Coronavirus

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

Ok, here’s an independent one from UNICEF, produced way back in April within weeks of the first lockdown, that references tens of pre-COVID assessments and reports.

https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content...Assessment.pdf


Like I say, knock yourself out.

If you’re trying to somehow spin it, that there is no detrimental impact to children or that it is being spun by government into something bigger than it’s not.

Focus your efforts elsewhere.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Helpful if you read what’s said, Old Boy rather than dive head first in. I know, reading what’s said eh? Why bother when you can keep pushing your discredited theories around letting the virus go and protecting the vulnerable.

Nowhere did I refer to the vaccine lasting that long. I was referring to those infected in the first wave. I clearly stated that in my post. That’s accepted to be the period to June 2020. 26 weeks from now is one year from then.

It’s literally in the sentence before you applied bold to my text.

I prefer you clutching at straws and posting discredited nonsense to misrepresenting my posts. Thanks.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

One of the most enlightening aspects of this pandemic has been finding out just how many people on the internet are expert virologists who have also somehow found time to gain expertise in public health policy. Truly our nation is blessed to be so highly skilled.

On both sides of the argument, I would add...

By the way, this is a discussion forum, not a centre of expertise.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Plus it might go away by itself in the summer

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Your shield-the-vulnerable-only scenario was tackled and founding wanting last year.

Really? By whom? The usual suspects who disagree with anything positive?

I’m underwhelmed!

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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

Typical comment from you, mate. Maximum disruption on the back of minimal evidence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

You do realise there are over 17 million British defined as ‘vulnerable’ under the COVID vaccine priority list definitions? (I only included up to Group 6 in the attached chart).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...st-covid-when/



That’s going to take more than "a few weeks", even at a million doses per week (which we are nowhere near yet)..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Really? By whom? The usual suspects who disagree with anything positive?

I’m underwhelmed!

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------



Typical comment from you, mate. Maximum disruption on the back of minimal evidence.

Risk assessment is about being realistic, not "positive" - "hope" should never be part of a plan.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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 ----------



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

Happily.

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?

Not enough until it became a method of pushing herd immunity by the back door, sadly.

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

If we can find £22bn for test and trace I’m sure we could find some overtime pay for teachers.

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

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

Opening schools full time without exception leaves many areas stuck in Level 3 or 4 lockdown restrictions with no way back out and hundreds of thousands of children isolating on any given day anyway, missing weeks of the school year. It’s not a zero sum game.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

Well, the big question of course, is where do you find evidence that closing primary schools will help the situation? There is none, is the simple answer. You are in panic mode, my friend. We need to study the evidence rather more carefully than jumping to such conclusions.

Balance your solution with the problems we are aware of, such as denying young children the education they need at a crucial time in their lives, and how their parents will look after them if both are working full time. Is that not worthy of consideration too?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

On both sides of the argument, I would add...

By the way, this is a discussion forum, not a centre of expertise.

Difference being some people are quoting experts and evidence in support of their propositions, others are not...

nb, the only ‘positive" the virus cares about is "COVID positive" - it doesn’t care about anyone’s "positive attitude", and a positive attitude won’t stop anyone being infected.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Really? By whom? The usual suspects who disagree with anything positive?

I’m underwhelmed!

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------



Typical comment from you, mate. Maximum disruption on the back of minimal evidence.

Don’t talk rubbish Old Boy. ONS data shows (linked by PIP) school age children as most likely to have the virus.

Now they are either catching it from their parents going to non-essential retail or schools are driving transmission. This is also the SAGE position that closing schools drives down R.

I know throughout this pandemic you have consistently been proven wrong, clinging onto false dawn after false dawn. Thankfully, our politicians, despite being somewhat incompetent and ignoring the data haven’t gone full ostrich like you Old Boy and do, often belatedly, accept what is staring them in the face. Something you haven’t yet done and not something I truly expect now.

If the vaccine doesn’t give you hope and offer realisation that there’s an end in sight without sacrificing tens of thousands of lives nothing will.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, the big question of course, is where do you find evidence that closing primary schools will help the situation? There is none, is the simple answer. You are in panic mode, my friend. We need to study the evidence rather more carefully than jumping to such conclusions.

Balance your solution with the problems we are aware of, such as denying young children the education they need at a crucial time in their lives, and how their parents will look after them if both are working full time. Is that not worthy of consideration too?

This simply can only be trolling. Honestly, cases increase in the school age population, in lockdown (Tier 4), but it’s not schools.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Or at any time, for that matter.

You just want to see chaos and disruption. I’m wondering if you are one of these ‘say it loud and say it proud’ anarchists. That would explain some of your outrageous views on this forum.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ok, here’s an independent one from UNICEF, produced way back in April within weeks of the first lockdown, that references tens of pre-COVID assessments and reports.

https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content...Assessment.pdf


Like I say, knock yourself out.

If you’re trying to somehow spin it, that there is no detrimental impact to children or that it is being spun by government into something bigger than it’s not.

Focus your efforts elsewhere.

So still nothing in relation to "vulnerable" children, and whatever the definition of "vulnerable" is meant to be.

None of the UK education departments are currently publishing figures on attendance, but reports suggest
that as few as 10% of vulnerable children allocated a school place during closures are actually attending
school in some parts of the UK.

Link from your linked report

"But I think there are a number of risks and I fear that children are being exposed to the potential for familial abuse within the household, being exposed to domestic abuse again in the household and we have seen a significant increase in reports of domestic abuse nationally."

How is that any different from outside of school hours? The first closure was not long before the Easter holidays.
Very little of that document referred to closure of schools, and most of what it did mention, was related to ALL children(eg no exams).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Helpful if you read what’s said, Old Boy rather than dive head first in. I know, reading what’s said eh? Why bother when you can keep pushing your discredited theories around letting the virus go and protecting the vulnerable.

Nowhere did I refer to the vaccine lasting that long. I was referring to those infected in the first wave. I clearly stated that in my post. That’s accepted to be the period to June 2020. 26 weeks from now is one year from then.

It’s literally in the sentence before you applied bold to my text.

I prefer you clutching at straws and posting discredited nonsense to misrepresenting my posts. Thanks.

Your statement is still not supported by facts, no matter how you want to spin it.

26 weeks immunity? You are having a laugh!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Or at any time, for that matter.

You just want to see chaos and disruption. I’m wondering if you are one of these ‘say it loud and say it proud’ anarchists. That would explain some of your outrageous views on this forum.

Somewhat ironically it’s your “open the schools at all costs” mantra here that closes everything else to keep R under control. Hugely damaging what little of the economy remained in Tier 3 restrictions and giving them absolutely no hope of Tier 2.

I’d like schools to be included in restrictions so those parents still have jobs to go to.