OT. Schools...normality and Coronavirus.

[swaledale]

Why do you always have to do that, GP? You make a fair point and then make some silly ‘teacherspeak’ reference. Do you somehow think teachers are in some way ‘immune’ to all that’s going on. Would it be fair of me to say in ‘accountantspeak’ and then suggest you know the cost of everything but the value of nothing?

Where have I said we should all ‘hunker down for another 3 to 6 months sat at home watching Netflix’?
I want a return to work/normality as soon as it is SAFELY possible just as much as you. I haven’t put any sort of time frame on things but it won’t be possible for schools to return normally before September and I firmly believe that a reliable ‘test, track and trace’ system needs to be in place before any full return.

I can provide four scenarios to illustrate the point. The public school kids who are my near neighbours have now been told that they will not be returning to school until September but will have online lessons for the remainder of this term. My five year old Y1 grandchild is meant to be returning for a 50% timetable from June 2nd. My daughter is meant to be returning to work as a Y6 teacher working in Staffordshire on the same day and my grandchildren in the USA have been told, like the Scots, that there will be no return until next term.

Like the government you, Tricky and Swale seem to believe that there is a ‘magic date’ when the virus will have been overcome or the risk will have diminished to such an extent that everyone can return to school and work as normal.

There is, imo, no such thing. It will vary from country to country and region to region as I have described above, and it is best to let the experts within those countries and regions make the judgement call. I understand the economic argument but what could be worse than a second wave that starts the whole thing off again because we try and kick start things too quickly?

Sorry RA you have completely misread and misinterpreted what I have said. because the exact opposite is true, there is NO magic date (barring a vaccine becoming available which is effective) that the virus will have been overcome. Its here to stay and as such those comfortably settled into their homes have to understand that
1) They will need to come out and resume life in as normal way as possible
2) That the risk of them (assuming they are not in an "at risk group") dying from Corvid-19 is remote and actually less likely than other risks which up until this pandemic I'd wager they never even thought about.
3) If we don't get the economy working again soon, then those 20,000 deaths as a result of the lock down which are not directly due to the virus will increase and more than likely outstrip those deaths from the virus.
4) Thousands of people from NHS staff care home staff, transport workers, supermarket staff etc have been working normally throughout this crisis and coming into contact with hundreds if not thousands of strangers every day and surprise surprise there has not be a huge number of deaths amongst those workers in percentage terms.
5) It simply isn't going to be possible and never has been possible to guarantee that life is safe, risks have to be managed and in a measured sensible way, admittedly society seems to think (when it suits it) that all risk of death can be avoided but in reality that s not true and we seem happy to drive in what are basically mobile bombs on our roads and accept the 6,000 plus casualties per year as an acceptable hazard and I could quote a fair few other things we do that could be easily avoided and actually reduce thousands of people dying every year, but which by and large we don't.

Italy which was very badly hit by the disease - largely it seems due to the high numbers of elderly people is now coming out of lock down, Denmark has got schools back up and running and Sweden and South Korea never had lock downs.

Its not simply the economy, its peoples lives, especially the younger generations who have had and will have their lives blighted by this approach, the cure will if continued be much worse and much longer lasting than the virus.

[mistaram]

Yes I understand.
That is another issue reguarding hospitals that needs resolving. I still cannot for the life of me, understand why all the Covid they can, haven't been sent to the Nightingale hossies. As many COVID free hospitals as possible should have been prepared.

I have to run the gauntlet in a Sheffield hospital in July. I have no choice.
But the same replies to many long term ill. We cannot keep holding people away from treatment.
The Covid deaths, which to be fair are by far and wide older people. Will pale into nothing by comparison.
That isn't being harsh, just factual.

Tricky not sure that's fact I've just looked it up The average UK age do Covid deaths is 59yrs4mts that surprised me So must have been a lot of much younger deaths and I can't imagine younger people being in care homes

[mistaram]

Well Denmark seems to show that this is the case, they have opened schools and no sign of infections rising.

Yes that's true at the moment. Interesting Italy and Spain two of the worst affected counties have shut theirs till Sept7th I see our government have decided to let each school decide . Let them take the blame if it all goes wrong

[Geoff Parkstone]

Spoke to a friend in Denmark a week ago - they were down to 5 cases a day at the time. We are still much higher than that, but getting better daily. June 1st is still a week away, with a fair wind we may be at a similar level when we reopen, but there will still be hotspots I suspect where rates are still too high. This is one problem with across the board reopening.

The regional approach may yet have traction and there could be attractions to slowing the reopening in certain areas, but there isnt that much of the term left. What we have to avoid though if we have a more flexible approach to reopening, is the incidence of nimby-ism that may arise. There is no obvious reason why this should all happen everywhere on the same day.

Following on, allow me to present another option, if only for debate. Since the school summer holidays are soon upon us, why not keep the schools open in July and part of August, since the kids have had what is to them an "early summer holiday" for the past 9 weeks, albeit interspersed with some home teaching. This would allow a staggered reopening in some of the hotspots. There are no deadlines presented by exams etc, so no need to adopt a hard and fast shut down for holidays that noone will be taking!

It seems likely that the traditional summer holiday in the sun overseas isnt going to happen for most this year, so why not shift the terms around a bit, let the economy kick start without the disruption of a lot of the adult workforce disappearing for a couple of weeks or having to make arrangements for child care.

Now that would be value added provided by our education workforce who could earn national gratitude. We could clap for teachers/TAs etc every Tuesday...........

[ramAnag]

O

Sorry RA you have completely misread and misinterpreted what I have said. because the exact opposite is true, there is NO magic date (barring a vaccine becoming available which is effective) that the virus will have been overcome. Its here to stay and as such those comfortably settled into their homes have to understand that
1) They will need to come out and resume life in as normal way as possible
2) That the risk of them (assuming they are not in an "at risk group") dying from Corvid-19 is remote and actually less likely than other risks which up until this pandemic I'd wager they never even thought about.
3) If we don't get the economy working again soon, then those 20,000 deaths as a result of the lock down which are not directly due to the virus will increase and more than likely outstrip those deaths from the virus.
4) Thousands of people from NHS staff care home staff, transport workers, supermarket staff etc have been working normally throughout this crisis and coming into contact with hundreds if not thousands of strangers every day and surprise surprise there has not be a huge number of deaths amongst those workers in percentage terms.
5) It simply isn't going to be possible and never has been possible to guarantee that life is safe, risks have to be managed and in a measured sensible way, admittedly society seems to think (when it suits it) that all risk of death can be avoided but in reality that s not true and we seem happy to drive in what are basically mobile bombs on our roads and accept the 6,000 plus casualties per year as an acceptable hazard and I could quote a fair few other things we do that could be easily avoided and actually reduce thousands of people dying every year, but which by and large we don't.

Italy which was very badly hit by the disease - largely it seems due to the high numbers of elderly people is now coming out of lock down, Denmark has got schools back up and running and Sweden and South Korea never had lock downs.

Its not simply the economy, its peoples lives, especially the younger generations who have had and will have their lives blighted by this approach, the cure will if continued be much worse and much longer lasting than the virus.

1) I am not disputing that.
2) Which other risks? Actually dying from Covid isn’t the only concern.
3) I’m not sure what these 20,000 deaths ‘as a result of the lockdown’ are.
4) Yes, many people have not been affected, but 250,000 in this country have.
5) Of course life is full of risks, I totally accept that. The comparison with driving though is nonsense. Vehicles only become ‘mobile bombs’ when driven by idiots and you claim 6,000 casualties per year. You can add to that 1800 deaths per year, but it’s a great deal less than the 250,000 ‘casualties’/incidents and 35,000 deaths due to Covid-19 in the last two and a half months.

Italian Schools will not be reopening until September. Neither will many in the U.S. Scottish Schools will not be reopening until the new Autumn Term. Are they all wrong too?

[ramAnag]

Spoke to a friend in Denmark a week ago - they were down to 5 cases a day at the time. We are still much higher than that, but getting better daily. June 1st is still a week away, with a fair wind we may be at a similar level when we reopen, but there will still be hotspots I suspect where rates are still too high. This is one problem with across the board reopening.

The regional approach may yet have traction and there could be attractions to slowing the reopening in certain areas, but there isnt that much of the term left. What we have to avoid though if we have a more flexible approach to reopening, is the incidence of nimby-ism that may arise. There is no obvious reason why this should all happen everywhere on the same day.

Following on, allow me to present another option, if only for debate. Since the school summer holidays are soon upon us, why not keep the schools open in July and part of August, since the kids have had what is to them an "early summer holiday" for the past 9 weeks, albeit interspersed with some home teaching. This would allow a staggered reopening in some of the hotspots. There are no deadlines presented by exams etc, so no need to adopt a hard and fast shut down for holidays that noone will be taking!

It seems likely that the traditional summer holiday in the sun overseas isnt going to happen for most this year, so why not shift the terms around a bit, let the economy kick start without the disruption of a lot of the adult workforce disappearing for a couple of weeks or having to make arrangements for child care.

Now that would be value added provided by our education workforce who could earn national gratitude. We could clap for teachers/TAs etc every Tuesday...........

You really don’t get it do you?

1) Teachers have been working. Not in the way they might have been admittedly, but they have been fulfilling their contracts in terms of ‘directed time’.

2) Some kids, those by and large who have parents that either don’t care or aren’t sufficiently capable or confident, may have had an early ‘summer holiday’...many others haven’t and have been working hard, supported by their teachers.

3) Do you want teachers to teach...or just provide a child minding service so that the economy may resume? If you want the former it isn’t going to work, partly because, as has already been shown, so many parents are not going to send their kids to school and partly because successful teaching of classes requires good overall attendance. If you want the latter you’d better have mighty deep pockets because an average sized class of 27 - or even the new 15 - is going to cost a great deal more in terms of child minding than teaching.

Just out of interest...has your son gone back to Uni or is he still at home? I suspect the former...but supposing I’m wrong, would you be happy for him to return at the moment?

[AdiSalisbury]

I see our government have decided to let each school decide . Let them take the blame if it all goes wrong

That is a shame, they should be leading on that kind of decision making, after all it effects us all.

[swaledale]

O

1) I am not disputing that.
2) Which other risks? Actually dying from Covid isn’t the only concern.
3) I’m not sure what these 20,000 deaths ‘as a result of the lockdown’ are.
4) Yes, many people have not been affected, but 250,000 in this country have.
5) Of course life is full of risks, I totally accept that. The comparison with driving though is nonsense. Vehicles only become ‘mobile bombs’ when driven by idiots and you claim 6,000 casualties per year. You can add to that 1800 deaths per year, but it’s a great deal less than the 250,000 ‘casualties’/incidents and 35,000 deaths due to Covid-19 in the last two and a half months.

Italian Schools will not be reopening until September. Neither will many in the U.S. Scottish Schools will not be reopening until the new Autumn Term. Are they all wrong too?

So RA if the car had been invented today, a missile full of explosive liquid under sole human control and reliant upon the sanity etc. of the person driving it, you think it would just be accepted?

Also those deaths and injuries are very year, indeed were at one time much higher than that, but we have through design of cars and roads reduced this. And to say that every accident is caused by idiots is to take a very superior approach to the issue, anybody can have an accident through no fault of themselves or anyone else, or it can be a momentary error, not recklessness!

Anyway my point was we accept the risk every time we get in the car personally a risk over which we only have a certain amount of control, its a risk which is similar to the virus, we can take some precautions, but there is much that we cannot control.

Yes there have been over 30,000 deaths from the virus but again it is clear who is most at risk, the average healthy person is no more at risk of injury/death from Covid-19 than driving a car.

The other risks which result in deaths that a large proportion of the population seem to ignore very day, are diet, smoking, air pollution, drugs, air travel, sports the list is endless - the information about diet is out there, yet we have a large proportion of the population who die earlier than expected due to poor diet, strokes, heart attacks, amputations etc etc.

You mention 250,000 cases, (in a population of £63 million I'm sure you can work out the percentages, the majority have had no ill effects, do a little research on other health issues that have devastating effects on people that occur very day all year every year, the numbers will astound you.

Lastly the excess deaths, are due to other health issues that have not been treated, diagnosed etc. due to the health service being overwhelmed , services not being available, again these are heavily weighted towards older people, BUT mental health issues strokes, cancer, have not been picked up or the people involved are not going to the DR/hospital either through fear of catching Covid-19 or just not being able to access the service. These deaths will rise and will undoubtedly outstrip deaths from Covid-19. Whats more there will be a long term impact affecting people for years.

I suspect the Government hasn't got the bottle to enforce a return to school, ironically as its the least risky option, but most people will have to get back to work alongside those who have had no choice but to work through anyway.

[swaledale]

That is a shame, they should be leading on that kind of decision making, after all it effects us all.

They should be leading full stop, but unfortunately they are not!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sorry, I get it 100% and I am aware of the role of teachers in e-learning and vulnerable child teaching at the moment, but I know several less than gainfully employed. The extended / modified terms would be more by way of childcare and catch up teaching for those who perhaps had not been so diligent in home learning. but most importantly it would allow a return to work for many working parents. I know that is not what teachers have spent 5 years qualifying to do, but everyone has to make short term changes in these unusual times

The main point being, and in order to allay your safety fears in some way, flexible terms would allow a staggered return to teaching so that the more vulnerable hot spots of covid exposure could take more time to become less hostile environments. I dont see June 1 as a magic date, but equally we cannot wait until September to start to make moves.

For people to go back to work, there has to be some sort of child care arrangements (as with most school summer holiday periods) and it seems to me that the schools would be a better environment for this that the traditional childminder where half a dozen kids can be crammed in a single room with several adults? That also leaves the chidminders to operate with below school age kids and apply a bit more social distancing. A win-win surely?

Flexibility will be how we move forward and emerge sort of intact against this virus, we have all had to do that - yes even us stopathome pen pushers. Some will find it harder than others based on their chosen career paths, but it will do noone any good to "do it this way because we always have"

Would I let my son go back to uni now? Well first off, he cant, so I have not needed to risk assess what that might involve. It also depends where he was going in terms of regional variances of risk. More to the point there is nothing educationally to go back for (like many kids of varying ages) nor do I need to stop working to look after him, which is central to my argument. Would he be better off in Norfolk than Surrey? Hard to say, he might be more exposed to the virus by his behaviour if he was with his mates and socialising more, but he has plenty of mates at home here and isnt exposing himself.