Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

It's not about the kids and teachers, it's about getting their parents back to work, regardless of consequences. Hence the youngest kids most likely to need parents first.

Not at Eton though!

Sephiroth

16-05-2020 12:51

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035281)

Not at Eton though!

You've assumed Mr K's mantle, jfman!

Come to think of it, when have you challenged Mr K?

jfman

16-05-2020 13:00

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035282)

You've assumed Mr K's mantle, jfman!

Come to think of it, when have you challenged Mr K?

I’m simply making a statement of fact. How others interpret that is up to them.

I’d be very interested in the science.

I don’t feel the need to challenge Mr. K although don’t always agree. There’s enough people on the case already.

Maggy

16-05-2020 13:21

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36035280)

It's not about the kids and teachers, it's about getting their parents back to work, regardless of consequences. Hence the youngest kids most likely to need parents first.

I know that I just think they should have chosen an older group like secondary age.

Hugh	16-05-2020 13:23

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035281)

Not at Eton though!

Not many reception and year 1 children at Eton* ;)

*it starts at year 9 (aged 13 or so)

Hom3r

16-05-2020 13:40

Re: Coronavirus

I messaged a guy at work as to things at work.

A guy whose wife was in ICU with COVID-19 is now back at home and he is back to work on monday.

My mate said there are rumours of another 8 being furloughed.

So it looks like I may not be going back on July 1st.

Pierre

16-05-2020 13:43

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36035280)

It's not about the kids and teachers, it's about getting their parents back to work, regardless of consequences. Hence the youngest kids most likely to need parents first.

Correct and I can’t wait to send mine back

Hugh	16-05-2020 14:22

Re: Coronavirus

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-chief-...ning-guidance/

Quote:

The Department for Education’s chief scientific adviser admitted he has not assessed whether guidance on reopening schools is effective, adding the current advice is “draft” and “will be developed”.

Appearing in front of the Parliamentary science and technology committee today, Osama Rahman also admitted the DfE had done no modelling on the impact on transmission rates of starting to reopen schools after the May half term break.

During a hearing that left some MPs visibly bemused, Rahman also suggested the government guidance issued yesterday on safety is a “draft”, and will be reissued after further consultation with Public Health England.

He also said the decision to reopen schools was made by cabinet, not the DfE.

Quote:

Education committee chair Robert Halfon asked what scientific evidence base underpinned the decision to reopen schools to pupils in reception, year 1 and year 6, and what modelling had been done.

“The department has not done any modelling,” Rahman replied. “One of the SAGE groups has done various bits of modelling for different scenarios on what years you can bring back. My understanding is those will be published in due course.”

Halfon responded that “surely you must have scientific evidence the base underpinning the department’s decision?”, to which Rahman responded: “That was a cabinet decision following advice from SAGE.”

RichardCoulter

16-05-2020 14:55

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36035285)

I know that I just think they should have chosen an older group like secondary age.

Particularly as they will have exams to consider.

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

The British Heart Foundation is questioning the logic of having a blanket 70+ policy, seeing as slightly older women cope with the virus better. Maybe it should be changed to men over 65?

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsu...i_u=8-15893393

Why are so many BAME people dying of the virus? This is their take on it:

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsu...i_u=8-15893393

Taf	16-05-2020 17:28

Re: Coronavirus

Schools open. Kids go back to school. Parents go back to work. Stocks of supplies rebuilt ready for the next wave. School close. Kids stay home. Parents stay home. Stocks diminish. And repeat....

Pierre

16-05-2020 19:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36035294)

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-chief-...ning-guidance/

As mentioned earlier, there is nothing scientific about the decision, it is a Political and economic decision.

One that I support.

Mr K	16-05-2020 20:09

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035328)

As mentioned earlier, there is nothing scientific about the decision, it is a Political and economic decision.

One that I support.

Which is why teachers are rightly concerned.

daveeb

16-05-2020 20:12

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035328)

As mentioned earlier, there is nothing scientific about the decision, it is a Political and economic decision.

One that I support.

A stupid and reckless one at that, but they're still hiding behind the (lack of) science to justify it.

OLD BOY

16-05-2020 20:12

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36035297)

The British Heart Foundation is questioning the logic of having a blanket 70+ policy, seeing as slightly older women cope with the virus better. Maybe it should be changed to men over 65.

It is not appropriate to set an age limit. Some 75-year-olds are healthier than some 40-year-olds. This is age discrimination.

Restrictions should be recommended (not imposed) on those with underlying medical conditions that make the person susceptible to the coronavirus.

Everyone else should be going back to work.

jfman

16-05-2020 20:16

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035328)

As mentioned earlier, there is nothing scientific about the decision, it is a Political and economic decision.

One that I support.

At last an admission that “back to work” has no basis in medical science, risking a deadly second wave and is simply the Tories acting on a wing and a prayer hoping to revive the economy.

Of course, they ignore the long term devastating economic impact of a second wave (and inevitable second lockdown).

This would be entertaining if it wasn’t so tragic.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:35.

Page 228 of 421

228

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page