saying “no one wants schools to close”, and , therefore, it is “gaslighting” to point out that closing schools is a bad policy choice.

That is so unbelievably wrong. If nobody wanted schools to close, they wouldn’t have closed. It doesn’t matter how high infections are or how high the death toll is,, covid doesn’t have the power to close schools. If there was no political will to shut schools, they would have remained open.

Government closed schools because the document they kept hidden alongside the schools case far a was leaked.

They could no longer keep saying "schools are safe" and deny children catch and spread covid when somebody leaked the document that stated children under 12 were twice as likely to be index case in a household and children 12-17 7 times as likely.

When you have spiralling case and death rates, and overwhelmed health system you simply cannot justify producing a situation where they house hold cases could increase 2-7 times due to kids spreading it in schools and bringing it home.

Unions only ever asked for mitigation's and safety as they have a duty of care to do this for their members.

The same way any union has a duty of care to ensure health and safety standards are upheld for their members.

OP keep that link handy.

On the day the government announce they're closing schools because they're no longer safe for teachers, you can play your trump card.

Schools don't close, they limit the amount of students!!!!

How is this guy in charge of education? How is it ok to have nothing in place of minimise the virus spread?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/sep/04/dear-gavin-williamson-now-we-know-what-your-plans-are-for-covid-safe-classrooms-er-um?CMP=ShareAndroidAppOther

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.
As someone who has to deal directly with social workers through school role, I very much know the experience of social work these past 18 months towards young people and school children and their families.

Social workers never stopped home visits and going out and about.
Yes they did atop going out. Every social worker attached to all of our relevant pupils in a large school of 1800+ all stopped going out and about. Refused to physically see pupils, their families and attend meetings (but was perfectly fine for the teachers, SENDCO and TAs to do so and unvaccinated for longer). They were very hard to contact over phone or Teams/Zoom and caused many issues that were left for schools to pick up. There is very little funding and they were only following directives, I get that but let’s not pretend that the majority (and I did say in my original post ‘mostly still are’ which shows I acknowledged not all) were working from home.
www.wiltshire.gov.uk/article/3810/Social-workers-share-their-own-unique-experiences-on-World-Social-Work-Day
My cousin is also a social worker (I have talked about them before on MN, so not just bringing it up on this thread) is in a different county and also agrees that they and the team worked from home and only started doing some home visits back in March/April after they were vaccinated.
I also know people working in Adoption and Fostering social care (I am adopted myself) and they all worked and are working from home too.
and Social care never closed.
They may have not closed services (like schools) but doesn’t mean not working from home.
Care homes allowed social workers inside - even during the strictest lockdowns - if there was a professional need.
I can only comment on social services towards young people, as the original point was that social workers have also been working with pupils but if they were fine going in to care homes, it makes it even more frustrating that they were refusing to support young people face to face when they badly needed as much support as they could get.

[quote DancesWithTortoises]@Bizawit - what's your problem with teachers?

Desperately searching for sticks to beat people with isn't normal behaviour.

Maybe step back and look at the impression you are giving. It is not rational. You are not coming over well at all.[/quote]
Absolutely bizarre take on my posts 🤷🏼‍♀️

@somuchcoffeeneeded

Let’s park the unions argument here. Can someone explain why it’s okay for children and staff to attend school if there’s someone in their household with Covid? This relaxation seems a step too far.

That is government policy, I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that it is ok.

As I have said I visit vulnerable people, yet it is deemed ok for me to still visit them.

Unions only ever asked for mitigation's and safety as they have a duty of care to do this for their members

They asked for mitigations and safety and closure of schools until these could be guaranteed.

I understand that unions are there to protect the safety of their members. Part of the problem was an exaggerated belief that teachers were in danger. As the subject of this thread has highlighted, there was never any real evidence that teachers were any more at risk than anyone else.

@somuchcoffeeneeded

Let’s park the unions argument here. Can someone explain why it’s okay for children and staff to attend school if there’s someone in their household with Covid? This relaxation seems a step too far.

Because we need to get back to normal and that vaccines have enabled this to happen.... and we need to accept that we're all likely to be exposed to Covid in the months and years ahead unless we live with tight restrictions forever.

Requiring household isolation just means it will take longer to get to a point of 'endemic equilibrium'.' It simply delays how long it will be for everyone to become exposed.... so it's extra disruption, with the outcome of extending the time it takes for
the pupils to be exposed to it, and dragging out Covid disruption further into the school year than is needed. It's a lose-lose position.

So did the unions say schools should shut or not?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4052530-NEU-calls-for-two-week-closure-for-secondaries-and-colleges-following-leap-in-infections

@Bizawit

Unions only ever asked for mitigation's and safety as they have a duty of care to do this for their members

They asked for mitigations and safety and closure of schools until these could be guaranteed.

I understand that unions are there to protect the safety of their members. Part of the problem was an exaggerated belief that teachers were in danger. As the subject of this thread has highlighted, there was never any real evidence that teachers were any more at risk than anyone else.

But they were at risk.

They were at risk like the nurses were. The nurses who union suggested they refuse to go in unless they are provided with the correct PPE.

Like transport were. Transport who's unions called for masks and PPE for their workers.

Let's not pretend it was just teaching unions. Every union did its duty of care to get health and safety at its maximum.

Some workplaces were closed and staff furloughed on government direction.

Those that stayed open had mitigation's in place.

The issue with schools were the government were saying they weren't necessary. Denying covid spread in schools (but closed everywhere else with mass gatherings due to a public health risk).

It was never about teachers being at greater risk. That was just government propaganda to try and hide their incompetence. It was about them being at equal risk but being offered lower protection.

[quote AfternoonToffee]So did the unions say schools should shut or not?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4052530-NEU-calls-for-two-week-closure-for-secondaries-and-colleges-following-leap-in-infections[/quote]
That was a 2 week half term instead on just 1.

Not a complete course for months on end. Just a firebreak.

Shame it didn't happen when we saw the result of them not using this opportunity.

@Bizawit

Unions only ever asked for mitigation's and safety as they have a duty of care to do this for their members

They asked for mitigations and safety and closure of schools until these could be guaranteed.

I understand that unions are there to protect the safety of their members. Part of the problem was an exaggerated belief that teachers were in danger. As the subject of this thread has highlighted, there was never any real evidence that teachers were any more at risk than anyone else.

That's easy for you to say. The reality in schools watching it spread around your class and to relatives despite attempts to open windows and sanitise tables has and continues to have a massive impact on everyone in schools. I don't honestly care if my risk is greater than others. It spreads in schools so we are all at risk.

They were at risk like the nurses were

But the evidence doesn’t support this claim?

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

Never happened.

Teachers, if you mean MN posters are not the same as union members.

What is it with posters trying to tell school staff what their reality is and that they aren't at risk? Does it matter that nurses are more at risk? Keeping schools open depends on schools being as safe as possible.

It doesn't matter of it was one week, one month, or one year the fact remains the unions did call for schools to shut, I'm not sure why posters are arguing so fervently that they didn't.

I'm really not that bothered if they did or they didn't but the absolute denial that they ever did is strange.

Lockdown 2 pretty much a waste of time, but it did show that closing everything but schools wasn't effective enough at quickly reducing transmission.

If Bizawit doesn't agree that schools needed to close in January then I can only assume that they were happy with the alternative of even more deaths.

Social workers never stopped home visits and going out and about

Most definitely stopped in person visits in my area, and wouldn’t set foot in our school.

@AfternoonToffee

It doesn't matter of it was one week, one month, or one year the fact remains the unions did call for schools to shut, I'm not sure why posters are arguing so fervently that they didn't.

I'm really not that bothered if they did or they didn't but the absolute denial that they ever did is strange.

Thank you.

@Bizawit

They were at risk like the nurses were

But the evidence doesn’t support this claim?

If you look at a previous post of mine, the ONS numbers at the time of Christmas, of nurses vs all education staff (not just split up into categories) was comparable. Note that itsgettingweird did not say more at risk. Nurses were definitely more at risk with 717 vs 848 covid related death rates recorded (I linked to the table previously)