Opening schools

Laughing said:
AM most opinions I have heard over phase 2 of lockdown seem to be better thought out than the governments approach. If they had spent just another hour considering it they would have noticed and amended or accounted for the many many inconsistancies in their "guidance". It was and still is a shocking example of communication.
Click to expand...

I totally agree the way that they have communicated throughout the whole process has blurred many lines and further muddied the waters, the process of consulting and more importantly listening to what is being said and the basic preparation of putting in place a workable action plan before making any announcement is sadly lacking, I keep repeating the phrase but these faults are nothing to do with ideology but simple incompetence.
 
how can anyone trust a word this government say, lies after lies, the latest in relation to nursing homes.
add to thst the PM, the health secretary and the chief medical officer all managed to catch it, one of them bragging about shaking hands with CV patients.
 
br14 said:
Well you're not wrong. Last numbers I read, 12 people under 19 had died. 9 of whom had conditions that made them vulnerable.

So the question is, will you keep schools closed until no children die of infectious diseases? If so, they will never ever open again, because children can even die of flu. In 2009, around 30 people under 20 died during the H1N1 outbreak. So we'd best not take the risk. It was actually a pretty bad flu season this year anyway.
Click to expand...

While I haven't always agreed with br14 on some of the fundamentals surrounding this outbreak I am more inclined to agree with points made about getting out of 'lockdown' (I hate that term). Some of the population seem to be getting themselves into a state of paralysis over this.

I don't have children so maybe I come at it from a different perspective but I do have friends who have children (and are very much frontline NHS) and would have no issue with their children going back to school, they understand the level of risk. What would those opposed to children going back in June like to see before they would send their children back? No deaths from Covid? no cases?! I'm not meaning to be provocative, I just don't understand.

I'm with Prof. Sikora on this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262758203055431680
 
T_A_D said:
While I haven't always agreed with br14 on some of the fundamentals surrounding this outbreak I am more inclined to agree with points made about getting out of 'lockdown' (I hate that term). Some of the population seem to be getting themselves into a state of paralysis over this.

I don't have children so maybe I come at it from a different perspective but I do have friends who have children (and are very much frontline NHS) and would have no issue with their children going back to school, they understand the level of risk. What would those opposed to children going back in June like to see before they would send their children back? No deaths from Covid? no cases?! I'm not meaning to be provocative, I just don't understand.

I'm with Prof. Sikora on this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262758203055431680
Click to expand...

It’s tricky - the prof, nor others, appear to be asking the kids of Eton and Harrow to go back. Their parents and teachers aren’t pushing for it either.
Seems a risk worth taking for most kids but not all.

The situation we are in is the teachers and lots of parents dint think it is safe. You don’t force people in that scenario.
Bigger question, of course, is why they don’t feel safe
 
Since schools closed to all pupils bar those of key workers DFE have issued a staggering 348 guidance notes to schools. Nearly 50% of these have been ‘updates’ on previous documents. Now one man’s update is another man’s confused car crash of a strategy that makes it impossible to plan as advice is contradictory and chaotic. Well thought out guidance discussed and agreed with school leaders and trade unions with sensible localised decision making powers made on individual circumstances would have been the obvious solution. As always politics rather than sense has driven things and as a result created an absolute mess
 
T_A_D said:
While I haven't always agreed with br14 on some of the fundamentals surrounding this outbreak I am more inclined to agree with points made about getting out of 'lockdown' (I hate that term). Some of the population seem to be getting themselves into a state of paralysis over this.

I don't have children so maybe I come at it from a different perspective but I do have friends who have children (and are very much frontline NHS) and would have no issue with their children going back to school, they understand the level of risk. What would those opposed to children going back in June like to see before they would send their children back? No deaths from Covid? no cases?! I'm not meaning to be provocative, I just don't understand.

I'm with Prof. Sikora on this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262758203055431680
Click to expand...
TAD you are entitles to your opinion and many doctors feel the risk is small enough to justify children going back to school. You're post does however, ignore my post where I clealry call out what conditions I would want to see met.

When doctors talk about kids going back to school they are generalizing and weighing risk from different factors. They have to consider underpriviledged children or those sufferring from some kind of abuse. All these factors balance the other side of the risk equation. My daughter is being home schooled, doing 5-6 hours every day and is not at risk in the home. The risk remains the same for her as every other child, the benefits are just not as weighty as they are for some other children when returning to school. The risk assessment is then very different. When her mother and I deem the risks are low enough we will send her back. An R < 0.5 and more information on the kawasaki like syndrome.

I don't think many parents are expecting a vaccine, or no infections, they are waiting until we know more, and dont see the need to rush a 5 year old back into education.

You don't touch on the safety of teachers or the risks to the wider community either.
 
What would be the case should the government announce that the R number was 0.5 in today's briefing or PMQ's?
 
Randy I would look at the evidence and make a decision. Given the government estimate is all we have to go on, I would have to look at that.

What I would say, is today, I wouldn't be sending my daughter back to school when 500 people are dying daily, regardless of the R number. I would want to see that number much lower. Typically in a flu outbreak you get tens of people dying from flu on a daily basis, not hundreds.

I will make an informed (as much as I can) decision at the time.
 
For parents to have more confidence I guess we would be looking at the government meeting their own criteria for moving to the next 'phase', principally that test trace and isolate is up and running properly. That combined with daily deaths down in the 100s and R going below 0.5 would tend to indicate it's safe enough.nm
 
Hilary Jones made an interesting point on GMB, yesterday I think. He said that speaking to his colleagues, they were all happy to send their children back to school. These are health proffessionals far more capable of assessing the risk than I am. However, my daughter is my responsability and I will only send her back to school when I assess the risk as being acceptable, as should be the case for every parent.

Protecting and caring for our children is our ONLY job in life.
 
Laughing said:
Randy I would look at the evidence and make a decision. Given the government estimate is all we have to go on, I would have to look at that.

What I would say, is today, I wouldn't be sending my daughter back to school when 500 people are dying daily, regardless of the R number. I would want to see that number much lower. Typically in a flu outbreak you get tens of people dying from flu on a daily basis, not hundreds.

I will make an informed (as much as I can) decision at the time.
Click to expand...
Fair comment. But just for clarity, 500+ recorded in the last 24 hours, some from weeks ago.
 
Laughing said:
Yes Randy, you are right, but we have to use the metrics available to us.
Click to expand...
We have had a letter off our nursery this morning. They are planning to open on the 1st June but depends on what the government say on the 28th May. 12 kids maximum per session (morning or afternoon) split into groups of 3 which they are calling a bubble. Kids cannot mix with kids from another bubble (basically promoting racism and discrimination in the future). No lunchtime sessions. Kids cannot bring in their own food or bottles drink and instead will be given water in disposable plastic cups throughout the session. No soft furnished toys, no sand, no slime, no playdough. Government have said according to the letter that social distancing is not possible in early years settings hence the 'bubbles'. Parents will be given a time to drop their kids off at the gate and to pick them up from the gate afterwards with temperature checked before entry.

I make no apologies but I will not be sending my child into a nursery like that. Utterly ridiculous and I actually believe it will do more harm to their development, mental health and physical health than covid-19 could ever do.

This country is ****ed.
 
Finny I don't disagree. Parents have a difficult decision to make and the information on which we have to base those decisions is coming from an organization we, rightly, don't trust.
 
the home Secretary was on LBC today, she said she would ne happy to send her child to primary school on June 1st, only problem is she only has one child, whos past primary school age
 
Dr Hillary’s mates that are all doctors could have had their kids in school this whole time - schools are open for the children of key workers and always have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top