Coronavirus

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Alternatively close them rather than take the risk. Assess the difference in transmission vs December.

Like they did with pubs

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Alternatively close them rather than take the risk. Assess the difference in transmission vs December.

And if you’re wrong you’ve lost children two weeks at school in a period that they’ve already lost too much. Inconveniencing working parents that can’t get, or afford, childcare. Potentially putting their jobs at risk.

Gambling with vulnerable kids lives that are in abusive households.

Seems you’re happy to take those risks?

Originally Posted by Pierre

And if you’re wrong you’ve lost children two weeks at school in a period that they’ve already lost too much. Inconveniencing working parents that can’t get, or afford, childcare. Potentially putting their jobs at risk.

Gambling with vulnerable kids lives that are in abusive households.

Seems you’re happy to take those risks?

It's not about anyone being happy to take risks, it's about risk assessment and mitigation.

Which will cause most problems - lockdown/schools closing, or the NHS being overwhelmed, NHS staff burn-out and sickness (which adds to the NHS issues), the unknown impact of Long Covid on people and the NHS, the heartbreak of families when a relative dies from COVID without any family member with them?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

And if you’re wrong you’ve lost children two weeks at school in a period that they’ve already lost too much. Inconveniencing working parents that can’t get, or afford, childcare. Potentially putting their jobs at risk.

Gambling with vulnerable kids lives that are in abusive households.

Seems you’re happy to take those risks?

Not sure many kids die at the Easter holidays, summer holidays, etc.

There’s enough scientific data that quantifies the impact of education settings on R. I’d be absolutely delighted to see schools close for a period to get infections down.

[nomadking]

Never quite got the reasoning for "vulnerable" kids to continue attending school, compared to being at home outside of school hours and in normal school holiday times. What is meant to be the difference?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Never quite got the reasoning for "vulnerable" kids to continue attending school, compared to being at home outside of school hours and in normal school holiday times. What is meant to be the difference?

It’s essentially a ruse from right wing libertarian types that if you told them you wanted to raise income tax a fraction of a penny to fund increased after school, summer school, free school meals and social services would say no and wax lyrical about personal responsibility.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

And if you’re wrong you’ve lost children two weeks at school in a period that they’ve already lost too much.

If it's really that essential then let's be a bit creative - extend the term into the summer by a couple of weeks, reduce Easter holidays, etc.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that they don’t. They slow the process, that is all.

You’re right, I meant to put include ‘in a set period of time/infections per week’. Apologies for that!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it's really that essential then let's be a bit creative - extend the term into the summer by a couple of weeks, reduce Easter holidays, etc.

It’s not essential - the school year is based on an agricultural calendar. Other countries have significantly less days in their school year with no real evidence our education system is superior/inferior to them.

When we inevitably accept there will be no exams that saves weeks for the years those apply to.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's not about anyone being happy to take risks, it's about risk assessment and mitigation.

Well, close the schools and what I have put will happen, don’t close and what you list may happen.

They don’t know yet.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s essentially a ruse from right wing libertarian types that if you told them you wanted to raise income tax a fraction of a penny to fund increased after school, summer school, free school meals and social services would say no and wax lyrical about personal responsibility.

Glad we can add “Social Work” to your repertoire of skills.

There is plenty of information on why vulnerable children not being at school is a bad thing, not so much the other way round though?

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it's really that essential then let's be a bit creative - extend the term into the summer by a couple of weeks, reduce Easter holidays, etc.

That would work for, I absolutely would support that, good luck getting that past the unions though.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not essential

Definitely your “Opinion”. And you’re welcome to it, I thoroughly disagree.

When we inevitably accept there will be no exams that saves weeks for the years those apply to.

Both my kids are not at exam age, and missed out on a 3rd of their school year and it definitely impacted the youngest.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Glad we can add “Social Work” to your repertoire of skills.

There is plenty of information on why vulnerable children not being at school is a bad thing, not so much the other way round though?

Such as? And compared to school holidays?
In normal times, a major problem outside of school hours, is them actually mixing with other kids.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Such as? And compared to school holidays?
In normal times, a major problem outside of school hours, is them actually mixing with other kids.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...ost-vulnerable

And many many more, knock yourself out

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Maggy

However children can and do pass all infections out to the wider world when they leave the hallowed halls of education.They are very good at that.

But the vaccinations are protecting the vulnerable. That is the big picture. It takes quite a few weeks for these infections of the young to pass down through the generations. By which time, the vulnerable will be protected via their inoculations.

We have already discussed the benefit of the virus spreading through the healthy population. We need simply to be in a position where these two things converge to eliminate the impact of the virus.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...ost-vulnerable

And many many more, knock yourself out

So nothing in relation to before the first school shutdown of last year(2020)?
When was "vulnerable" only defined as being in a care home?
It's another case of trying to justify something, after the initial decision.
How are children who are less likely to be controllable, going to be able to behave in a safe manner?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

While the analysis is sound there’s other factors - there will be overlap between the “already infected” and vaccinated groups whether the former is as high as 20m or not If immunity starts to dwindle after a year (again this is only a guess) a significant proportion of the already infected from the first wave will lose immunity in the next 26 weeks. If the vast majority are getting a vaccine only proven to be 62% effective this pushes the “all done” date back further.

That’s one hell of an assumption, jfman! Where’s your evidence for such a wild statement? Your posts are more off the wall than before these days, and that’s saying something!

At present, nobody knows the lifespan of a Covid vaccination, but six months is pretty extreme, even for you.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Agreed, but that’s not "within weeks"...

Looking at the ONS numbers from late last month, they estimate

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...24december2020

Those figures seem low to me - is that just that week?

Re-reading it, yes, it is.

Statista puts the cumulative total at 2.3 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ses-in-the-uk/

I agree with where Pierre is coming from, but I think the problem is with knowing who the people who have had this infection without knowing it (or not reporting it) actually are.

I think we all need to appreciate that the emergency measures are designed to ensure that the hospitals are not overwhelmed. Once we have achieved that, the measures can be lifted. We are not looking at a total elimination of the virus.