OT. Schools...normality and Coronavirus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Why are any of you going into shops?

---

Coming from the ‘family’s designated shopper’ that’s an odd question.
My answer is...because we need stuff - hopefully only once a week - and because the delivery alternative is pretty damned useless unless you’re considered ‘vulnerable’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Why are any of you going into shops?

---

I go once or twice a week, but I'm also shopping for 3 vulnerable households.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that last sentence Swale, but how do you know?
Personally I can draw no comfort from your comparison with flying as I’d put that activity alongside sitting in a crowded cinema or pub for two or three hours as high amongst the list of seriously unwise things to do in terms of Covid related safety.

My question is...if schools are obviously so safe why were they closed, across the World, in the first place?

My supplementary might be...if classrooms and schools (i.e. crowded confined and interior spaces) are so safe why are our Parliamentary ‘masters’ so reluctant to return to the House of Commons?

Not sure if you have children or grandchildren but it does alter one’s perspective.

---

Ra as far as children are concerned its easy to reach a conclusion that there is little risk to them - out of 30,000 plus deaths from Corvid-19 how many are children? Last time I looked it was even 50, thats a a minute risk compared to other diseases and accidents which we accept as an everyday hazard - I mean on that basis you wouldn't even let a child leave the house.

So we then think about teachers, well again compared to others who are working, they are low risk of infection working with children, who on current research are not even major spreaders.

Yes if you have an underlying health issue at any age, then you are potentially vulnerable and need to take steps to avoid unnecessary contact with people, if you don't then the risk of getting the infection is low and the risk of it being fatal or even affecting you badly is also low.

But whats the alternative? We can't keep millions on furlough for much longer, who pays? Sweden has avoided a lockdown, yes it has higher rate per million population of deaths from Corvid, but it hasn't paralysed its economy and it has not resulted in thousands of death from no Corvid-19 causes.

Its OK if your a pensioner sat at home, whats the big deal, but if your economically active or a youngster in education its causing untold harm for what? On a risk basis clearly not justified. Nothing is going to change over the next 18 months, so we will have to accept that its something we have to live with there is no other choice.

As for the MP's well who knows, but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Coming from the ‘family’s designated shopper’ that’s an odd question.
My answer is...because we need stuff - hopefully only once a week - and because the delivery alternative is pretty damned useless unless you’re considered ‘vulnerable’.

---

Why odd? I'm interested in what folks strategies are.

Ours has settled down to:

Main shop - Asda click and collect or delivery, weekly
Also used - local enterprise Field supplies, excellent service delivered weekly
Job related gubbins - Screwfix Spondon click and collect (others aren't as good at the 2m thing)
I have been into B&M once, second in and happy to get out pronto as the place started to look like the wild west inside 15 mins
Going to Costco later in the week but told my 'clients' (the rest of the family) I'm not hanging round if it looks dodgy

I totally ‘get’ where you’re coming from Swale and, at a personal level I long for the whole thing to be over...like many others I just feel as if my life has been ‘crossed out’ for the last three months.

I do accept that children seem to be, as is the case with many diseases, less at risk of serious illness, however I’m not convinced of the science as regards their role as spreaders. It really doesn’t seem to make sense and the BMA have voiced their concerns. The safety of children, school staff and the avoidance of a second spike, which will immediately send everything back into full lockdown, are all paramount imo.

Two questions...would you, honestly, teach in, support individual children or clean a room that had had 15 children in it for six or seven hours without appropriate PPE, and would you, as a Headteacher or Chair of Governors, be prepared to accept responsibility for opening a school when this might lead to such dire consequences.

On balance, for the sake of six or seven weeks of part time voluntary education I think I’d be inclined to leave things till September but I recognise it’s a horrible quandary to be in.

Talking about normality, it's interesting to note that from today, Italy is making a big step towards returning to normality, by opening restaurants and such like. This is despite their daily death figures only being slightly lower than ours and we're still 6 weeks away at the earliest.

The 64,000 dollar question is 'are they being too hasty or is the UK being too cautious?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram59

The 64,000 dollar question is 'are they being too hasty or is the UK being too cautious?'

---

Spot on with that question...interestingly they have already decided that their schools, which shut on March 5th, will not reopen before September.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Two questions...would you, honestly, teach in, support individual children or clean a room that had had 15 children in it for six or seven hours without appropriate PPE, and would you, as a Headteacher or Chair of Governors, be prepared to accept responsibility for opening a school when this might lead to such dire consequences.

---

One more question... or would you much rather stay hiding on a nice furlough package until that runs out, and to hell with the economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I totally ‘get’ where you’re coming from Swale and, at a personal level I long for the whole thing to be over...like many others I just feel as if my life has been ‘crossed out’ for the last three months.

I do accept that children seem to be, as is the case with many diseases, less at risk of serious illness, however I’m not convinced of the science as regards their role as spreaders. It really doesn’t seem to make sense and the BMA have voiced their concerns. The safety of children, school staff and the avoidance of a second spike, which will immediately send everything back into full lockdown, are all paramount imo.

Two questions...would you, honestly, teach in, support individual children or clean a room that had had 15 children in it for six or seven hours without appropriate PPE, and would you, as a Headteacher or Chair of Governors, be prepared to accept responsibility for opening a school when this might lead to such dire consequences.

On balance, for the sake of six or seven weeks of part time voluntary education I think I’d be inclined to leave things till September but I recognise it’s a horrible quandary to be in.

---

So its fine for transport workers health staff, carers, truckers, police, shop workers, maintenance workers (often going into homes) to be exposed to in many cases several hundreds of people on a daily basis but its too risky for a teacher to deal with up to 15 children and keep their distance from between 5 and 30 other staff?

Plus what about the thousands of other deaths that have happened and are happening now as a result of the lock down? The deaths that will happen over the longer term and the adverse impact on peoples lives that a tanked economy will have?

Also 6 or 7 weeks of no school will impact on the ability of people to return to work.

I'm not sure what dire consequences you are talking about - the risk to children is low, the risk to teachers is low, unless they have an underlying health condition, but then thats the worse for people who are still working, whats the difference?

Of course the science isn't there, but it won't be there in totality for months, exactly what will have changed in pure risk terms?

Nothing, we don't as a society have a good understanding of risk or that actually its impossible to be risk free - I will give an example - there is an awful lot of talk about the risks of taking a drug like ecstasy, yet on average 1 person dies from taking it in a year, whilst on average 250 people die as a result of a horse riding accident, on risk terms we would ban horse riding.

As for the second wave, it will come its bound to, we are going to have to live with this virus, with those that are vulnerable taking a decision on how to protect themselves, others will just have to get on live their lives. Thats the reality.

I personally am not bothered about the lock down, apart from not going out to restaurants, gigs, theatre, holidays etc. I am pretty much doing what i normally do. I can work from home though I've taken the decision to wind it down and retire fully. But many are not in that position, their jobs are under threat, their education is stalled, careers halted and the impact will be felt for years not months.

I can see why those on furlough are reluctant to return, take away them being paid to sit at home and do nothing and the mood of the nation will change quickly!

Perhaps the solution is to withdraw furlough payments in respect of those who will not return to work. The option of return to work or lose your job may change a few perspectives. And for benefits purposes this would be treated as a voluntary giving up of one's job....