If you don't think schools should reopen now, why do you think things will be better in September?

[IntolerableCruelty]

I'm school leadership and as you can imagine, my colleagues and I have been talking round in circles over this for the last few days.

We're completely conflicted, we want to be able to educate and safeguard students properly again but we also want to care for staff properly. We know we have a number of very anxious and/or vulnerable staff who will find it very difficult return regardless of what the "requirements" are.

So far, we have only managed to get to a point where we can "re-open" for very small numbers of children, not really offering much different to we're doing currently. ("Re-open" because we never actually closed)

However, we also can't see that we'll be able to do anything differently if it's all postponed until September.

Or maybe people who are resisting it think we should never go back? Obviously not, but we have intelligent (honest!) people working on this and haven't yet managed to find a way.

I’m presuming that these consultants are working from home because they have completed a proper risk assessment and have been considered high risk

You presume correctly. Doctors who are exceptionally high clinical risk are working from home - my most recent haematology/oncology outpatients was by phone on that basis

Indeed, and as it should be. However, there seems to be a common misconception that everybody in the NHS stayed at work regardless of the personal risk.

I think the risks will be different in September but not entirely removed.

This is not going away
There is no magic treatment
There may or may never be

Most people are low risk including most children

I understand everyone is worried/scared but I think we need to try and move forward.

Our head teacher has said he will not have anyone back until he can guarantee staff and kids safety INCLUDING on transport to and from school

In that case the schools will never open

We need to be brave and take calculated risks but we cannot remove them all.

I'm a TA, and I think September start is better because, aside from more time to develop the science, and install proper facilities in schools (plastic screen for entrance desk, new sinks and toilets etc), it would also be a fresh start for the children. Instead of going to their old Classroom/Teacher and being upset at the change, they'd be moving up, so it would all be new anyway. You could maybe have a couple of 'taster' sessions at end of July to get them used to the new ways, and then back in September (which would be a more natural transition).

By 'science' I meant in terms of what others have said about developing new ways to tackle the virus.

I think that we need to get kids back part time, staggering starts, maybe a day a week to start with. Some schools closed to some years before lockdown so kids will have been off a long long time by September.
My daughter gets on a packed bus. I'd like to see the buses at least half empty to allow some distancing, I think secondary kids may struggle to wear masks properly.
Once we have effective testing and tracing we can make informed decisions and we can open schools fully when local infection is very low.
I think all schools need to work towards decent online provision both for children shielding and for any times when local infection rates rise to a point where school closure is sensible.

I think that the cases of Kawasaki disease, although rare, do mean we need to be quite cautious.

We need to be brave and take calculated risks but we cannot remove them all.

Absolutely. A bit of science and statistics to ponder in terms of actual risk:

Age analysis of Covid-19 deaths by age:

8.7% are people under 60
0.8% are people under 45
0.05% are people under 19

Over 90% of deaths are in people over 60. Over 99% are in people over 40.

What would be a reasonable estimate for the proportion of teachers who are under 60? I'm guessing it's most at the chalkface.

And if needs be, a very large chunk of teachers are likely to be under 40 so at a very, very small risk.

Statistically the middle aged population are at a very, very low risk of dying of COVID-19. Children even smaller risk.

A school could run just by age analysis of staff, there was some proper risk assessments done instead of scaremongering.

Source:
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/05/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-13-May-2020.xlsx

Surely after 2 months in which a phased return became increasingly obvious, schools had already pretty much planned on that basis, so had time to work out what to do?

And I can see the logic for bringing in those who can't yet read well quickly, because they need the face to face teaching the most and the left behind will be taking behind much faster than in later years when most children can access some of the curriculum independently

My worry is that the numbers for children are low, but if that is because schools have been shut to most, will they increase when they start going back? It may be a small risk but it's unnecessary. I'd wait until our daily numbers as a country are much lower.

If they don't go back until September then they will be returning at the time of year when asthma exacerbations start to peak and winter illnesses start up. If they go back in June and they do get unwell at least it won't overwhelm the NHS in summer as it's usually quieter in paeds in summer.
We have limited beds in paeds, we had a short period of zero available beds in the UK in December and was without coronavirus.

So no one is worried about Kawasaki syndrome?

Doctors in Italy have proven the link.

It's not Kawasaki, it's similar in presentation. It's very rare and seems to be affecting the tweens. We've had 3 on our ward in the past 2 weeks, aged 10, 12 and 12. All 3 are fine. 1 has been discharged already. All tested negative for covid which is the frustrating part.

So do we have any data on how many false negative tests there are? I keep hearing about how people test negative then positive, or is it people just not doing them properly?

@fairgame84

That’s anecdata. The doctors in Italy seem to think it is a concern. And a boy died at the Evalina yesterday.

I come at this from a slightly simplistic angle.

Once children are back in school, every household in each class / group is linked to every other household by a virus transport route.

Thus, what is needed is as small a probability is possible that any of those households contains a current COVID carrier.

While 1 in 400 people currently have COVID , there are 4000 new cases daily and hundreds of deaths, it is really very likely that there will be at least one, probably multiple, carriers in that network of families, and thus spread of the infection via schools is likely.

If you get down to Danish numbers of cases per day - or New Zealand's - then the risk of there being a carrier in that network is very small indeed, and with test track and confine in place (as is possible for small numbers), can be relatively rapidly controlled.

The only way, looking at current graphs, for that to happen is to allow for more time with an R below 1. As long as the R is below 1, numbers of cases will decline, and the risk of a carrier being in a school's network reduces. Low risk areas, such as well controlled environments in industry or offices where many are wfh and others are socially distanced properly, can be opened and hopefully won't drive r up too far. High risk areas - NHS, care homes - can be the government's absolute focus to stamp out the epidemics there.

With almost 4 more months of such a decline, schools - risky in terms of virus spread in the community, though not necessarily to their children - become safe to open FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. the risk to children isn't the main issue - it is community spread via schools that is the main concern.

It might be anecdata but I'm just giving you an idea of what is happening in the paeds wards in the UK. Paediatricians were very concerned and all of the kids with this syndrome were going to icu as a precaution. This week that is no longer the case and they are being managed on normal children's wards unless they need hdu or above so concern is not as severe as it was.

How is part-time going to work?

Will you be planning for full-time for those parents who don't have the option of picking up earlier?

DD is at school in central London, but my job is over an hour away by tube. If tubes are running at low capacity, by the time I've dropped DD and got to work, the chances are slim that I can guarantee to get there for pick-up. In which case I may as well just not bother sending her in in the first place.

intolerable cruelty How about social distancing of the staff and not the kids?

Staff wear masks, not kids maybe?

Adults more risky than kids and get children back over a few weeks before Sept so that we avoid all going back as cooler weather appears and risks of other infections happen including flu season.

Stressful and scary but maybe a way of us all being brave and taking calculated risks perhaps.

Obviously those that have health concerns etc could shield etc.

No easy answers

@Mrswalliams1

Drs and nurses have PPE. School staff are unable to wear PPE and advised against it.

A new level of guidance for the first phase (ie R, 1 and 6) has been issued this evening

Here

It is clear that there should be no part time, and no rota, and that instead schools should only open to certain year groups if they cannot accommodate or staff all of them full time and working on an assumption of full attendance - basically youngest upwards.

Honestly, who'd be a head? An announcement one day, outline guidance (from which they have desperately trying to plan) on another, then an actually practical level of guidance, which probably contradicts some of the plans they had already made, 4 days after the announcement...

However, the guidance is also very clear that it only covers the first phase (since it can't be implemented once further year groups return) so yet another set of guidance will be issued if and when things move on ... though tbh even this government document makes that sound less than likely:

"The government’s ambition is for all primary school children to return to school before the summer for a month if feasible. This position will be kept under review, and further advice will be provided as and when needed."

I think initially we should only use teachers in the classroom who are under 45 years of age. Teachers older then that could carry on doing online teaching to other years. Hopefully when people are able to have the antibody tests then other teachers may be able to return to the classroom.

@hellsbells I am over 45 years and would like to get back to face-to-face teaching. Partly because I think I had the virus in Feb but mainly because I hate remote teaching and I think this situation is damaging our children’s education and (more importantly) their mental health

dogwithmohican I am glad to see your positive post. I was just thinking of how any risks could be reduced. In your case, I am sure you would welcome an antibody test (or whatever they are called) as if you test positive, it would hopefully make you lower risk of catching it again.

This is a much simpler cost-benefit analysis than many people are making it out to be.

On the one hand, we have a minuscule risk of a child becoming ill from covid-19 or infecting their parents. (Not many parents of primary-aged children are much over 45.) There's also a potentially higher risk of them infecting vulnerable people, eg grandparents, but this risk is going to be somewhat present if they leave the house at all and is only sensibly managed by having the vulnerable people avoid contact. For some families there are of course more complex decisions of a member of the immediate household is vulnerable. But this is FAR from being the general case.

On the other hand, there's the risk of missed education. How does one quantify that? Among other things, missed schooling in the early years leads to lower long-term educational success and income, and that itself leads to worse long-term health outcomes. So the danger to your child might not be the mild cold-like illness they have in June, but the five years of lost life expectancy or worse health later in life. More generally, there is satisfaction and pleasure for most children in attending school and mastering skills, as well as in seeing their peer group.

In other words, any discussion of this issue which is 99% about covid, the R0 number, no soft toys in the classroom etc, is very unbalanced. You have to be willing to RISK long-term educationally bad outcomes to avoid the virus in the short term. That might be a risk worth taking, but it's wrong to portray it as the safe option or the one that's best for your child. As time continues, this risk will mount. Two months off school probably isn't a big deal. Six months is very different. Eighteen months, for many children whose parents aren't able to homeschool properly, is practically a guarantee of struggling in the future.