My opinion: children are safer if they are attending school

[Puffing Devil]

The BMA are a Union that don't have the best interests of children at heart.

The Children's Commissioner takes a different view. I trust her over any Union.

I'm struggling to see how the interests of children will be best served by having their teachers, parents and extended family exposed to a fatal virus?

Looking back at your initial post in this thread

Keeping children away from school is actually far more damaging for them.

The safest place for the vast majority of children is in school.

While some children are not affected by the lockdown, many are really struggling. As well as having an impact on mental health and development, some children are at greater risk of abuse.

But the damage being done to huge numbers of children is immense.

It's time to end this madness and get children back into school.

Can you cite specific impacts with empirical data for any of your assertions? I'm seeing strong opinions, but no evidence. The BMA and the Teaching Unions refer to the known transmission risks and the mortality rate of the virus.

 

[yorkie]

How would you propose preventing exposure to the virus? Keep everyone inside until a vaccine is widely available?

 

[Belperpete]

The BMA are a Union that don't have the best interests of children at heart.

The Children's Commissioner takes a different view. I trust her over any Union.

You prefer to trust a political appointee over those whose duty is to protect the safety and well-being of their members?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you propose preventing exposure to the virus? Keep everyone inside until a vaccine is widely available?

If we knew one would be available within a month or two, I'd say yes.

However we don't. There may never be one.

 

[Bayum]

That was not my understanding. Do you have evidence?

I do.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...scovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020

 

[Bayum]

You prefer to trust a political appointee over those whose duty is to protect the safety and well-being of their members?

Exactly
Even Lord Blunkett is a Tory in disguise

 

[Ianno87]

You prefer to trust a political appointee over those whose duty is to protect the safety and well-being of their members?

Who else is going to stand up for the needs of children, both short term and long term, in all of this?

 

[Bayum]

Who else is going to stand up for the needs of children, both short term and long term, in all of this?

That isn’t the argument here. Teachers are more than capable of arguing for the needs of children. We do this every single day. Ya know. Funding in schools for more teachers. For buildings that are falling to pieces. For the technology needed to continue to progress children. Children who are desperate for EHCPs or SEN input not getting it because there isn’t enough money. The longitudinal studies we do on every single child to ensure their progress from start to finish is as high as it can be.
You just don’t like it when we argue opposite to what you want.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...scovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020

Interesting, thanks. That wasn't my previous understanding.

So it seems that almost all children are asymptomatic, then.

 

[Belperpete]

How would you propose preventing exposure to the virus? Keep everyone inside until a vaccine is widely available?

We cannot wait for a vaccine, but we should wait until the virus has been contained, like it has been in other countries, with numbers properly reduced and track and trace in place. We are not there yet, so I agree with my government that has decided not to re-open schools until the autumn term. Putting in place a lot of measures to cater for just a small proportion of the school population for a few weeks is not worth the time, expense or risk.

 

[Bayum]

Interesting, thanks. That wasn't my previous understanding.

So it seems that almost all children are asymptomatic, then.

Well. It wouldn’t be. But the vast majority of the public won’t know it either because that’s not what the right wing press want them to know.

 

[Ianno87]

That isn’t the argument here. Teachers are more than capable of arguing for the needs of children. We do this every single day. You just don’t like it when we argue opposite to what you want.

No, I just don't like it when people don't argue rationally or objectively.

Every day in normal times, we accept the (small) risk of our kids dying as a result of the journey to or from school.

I find it difficult to accept that, particularly with the right mitigation in place in schools (whatever that constitutes), that the risk from Covid comes even close to the probability of risk we already accept with sending kids to school.

Young kids *need* to learn normal social and relationship skils with others to function in society the rest of their lives. That is not optional.

 

[Belperpete]

Interesting, thanks. That wasn't my previous understanding.

So it seems that almost all children are asymptomatic, then.

The theory that I heard is that while children catch the virus, with young children (under the age of 10), it cannot latch on to their cell receptors as well as it can it adults, so they suffer few symptoms. Whether they are transmitters or not is another matter. Intuition says that someone who has few symptoms is unlikely to be a heavy transmitter, but cases like Typhoid Mary suggest otherwise.

 

[Bayum]

No, I just don't like it when people don't argue rationally or objectively.

Every day in normal times, we accept the (small) risk of our kids dying as a result of the journey to or from school.

I find it difficult to accept that, particularly with the right mitigation in place in schools (whatever that constitutes), that the risk from Covid comes even close to the probability of risk we already accept with sending kids to school.

Young kids *need* to learn normal social and relationship skils with others to function in society the rest of their lives. That is not optional.

The vast majority of children will develop these without being in school. Children who have not been to nursery are able to socialise and develop good relationships with others from the day they walk into mainstream education.

 

[Bayum]

The theory that I heard is that while children catch the virus, with young children (under the age of 10), it cannot latch on to their cell receptors as well as it can it adults, so they suffer few symptoms. Whether they are transmitters or not is another matter. Intuition says that someone who has few symptoms is unlikely to be a heavy transmitter, but cases like Typhoid Mary suggest otherwise.

 

[Bayum]

No, I just don't like it when people don't argue rationally or objectively.

Every day in normal times, we accept the (small) risk of our kids dying as a result of the journey to or from school.

I find it difficult to accept that, particularly with the right mitigation in place in schools (whatever that constitutes), that the risk from Covid comes even close to the probability of risk we already accept with sending kids to school.

Young kids *need* to learn normal social and relationship skils with others to function in society the rest of their lives. That is not optional.

So everything I’ve posted so far has been irrational and with no objective?

 

[Belperpete]

The thing you're missing there is the numbers, which are tiny.

I can get the argument for "let's leave it to September so we have more time to plan" - but that isn't the argument I'm seeing from the "antis", what I'm seeing is mostly "we can never lift the lockdown".

I am not seeing anybody saying that we should never lift the lockdown, that is patently absurd and is just something being put about by those who are desperate to release lockdown and to hell with the consequences.

 

[Ianno87]

The vast majority of children will develop these without being in school. Children who have not been to nursery are able to socialise and develop good relationships with others from the day they walk into mainstream education.

How? If their only day to day interaction for months on end is with two parents (for an only child), they can't learn about sharing and teamwork, for example.

Remember, currently the only daily interaction kids are *allowed* to have is with their own immediate family. Not sustainable.

 

[Bayum]

How? If their only day to day interaction for months on end is with two parents (for an only child), they can't learn about sharing and teamwork, for example.

Remember, currently the only daily interaction kids are *allowed* to have is with their own immediate family. Not sustainable.

Of course they can? Are you seriously envisaging a society of children that until the day they start school are unable to share or work collaboratively?

 

[Ianno87]

Of course they can? Are you seriously envisaging a society of children that until the day they start school are unable to share or work collaboratively?

Some might. Some might not. School helps bring everybody to a level playing field.

I have a (now grown up) friend who was an only child and took several years of school before he really learned to share, work with others, etc.

 

[Justin Smith]

False. Children are known to become poorly with covid. ONS data also shows that positive tests in children were extremely similar to other age groups. We are also seeing previously healthy children becoming poorly with Kawasaki-like syndrome due to covid, severe enough to end up in hospital.

New Scientist article on the fact kids are statistically VERY unlikely to get Covid seriously and even less likely to die. At a guess I'd say they're probably more likely to die from falling down the stairs, not that I minimise that risk, I'm constantly telling my lad to be careful on the stairs. Kids are DEFINITEY far more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid, yet parents are quite comfortable about driving their kids here there and everywhere, and often speeding whilst doing so.....

BBC News article on the Swiss who say kids cannot even get Covid or pass it on. Whether they are correct or not is not really the point, the fact the Swiss even feel able to say it proves the risk must be exceptionally low, so low that it is statistically unreliable in fact.

Whatever the exact statistics, kids are so unlikely to die from Covid that parents should not worry about it, or if they are so risk averse they would worry about it they should never take their kids in a car anywhere or even let them anywhere near a road. FACT

 

[Justin Smith]

Teachers and children have been told in the guidance they should return to work/school, even if there are clinically vulnerable individuals shielding at home.

It is quite ridiculous that we cannot get our kids educated, nor, apparently, any dental treatment, when most of the population has little to fear from this virus. What they should be saying is teachers, or dentists, from higher risk groups should not be working, not everyone should not be working, it's unsustainable, a dead end in policy terms in fact.



Note that kids are at such low risk they aren't even on the graph.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whatever the exact statistics, kids are so unlikely to die from Covid that parents should not worry about it, or if they are so risk averse they would worry about it they should never take their kids in a car anywhere or even let them anywhere near a road. FACT

Or best get their bike on Ebay, as they best hadn't ride that if zero-risk is desired...kids get banged up from riding bikes all the time, even when they wear a helmet, sometimes very seriously, sometimes it kills them.

 

[farleigh]

Maybe within the profession but many outside of it already see teachers as militant work avoiders. I don't think many quite realise how many parents wouldn't care if many of the current lot of teachers were replaced with unqualified people who actually seemed to care about the children rather than people who they see as just interested in collecting their paycheque and having long holidays.

I feel sorry for those type of people. How unfortunate that they are happy for their children to be taught by 'unqualified people'. Perhaps they don't really care about their children's education?? Takes all sorts I guess

 

[Puffing Devil]

It is quite ridiculous that we cannot get our kids educated, nor, apparently, any dental treatment, when most of the population has little to fear from this virus. What they should be saying is teachers, or dentists, from higher risk groups should not be working, not everyone should not be working, it's unsustainable, a dead end in policy terms in fact.

Note that kids are at such low risk they aren't even on the graph.....

My concern is not primarily for the health of the children, it's for the those that they contact and pass the virus to. That's why teachers are reluctant to return to work.

Our focus now should be on containing the virus. Once it is contained we can look to restore contact with a strict track and trace framework in place.

Keeping children out of school for a term and a half is not going to damage their overall education, nor their social development.

 

[sjpowermac]

Storm in a teacup: some of the biggest academy chains announced yesterday that they are going to defy the unions and you can bet the government will be four square behind them.

Gavin Williamson warns schools must reopen or children will suffer

The country’s biggest primary school chains are preparing to defy teaching unions and reopen to pupils at the start of next month.Ministers are planning for children in reception and Years 1 and 6 to return to their classrooms from June 1. Unions oppose the plan, claiming that teachers, pupils and t

www.thetimes.co.uk

As to whether it’s safe or not, who knows? I’m certainly not an epidemiologist or indeed any kind of a doctor, but the government want schools open and open they will...

 

[Justin Smith]

New Scientist article on the fact kids are statistically VERY unlikely to get Covid seriously and even less likely to die. At a guess I'd say they're probably more likely to die from falling down the stairs, not that I minimise that risk, I'm constantly telling my lad to be careful on the stairs. Kids are DEFINITEY far more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid, yet parents are quite comfortable about driving their kids here there and everywhere, and often speeding whilst doing so.....

BBC News article on the Swiss who say kids cannot even get Covid or pass it on. Whether they are correct or not is not really the point, the fact the Swiss even feel able to say it proves the risk must be exceptionally low, so low that it is statistically unreliable in fact.

Whatever the exact statistics, kids are so unlikely to die from Covid that parents should not worry about it, or if they are so risk averse they would worry about it they should never take their kids in a car anywhere or even let them anywhere near a road. FACT

Bearing the above in mind, the advice below, from the NHS website, is MASSIVELY overstating the risk to children, and not helping this country getting back to normal. What that should say is children are thought to get Covid, but it's exceptionally rare for it to be serious. Worse they're unnecessarily worrying millions of parents. It's irresponsible, they should be ashamed of themselves.

"Children can get coronavirus (COVID-19), but they seem to get it less often than adults and it's usually less serious".

You might as well say people will not always get home alive when they set out on any journey, it's factually true, but unnecessarily worrying, to the extent nobody should listen to it. Actually I take that back, cars are dangerous, statistically about 1 in 200 of us will die in a car accident, which is about the same as our overall risk form Coronavirus. But that overall risk includes the higher risk groups which, it is universally accepted, should isolate themselves. So, if you take them out of the equation, the risk of dying in a car accident is far higher than the risk of dying from Covid 19, but they don't ban cars do they ? In fact they pander to the petrol heads and restrict the use of speed cameras !

 

[farleigh]

Most teachers I know are keen to get schools running and get back to work.

The unions have not consulted at all as far as I am aware and if so their views are unlikely to be representative of their members.

 

[Ianno87]

Keeping children out of school for a term and a half is not going to damage their overall education, nor their social development.

Not correct. My 3 year old has spent his entire nursery year on a carefully planned trajectory by his nursery teachers from 'never been in education' to 'school ready', that has been interrupted half way.

His settling into school is now going to be much, much harder as a result.

 

[sjpowermac]

Most teachers I know are keen to get schools running and get back to work.

The unions have not consulted at all as far as I am aware and if so their views are unlikely to be representative of their members.

I work in a secondary school and we are opening (in a fairly limited way) to Year 10 from 1st June. The only complaints from some teachers have been that their subject hasn’t been allocated enough time!