Fair enough peonies - and I think the last minute nature of the proposed closures would have made things worse in terms of childcare, when work rotas/ deadlines would already be in place for working parents for December and January.
I also think the issue is much worse with remote learning - whether full time for the week or so proposed in December/ January, or the remote part of blended learning. If there are "just" closures, working parents can manage to do whatever they can to get by - whether scrabbling for a childminder/ nanny/ family member, or setting the children up with a book/ drawing paper/ electronic device to entertain them while they try to work from home. But if the children are expected to interact with their teacher somehow, at set times, with deadlines and so on, the parent has to be available for at least some of that time - to help with tech, ensure the child is concentrating, ensure they are interacting with what they need to, and go over and help them with whatever "homework" is set. Older children (upper secondary maybe - or possibly motivated younger ones) should be able to do this with minimal help - but primary, even most older primary - would still need very hands on support to get anything out of the learning. This is too much to ask most "childcarers" to do, so it would fall on the parents, alongside their "day-job" (and yes, teachers who are parents too). So of course the issues of attainment gaps, poverty, key-workers and shift-workers and so on become relevant again.
Maybe the SG could arrange for a room where children could go to sit with other children, with an adult or two on hand to help with tech and go over any "offline" questions the children have. I wonder if there's a word for such a set up?! A classroom, maybe
I think this was the main issue with the original proposal of full time "blended learning" for the entire academic year - and why the much reviled "Us For Them" were so successful in the summer before they went bonkers It wasn't an issue of school being viewed as childcare (though of course there is an element of that for many families) but that parents (and lets face it, mostly mothers) would have to put their careers to one side and potentially lose family income for an entire year to act as one-to-one teaching assistants for their children, to support whatever learning method the government felt was appropriate - even if it would be a disaster for their children. It really wasn't sustainable and wasn't what anyone had signed up to, and I think the backlash was justifiable. I honestly don't think the majority of parents were blaming the teachers or schools at all - if anything, it was how the councils were interpreting the government edicts that were problematic, as well as the principles themselves.