Scottish schools opening

[chocciechocface]

I was ready for schools opening, but this new research has given me pause for thought. I think this came out after Sturgeon's decision. What do you all think?

www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/31/georgia-children-covid-outbreak/#click=t.co/Y9gSG9zENz

Quote from the article:

"A new report suggests that children of all ages are susceptible to coronavirus infection and may also spread it to others — a finding likely to intensify an already fraught discussion about the risks of sending children back to school this fall.

The analysis, released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, details an outbreak at a sleep-away camp in Georgia last month in which 260 children and staffers — more than three-quarters of the 344 tested — contracted the virus less than a week after spending time together in close quarters. The children had a median age of 12. The camp had required all 597 campers and staff members to provide documentation that they had tested negative for the virus before coming. Staff were required to wear masks, but children were not."

the fear of the virus does seem disproportionate to the actual threat in most cases.

How do you know that the fear is disproportionate in most cases?

Employers only have so much patience.

This seems to be the alternative 'fear'. But the way this is phrased suggests employers can 'carry on as normal' and if employees don't somehow adjust they'll get kicked to the dirt. The truth is employers cannot carry on as normal. They are as vulnerable to the impact of a pandemic as much as the rest of us.

I find phrases like "fear" and "risk averse" very unhelpful. And silencing. In the same way describing No voters in indyref as 'feart' was, or anti-Brexit people as "Project Fear".

It's a way of shutting down reasonable logical concerns by trying to make people feel embarrassed for having them in the first instance. And those who ignore those concerns feel they have some kind of moral advantage because they are 'fearless' and 'brave' for the greater good.

In the meanwhile, the virus keeps doing what it does.

@BottomOfMyPencilCase

I think the difference isn't between risk averse or not but as *@chocciechocface* said earlier, the difference between people who have had to risk assess professionally and people who haven't. The purpose of risk assessing is to look at the worst possible scenarios and take steps to mitigate against them. It seems local and national government risk assessments are not as extensive or robust as corporate or third sector ones.

There is certainly more my council could do. But ... budgets.

@chocciechocface,
In the meanwhile, the virus keeps doing what it does.
Indeed, and it will keep doing that whatever we do. We need to find a compromise to get people moving AND living again, while at the same time keep the virus under control. There could be a "game changer" (vaccine, cure, miracle) that makes everything alright again, but again, it might not happen and you cannot plan with that in mind.
Risk assessment are all very well and good, but they have to be sensible AND meaningful. Look at the way schools have reopened: no consistency up and down the country, rules that make NO sense and, most important of all, a desire to BE SEEN to be doing something, rather than do something constructive. That is hardly conducive to increased confidence, is it.

WhT do you mean exactly by "sensible AND meaningful"?

@chocciechocface I don't use fear as a disparaging term and I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, and I'm not talking about any particular person - I know nothing of your personal situation or how at risk you or your family are. (Btw as I NO voter I was/am irritated by people who don't want to consider the downsides and just insist it will all be fine even in the face of evidence to the contrary)

I'm talking about the many people I see and hear out and about who are absolutely terrified of getting COVID19 because they are convinced that if they catch it there is a high chance it will kill them or their children, and in most cases that is simply not true. While infection rates have been pretty evenly spread across adult age groups (they seem lower in children but that could be lack of testing) the death profile is very heavily skewed towards the elderly or those with underlying conditions. The data strongly suggest that the vast majority of healthy people under retirement age will be absolutely fine, with a large proportion not even aware they are infected at all.

I do think that we've lost a sense of perspective about the risks to most of us (and I'm not talking about particular individual circumstances where people might be higher risk), and I agree with @Arkadia that the Scottish government have helped to overegg these concerns in their pursuit of COVID elimination which was never really feasible.

I'm talking about the many people I see and hear out and about who are absolutely terrified of getting COVID19 because they are convinced that if they catch it there is a high chance it will kill them or their children, and in most cases that is simply not true.

Are these people you personally know? Are you sure you know everything about them? Because I have a health condition I hide from people. My best friend has one too.

The problem is you're looking at a national average, and extrapolating that as a norm for everyone. You've acknowledged you don't know my situation. When I look at the national picture I see the minority who got very ill. Why? Because I know it is as a result if that small number becoming ill, that enough information was garnered to warn my husband (and others) that he needed to take care.

the death profile is very heavily skewed towards the elderly or those with underlying conditions

These people matter too. Or don't they?

I would love to know what percentage of people in the country are either vulnerable or shielding - or - have family members in that group. I suspect it isn't a tiny number. Even if DH wasn't vulnerable, we'd have to still be careful for granny.

@chocciechocface

WhT do you mean exactly by "sensible AND meaningful"?

Well, take my LA and reopening of schools. I am sure they had some sort of internally made risk assessment done, so they came up with a slew of rules (no bags, but if you must use a bag, put it on the floor - where else would you put it??; no lunch boxes, but if you must have a lunch box you must clean it THREE times while in school; no access to water fountains) that really give you the impression they want TO BE SEEN to be taking this seriously, while not knowing whether these rules help or hinder. That is amplified by the fact that these rules vary from school to school even within the same LA. BTW, we have been told by the teacher to bring a bag on Mon (like most children) and about every child had a lunch box, but no much lunch box cleaning was going on (or so I am told). This is all very reminiscent of the "hand bag in a plastic bag" at the hairdresser episode; and what about the mask+visor+zimmer frame at Clarks'? (Note, the zimmer frame appears, thankfully, to have been discontinued). Or the one way system in my Church that has the only effect of increasing social contact. These are rules that have been put in by well meaning individuals to make the public "feel safe", but that, if you think about it, make no sense whatever - and make me feel anxious.

Rules have to be sensible, apply to all and have a reason to exist.

Furthermore - death isn't the only outcome. It's the worst outcome, but there are other issues to which do not get given enough attention. Long term damage to lungs, heart problems, strokes, etc.

Arkadia - I personally wouldn't be too taxed by any of that precisely because it is, as you say, people trying to do the best they can in unprecedented circumstances. I roll with whatever I'm asked to do even if I think it's ridiculous, provided it's doesn't make me feel unsafe. What's the big deal. If it makes me feel unsafe, I don't do it, and if necessary, I would politely flag it as unsafe.

You've basically outlined what you think is nonsense. But I'm really interested to know what you think would be "sensible and meaningful".

@chocciechocface

I'm talking about the many people I see and hear out and about who are absolutely terrified of getting COVID19 because they are convinced that if they catch it there is a high chance it will kill them or their children, and in most cases that is simply not true.

Are these people you personally know? Are you sure you know everything about them? Because I have a health condition I hide from people. My best friend has one too.

The problem is you're looking at a national average, and extrapolating that as a norm for everyone. You've acknowledged you don't know my situation. When I look at the national picture I see the minority who got very ill. Why? Because I know it is as a result if that small number becoming ill, that enough information was garnered to warn my husband (and others) that he needed to take care.

the death profile is very heavily skewed towards the elderly or those with underlying conditions

These people matter too. Or don't they?

I would love to know what percentage of people in the country are either vulnerable or shielding - or - have family members in that group. I suspect it isn't a tiny number. Even if DH wasn't vulnerable, we'd have to still be careful for granny.

@chocciechocface, Are these people you personally know? Are you sure you know everything about them? Because I have a health condition I hide from people. My best friend has one too. I am sure that if you hide your condition you don't go around talking about your fears of dying of Covid-19.

The problem is you're looking at a national average, and extrapolating that as a norm for everyone. You've acknowledged you don't know my situation. When I look at the national picture I see the minority who got very ill. Why? Because I know it is as a result if that small number becoming ill, that enough information was garnered to warn my husband (and others) that he needed to take care.
But that's fine, but you cannot block a nation because of "a minority that got ill". You need to find a better solution.

These people matter too. Or don't they?
See above.
Said that, in flu season, which happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR and that - despite the vaccine - causes some 10K+ deaths in EVERY SINGLE NATION EVERY SINGLE YEAR, nobody bats an eyelid about it, and yet the same group is at risk.
So, in the case of Covid-19 no risk is acceptable. In the case of the flu no risk is unacceptable.

These people matter too. Or don't they?

Of course they do. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I've already said that I'm in favour of sensible mitigations where possible, I wear masks and sanitise my hands when asked to, and I'd be supportive of home-schooling options for people in vulnerable positions.

And yes, I'm am talking about a bigger picture kind of level where society literally can't go on like this. We have to get moving again, we have to get the economy going again, and we need children back in schools for their own sake as much as anything else. Since it appears that this virus is not going anywhere and will in all likelihood become endemic like seasonal flu, I think we are going to have to learn to live with it.

@chocciechocface, in my view, as far as school are concerned, I would have staggered in and out times to avoid parents congregating at the gates, and more hand washing and leave it at that.
In the shops I would have nothing. You already have the masks, you don't need a sea of perspex on top of that. Maybe avoid overcrowding, but it seems that even the big supermarkets are not paying attention to that anymore.
The rest is just fluff.

Kids need to be back at school. Adults need to be back at work. That's the over riding priority to me. Sensible precautions and crack on. My DS has suffered so much from lockdown, we can't sacrifice our kids to this.

Arkadia - Flu and COVID are two very different diseases. You can't compare oranges and apples.

And, I don't think your measures can be described as either sensible nor meaningful, especially in the context of this : "but you cannot block a nation because of "a minority that got ill"". You mean, 'died', surely, or got very seriously ill.

You can't write-off a significant part of the population either. If you were to seriously factor in "the vulnerable group" - which I suspect is massive - then measures would have to probably involve more of a compromise than I suspect you'd be prepared to accommodate.

Bless! Are we REALLY 5 months in and some people STILL can’t conceptualise that some might NOT have a naice big home with a study, button-pushing cushy WFH job with an understanding manager - AND have oodles of time, enthusiasm and know-how to
Create a positive and flowing homeschool environment? 🙄

Youcannot - I'd be supportive of home-schooling options for people in vulnerable positions.

So the way to deal with those who are vulnerable is to keep them locked away? Because, if you think it through, it would only work if you locked ALL the vulnerable away.

Apart from the morality of that, who do you think shoulders the burden of that? How do you think DH and his siblings are coping with their jobs while simultaneously try to care for elderly parents who have dementia and can't do online shopping etc etc. How do parents of vulnerable children (or parents who are vulnerable) keep going with their jobs while homeschooling their kids.

Why do 'the healthy' get to return to a 'normal life' and the "unhealthy" do not?

I can see how leper colonies were once considered reasonable.

@chocciechocface I do not support forcing anyone to 'hide away', I support having this option for those who might be reassured by it. Seriously, what is the alternative? The whole of society locked away indefinitely? More businesses going to the wall because they can't get going again? People losing their jobs in droves (primarily women) because their employer can't afford to keep people employed who are home schooling instead of working?

'Unhealthy' people as you put it have always a shitty deal, but the world has never stopped because of it before. We really do need to thing about the balance of harms at a societal level too, and (for once) I agree with the Scottish Government's conclusion that schools need to be open. If society folds then everyone suffers, including the 'unhealthy'.

I would be more angry with the government not offering more support for vulnerable groups to have good choices than I would with other parents who didn’t think all kids being out of school all or part time was the answer.

The government response for people in vulnerable groups with regard to education and everything else hasn’t been sufficient. It isn’t the fault of other parents though.

The point is, I really don't think anyone is seriously, sensibly, meaningfully thinking about the "balance of harms". When the word 'compromise' is used, it usually means someone else must compromise.

I did a quick google:

5.4 million asthmatics in the U.K.
3.9 million with diabetes
13% of the uk population are BAME
8,769,122 over the age of 70

I could go on finding numbers for 'the vulnerable', but surely that makes the point. Now add in the numbers of those who love these people and don't actually want to see them dead or harmed.

Also, consider the fact that asthmatics, for example, mostly live long normal lives. For people to find themselves suddenly relegated to an 'unhealthy' group, where your peers seem to think you should have reduced rights, is really staggering.

I suppose I'm wondering what it will take for the UK to arrive at a gut-sickening, vomit-inducing realisation that it's not ever going to be normal until vaccine or cure, and you can't just easily get a country moving again.

If homeschooling for the vulnerable is proposed, you need to make it equitable. Laptops for those who don't have them; teachers providing support to parents who are not qualified; employers of parents who are doing the teaching given financial support by the government; making it illegal to fire parents who need to homeschool. etc etc.

You can't just say - 'you kids get an education by coming to school, and those of you who are 'unhealthy' don't'. Because that's the arguments isn't it? That we can't deny our kids an education? Or ... is that only true for the 'healthy'?

Nor can you ethically say, 'we know you're at risk, but come to school and maybe get seriously sick'. That's where I think we are currently, and I have issues with that.

Compromise - that cares about all - means accepting precautions being put in place that will be fucking inconvenient and irritating to many. Some of those measures might even need to be "fluff" as Arcadia called them. Because if that's what it takes to make someone feel safe (which gets society moving again) then so be it.

But, oh man, the British can whinge for Britain if, god forbid, they are asked to wear a mask, queue outside a shop, forgo a pint etc etc. There's a serious absence here of collective civic responsibility - like in Asia, or Africa, for example.

But if you really want to get out again - a different normal - then Britain needs to dig deep to find a sense of collective responsibility.

@anon444877

I would be more angry with the government not offering more support for vulnerable groups to have good choices than I would with other parents who didn’t think all kids being out of school all or part time was the answer.

The government response for people in vulnerable groups with regard to education and everything else hasn’t been sufficient. It isn’t the fault of other parents though.

Cross post. Yes.

So because some people are at higher risk we all have to suffer and the economy has to crash? That makes no sense.

@MorrisZapp

So because some people are at higher risk we all have to suffer and the economy has to crash? That makes no sense.

It does make sense in the context of a pandemic. This is unprecedented. The last event even remotely comparable to this was WWII. Where is your "blitz spirit"?

And no one is being asked to "suffer", just to tolerate inconveniences that will allow society to safely open up. For everyone!

I’m in reasonably vulnerable groups myself - I don’t however believe the planet needs to grind to a halt to protect ME!

Because the thing is, despite residing in high risk groups - I still have a very, very low chance of being seriously ill.

I’ve four friends aged 45+ (MS, severe asthma, HIV+ and transplant list). All have had it and all came through - at home! - in a week or two.

It really isn’t an automatic death sentence and perspective is sorely needed.

@chocciechocface if those 'inconveniences' are wearing masks or sanitising hands then I agree with you that those are proportionate, at least for the time being. If however those 'inconveniences' are part time schooling, meaning that people lose their careers, incomes, perhaps then homes, then no, I don't agree that that is a proportionate response to the level of threat.