Do you think that at times what we have referred to as ‘the science’ has got it wrong?

[MarshaBradyo]

I’m thinking about the many times people said well it’s going to go badly wrong and the science backs this up

But a few times this hasn’t happened

July opening
Omicron and not doing ‘circuit breaker’ and not ending in lockdown
Not getting close to best case for omicron

And so on - maybe other examples

What do you think - was it unnecessarily pessimistic?

[quote Emergency73]link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-021-01934-z[/quote]
Data is from this date. You’d need to assess cumulative harms

Context: 2020 data collection
For this analysis, we used data collected in June–July 2020, during the first round of partial school closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

@MarshaBradyo

That paper linked isn't trying to claim lockdowns were overall good for MH of C and YP. The introduction summarises the available literature from pre-publication, explaining in general there was a decline in MH.

within several of the studies that showed an average deterioration in levels of mental health and wellbeing, there have been subgroups of CYP who either improved or did consistently well during the pandemic

What they are interested in is understanding why some proportion of CYB had better mental health during lockdown and why, and who was most at risk of adverse consequences to MH.

This is important in terms of 1) identifying the demographics of children who are going to suffer more during lockdown and 2) understanding what factors of lockdown were protective in terms of actually benefitting mental health - such as improved nutrition and improved sleep. This is actually quite interesting, as it cooroborates previous research that demonstrates teenagers physical & mental health improves with later start times.

To be clear - the paper is not claiming there was an average benfit to mental health of CYP due to lockdown.

It’s all just a separate issue though. I am a strong believer that teenagers need far more sleep than they get and that studies have shown later start times have a positive impact on academic outcome and mental health and well-being.

Doesn’t mean that multiple lockdowns and months off school will not have a long lasting impact on many children and people though. We need to work out whether our response was proportionate to the threat (especially with regards to children). And whether our response was dictated by worst case modelling that would have never have actually happened.

Oh I have a teen I have to get up in the morning, he’s great but if I could change that one thing.,.

And yes different issue harm from lockdowns

Here in the U.K. we’d go from a lockdown where couldn’t even eat a sandwich outdoors on a bench to ‘eat out to help out’! Packing the pubs out. No wonder people were confused and less compliant. Especially when many of the rules made no sense and we’re not science led.

Yes, that was a nonsense. You could only catch the original strains of Covid outside through prolonged, face-to-face exposure to it – the notion that you could catch it from a passing jogger or dog walker, or sitting on a bench watching the world go by was always rubbish.

The incidence of Covid transmission in the open air is roughly on a par with getting struck by lightning – so OK, it's possible but none of us make a decision about going out based on the possibility of being struck by lightning… Not many of us anyway

Again, though, the government felt a more alarmist message would better suit their purposes.

@Delatron

It’s all just a separate issue though. I am a strong believer that teenagers need far more sleep than they get and that studies have shown later start times have a positive impact on academic outcome and mental health and well-being.

Doesn’t mean that multiple lockdowns and months off school will not have a long lasting impact on many children and people though. We need to work out whether our response was proportionate to the threat (especially with regards to children). And whether our response was dictated by worst case modelling that would have never have actually happened.

Nope, and my post (nor the paper) didn't say otherwise.

As I said - they are trying to identify the factors that led to improved MH in subsets of CYP, and the demographic variables that made other groups more vulnerable to lockdown related harms.

@noblegiraffe

People not willing to engage with the harms to children beyond 'Schools closed bad. Schools open good' is particularly frustrating.

Schools open and the situation in them being dire isn't something people want to hear.

The other half of this picture, also frustrating, is the unwillingness to understand that even when the school situation is dire, many of our children are still much better off in them than not. And that parents who prioritise schools staying open are often recognising this.

@Delatron

It’s interesting to hear the perspective from Canada *@MangyInseam* and that sounds really tough. I do agree that we were a bit more liberal/moderate over here and it could have been far worse. And it was in many other European countries such as Spain with their full, don’t leave the house lockdown.

I completely agree with you that Sweden was very clear from the offset on their overall strategy. I’m sure they tweaked it as the situation changed but they prioritised civil liberties and choice and were adamant they would not lockdown, even in the face of much criticism.

Here in the U.K. we’d go from a lockdown where couldn’t even eat a sandwich outdoors on a bench to ‘eat out to help out’! Packing the pubs out. No wonder people were confused and less compliant. Especially when many of the rules made no sense and we’re not science led.

People could see too that they were trying to prioritize business. Which was fine as far as it went, no one wants them to fail, but when you can go to the pub but not have your extended family for a dinner, it made people angry. Because the clear message is, your family ties are less important than business.

And people just don't believe that. They think that businesses are important, but not more important than family ties, which are also degraded by these restrictions.

The other half of this picture, also frustrating, is the unwillingness to understand that even when the school situation is dire, many of our children are still much better off in them than not. And that parents who prioritise schools staying open are often recognising this.

Maybe something that makes this harder to see is that it's not necessarily about school qua school.

For lots of kids, school is their main time out in the community. Their home life might be fine, but even kids need a life that goes beyond the immediate family.

I home educated for years, and my kids were not stuck at home all day. They had activities outside the home, friends, people they met at lessons, parents of friends, people they knew in our neighbourhood or the places we went regularly. They saw other places and talked to lots of different people. They played out and did outdoor stuff.

When the main place some kids do that is school, being relegated to the home is not great. If the parents are trying to work from home at the same time, even more so. You don't need an abusive home environment or even an inadequate one for that to be a poor situation.

Even a lot of home educating families found their kids suffered during lockdowns because all of their normal social outlets were gone. They were able to carry on school more normally but they still missed out on a lot.

And that parents who prioritise schools staying open are often recognising this.

The practical considerations of whether schools could actually stay open also need discussion. I've discussed on this thread the situation in schools in March 2020. How could those concerns have been addressed? Should exams have gone ahead while parents were pulling their vulnerable children out of school, for example? "My child is better off in school" was not an overwhelming parental position back then. When schools were closed except to essential worker children, children with EHCPs and vulnerable children, many parents who could have sent their children in didn't, because of the risk of covid. There was, for example, the perception that children of NHS workers were risky to be around and other parents didn't want their children mixing with them. The March 2020 school closures were very different to the Jan 2021 closures where many more parents were claiming essential worker slots.

"Schools should never have closed" should not be a conversation stopper. "In what form?" is a valid question given the pandemic.

Schools have been open for nearly a year now. However I'm very sure that we could have done a better job of having them open than we have done. Schools full of covid, in particular, have suffered a huge amount of disruption, including ad-hoc closures which are very difficult to manage and negatively affect children's mental health. Children being supervised in halls instead of being in classes, constant churn of supply teachers. None of these things have been good for children or their education.

Schools have been open, but shittily. We could have done much better there.

That's an interesting HE perspective and I can well believe lockdown had a huge impact on HE children too. I'd agree it isn't just about school in educational terms, it's routine, socialisation, protection and so much more.

Based on our research, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that a "Johns Hopkins study" found lockdowns were not effective in preventing COVID-19 deaths, because without additional context it may be misleading.

The report referenced in the posts is a working paper that was not peer-reviewed, and it was authored by three economists – one of whom is a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins has not endorsed the paper.

Public health and medical experts say the paper is flawed, in part due to its overly broad definition of "lockdown." Experts have also criticized the working paper's emphasis on the immediate effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 deaths instead of disease transmission. Other peer-reviewed studies have found lockdowns prevent deaths.

@noblegiraffe

And that parents who prioritise schools staying open are often recognising this.

The practical considerations of whether schools could actually stay open also need discussion. I've discussed on this thread the situation in schools in March 2020. How could those concerns have been addressed? Should exams have gone ahead while parents were pulling their vulnerable children out of school, for example? "My child is better off in school" was not an overwhelming parental position back then. When schools were closed except to essential worker children, children with EHCPs and vulnerable children, many parents who could have sent their children in didn't, because of the risk of covid. There was, for example, the perception that children of NHS workers were risky to be around and other parents didn't want their children mixing with them. The March 2020 school closures were very different to the Jan 2021 closures where many more parents were claiming essential worker slots.

"Schools should never have closed" should not be a conversation stopper. "In what form?" is a valid question given the pandemic.

Schools have been open for nearly a year now. However I'm very sure that we could have done a better job of having them open than we have done. Schools full of covid, in particular, have suffered a huge amount of disruption, including ad-hoc closures which are very difficult to manage and negatively affect children's mental health. Children being supervised in halls instead of being in classes, constant churn of supply teachers. None of these things have been good for children or their education.

Schools have been open, but shittily. We could have done much better there.

A good chunk of this is irrelevant. I didn't mention March 2020 and used the present tense. There's a reason for that. I'm talking about the situation wrt the current wave.

For the parts that do relate to that, yes we certainly could be doing better and I think we all agree on that. However, as I said, there also needs to be understanding that even with all these issues, many of our children are better off with flawed school than none and that many parents prioritising schools opening do so on the basis of this understanding. That is the other part of this discussion.

A good chunk of this is irrelevant

It’s talking about a school situation when dire. So no.

@borntobequiet

A good chunk of this is irrelevant

It’s talking about a school situation when dire. So no.

It's talking about a school situation two years ago that nobody mentioned and when both parties in the discussion were using the present tense. So yes.

Indeed, noble actually outlined why it isn't relevant herself, in a roundabout way. She correctly pointed out that there wasn't much keep schools open, my child is better off in school sentiment to speak of in March 2020. That's very true, she isn't wrong at all there.

It's talking about a school situation two years ago that nobody mentioned

Really? So when people on this thread are talking approvingly about how Sweden never closed schools and how schools should never have closed, it's not relevant to go back to the beginning and examine the situation in which that decision was made?

I've seen a lot of 'schools should never have closed^ on MN, but what I'm not seeing is any explanation of how the situation in schools in March would have been improved by keeping them open.

If you're saying that parents are prioritising education and saying that the best place for their child is in school, then it is entirely relevant, on a thread about incorrect decisions in the past, to see if that was the position at the time that the decision to close schools was made. Were schools closed in the face of overwhelming resistance from parents who believed that the best place for their child was in school, no matter how crappy the conditions or prevalent the covid? No.

'We should never have closed schools' is something I've thought quite hard about, and my conclusion is that at the time, in March 2020, given the public mood, given what was happening in schools, given the lack of knowledge about who was vulnerable to covid, coupled with the knowledge now of how easily covid spreads in schools, I cannot say that was the wrong call, particularly given the decision to keep them open for some children.

Were mistakes made in the implementation? Yes. When should schools have re-opened? I'm not sure they could have opened sooner but the targeted year group approach was wrong, and the lack of consideration to given secondary schools was wrong.

I agree the mood in March 2020 was to close the schools. They should never have remained closed for so long. They should have reopened after Easter at the latest. Some children did not go to school (and had no online provision) from March 2020 to September 2020. And many other establishments were open. (Pubs, restaurants etc)

Everyone has different views but I think everything else should have closed before schools and they should have been the first thing to open. Especially as finally studies are coming out to show children spread the virus far less than adults. Which I suspected all along. I don’t think it would have been the absolute carnage predicted but we obviously can’t prove that. I think the government should have suggested outdoor schooling/ sourcing marquees. Just making use of the Spring/Summer weather which if you remember was glorious in 2020.

Now at least 80% of children have had Covid. If we’d have known that would have been the case in March 2020 would we have only shut them for a short while? It’s inevitable now that most children will catch Covid over and over again and build broad immunity over their lifetime to a disease that was never a series threat to them anyway.

Would opening up after Easter 2020 have given children a bit of immunity going in to September and the Winter? Would we have avoided the huge peaks and troughs that follow lockdowns?

Serious threat.

They should have reopened after Easter at the latest.

I don't think the public mood was any more inclined to open them after Easter than it was to keep them open in March. The arguments on here were not 'children need to be back in school' but 'children should be getting live lessons'.

When schools re-opened in June, they mainly re-opened to targeted year groups in primary. This was to enable those parents back to work. Did it work in that respect? I don't know the figures. The reason numbers were restricted was to enable half classes and social distancing. We know from data released in the summer that this meant covid levels in schools were kept low. Would it have been possible to reopen schools fully in June 2020 with no social distancing? Would parents have sent their children in? Would they have then been expected back to work? What impact would that have had?
The arguments about outdoor schooling - sounds good until you consider the practicalities of actually teaching in a marquee. Logistically, technologically, the sheer number of marquees that would be required and the available space. Solutions have to be practical.

Especially as finally studies are coming out to show children spread the virus far less than adults

Given how covid has spread through schools and from schools to parents and family, I'm not sure that's either accurate, or much comfort, tbh. SAGE data from Christmas 2020 was clear that kids were way more likely to be the first in the household with covid, and more likely to transmit it to adult family members than vice-versa.

Now at least 80% of children have had Covid. If we’d have known that would have been the case in March 2020 would we have only shut them for a short while?

A lot of those children caught covid after the vaccine programme started, which makes a huge difference. Timing (when people have caught covid during this pandemic) not just how many people have caught it, has been really important.

@noblegiraffe

It's talking about a school situation two years ago that nobody mentioned

Really? So when people on this thread are talking approvingly about how Sweden never closed schools and how schools should never have closed, it's not relevant to go back to the beginning and examine the situation in which that decision was made?

I've seen a lot of 'schools should never have closed^ on MN, but what I'm not seeing is any explanation of how the situation in schools in March would have been improved by keeping them open.

If you're saying that parents are prioritising education and saying that the best place for their child is in school, then it is entirely relevant, on a thread about incorrect decisions in the past, to see if that was the position at the time that the decision to close schools was made. Were schools closed in the face of overwhelming resistance from parents who believed that the best place for their child was in school, no matter how crappy the conditions or prevalent the covid? No.

'We should never have closed schools' is something I've thought quite hard about, and my conclusion is that at the time, in March 2020, given the public mood, given what was happening in schools, given the lack of knowledge about who was vulnerable to covid, coupled with the knowledge now of how easily covid spreads in schools, I cannot say that was the wrong call, particularly given the decision to keep them open for some children.

Were mistakes made in the implementation? Yes. When should schools have re-opened? I'm not sure they could have opened sooner but the targeted year group approach was wrong, and the lack of consideration to given secondary schools was wrong.

I haven't mentioned and don't know too much about Sweden, so your question would be best addressed to posters that have.

You expressed frustration at parents who you feel are only concerned about schools staying open but not how bad things are. That is, a situation requiring both of parents who want schools open (present tense) and problems within schools. As you admit yourself, those factors were not both present in March 2020.

If you want also to discuss March 2020 on this thread, clearly you can do so with anyone who's up for it. But you demonstrably did not mean that until it was time to deflect from the reality that even when school is dire, it's still better for many children than nothing at all, and that there are parents who understand this.

It's abundantly obvious that the issue of whether to close schools in March 2020 is something you've thought a lot about. That doesn't mean every single point anyone ever makes about schooling after then defaults to it. Particularly in a thread that talks about 'the science' throughout the pandemic, ie discusses lots of decisions and situations not just those in March 2020.

They should never have remained closed for so long. They should have reopened after Easter at the latest. Some children did not go to school (and had no online provision) from March 2020 to September 2020. And many other establishments were open.

I agree. Plus many were hit again for another term in 2021. It was a mistake to not look out for all children more in terms of education in school.

@noblegiraffe

They should have reopened after Easter at the latest.

I don't think the public mood was any more inclined to open them after Easter than it was to keep them open in March. The arguments on here were not 'children need to be back in school' but 'children should be getting live lessons'.

When schools re-opened in June, they mainly re-opened to targeted year groups in primary. This was to enable those parents back to work. Did it work in that respect? I don't know the figures. The reason numbers were restricted was to enable half classes and social distancing. We know from data released in the summer that this meant covid levels in schools were kept low. Would it have been possible to reopen schools fully in June 2020 with no social distancing? Would parents have sent their children in? Would they have then been expected back to work? What impact would that have had?
The arguments about outdoor schooling - sounds good until you consider the practicalities of actually teaching in a marquee. Logistically, technologically, the sheer number of marquees that would be required and the available space. Solutions have to be practical.

Especially as finally studies are coming out to show children spread the virus far less than adults

Given how covid has spread through schools and from schools to parents and family, I'm not sure that's either accurate, or much comfort, tbh. SAGE data from Christmas 2020 was clear that kids were way more likely to be the first in the household with covid, and more likely to transmit it to adult family members than vice-versa.

Now at least 80% of children have had Covid. If we’d have known that would have been the case in March 2020 would we have only shut them for a short while?

A lot of those children caught covid after the vaccine programme started, which makes a huge difference. Timing (when people have caught covid during this pandemic) not just how many people have caught it, has been really important.

I know we are all speaking in hindsight but I think most people accept the closure of schools for the initial wave but its the inconsistency over the course of that first summer term that perhaps parents feel resentful about. My kids schools both remained closed for the WHOLE of the summer term without any online learning offered whereas the next closest primary opened to ALL of its pupils once the gov said this was ok .Our primary then sent emails to kids themselves saying it "wasn't safe" to have them back in school. At that point self-catering accommodation had reopened so we decided to go on our first ever term time holiday....so it was safe to go on holiday but not to school apparently. Not long after that the government launched their eat out to help out scheme whilst trumpeting about all the catch up/holiday schemes that were going to be provided to help kids....did that ever happen?. Why weren't parents at least canvassed to see if they would want to see their kids back in school in the summer? You said about parents being" expected back at work"...many parents HAD to work at the same time as home schooling between March to September. Hell yes I think some schools squandered the chance for outdoor learning of some description in some form even very part-time. The second lockdown closure is rather more tricky and you are right in that the writing was on the wall throughout that whole autumn term and far more should have been put in place around measures to improve ventilation in schools, plus attempting to manage the case numbers in the population by perhaps the shutdown of all business venues by late autumn. Every winter in the NHS is a bit of a sh!!t show so the ramifications of trying to keep indoor businesess earning in the run up to Christmas was ultimately pointless and this is where I feel they could have prioritised education over business ,(which could have been given better financial support instead). The gov could also have shown willing in prioritising school staff for vaccination. Again schools provided very different levels of support- yet again we had a head quibbling and complaining about essential worker children being sent to school when we have a high proportion of NHS and social care workers in this area as right next to a major city hospital, we were very much dissuaded from contacting the school so parents who were really struggling with online learning and their kids mental health felt unable to approach the school for help. I do get the very valid points that you are trying to put across and there would have been another, different set of consequences had schools remained open but it just comes across that you are trying to defend a course of action that ultimately failed a lot of children and families .Perhaps its better just to acknowledge that some schools on balance did a great job for the majority of their children and some schools did not? This is where I do think its good that Sweden acknowledged that they wanted to institute rules that the population could adhere to for a long period of time, I'm not saying that Sweden got it right as I don't think theres one "right" way that any govt could have handled such an unprecedented event. Whereas we ended up having debates about scotch eggs in parliament!

I know we are all speaking in hindsight but I think most people accept the closure of schools for the initial wave

I don't know, I've seen a lot of 'schools should never have closed ' and 'Sweden didn't close schools and it was fine' and nodding about the (indisputable) harms caused by closing schools, but pretty much no discussion beyond that.

This needs discussion because we've got people clamouring, including in parliament, for legislation to be passed to ensure schools never close again. This raises the question "Is there no threshold, no pandemic, no threat level high enough?" It takes as read that we should have done things differently in March 2020 without actually clarifying how or why that would have been better.

At that point self-catering accommodation had reopened so we decided to go on our first ever term time holiday....so it was safe to go on holiday but not to school apparently.

That does seem counter-intuitive until you consider that you would be moving your household to a different location but subject to the same restrictions as in your house, whereas opening schools involves mass, non-socially distanced indoor gatherings.

many parents HAD to work at the same time as home schooling between March to September

Yep, I had to work and homeschool at the same time and it was awful. However the economic argument for re-opening schools was to allow parents of those primary school children to 'go back to work' presumably outside of the home. I have no idea whether that actually happened.

but it just comes across that you are trying to defend a course of action that ultimately failed a lot of children and families

Which course of action? I have said that there were definitely mistakes in the implementation which is where your issue seems to be?

Perhaps its better just to acknowledge that some schools on balance did a great job for the majority of their children and some schools did not?

I actually started a thread about that in June 2020. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3941702-Annoyed-your-kid-isn-t-having-zoom-lessons-or-school-contact-or-not-going-back-to-school-yet I did try to point out that the massive inconsistencies in provision between schools was something that parents were rightly furious about, but that it wasn't new, and that this was the situation before schools closed (and is still now the situation they they are open). That thread got barely any posts. People don't want to know.

It might not be so straightforward though. It's worth asking why the attitude to school closure was so different in different countries.

Everyone had pretty much the same information. And I don't think it's down to people felling the environment was different.

I think a lot had to do with the way government and the media tried (or did not try) to scare people.

I'll bet Sweden did not have posters telling people that if they went outside they might kill someone.

The UK was not an outlier in closing schools. By the end of March, the vast majority of countries around the world had closed schools, so I'm not sure what you mean by differing attitudes.