My opinion: children are safer if they are attending school

[sjpowermac]

The one thing that I don’t think is fair is making staff on the ‘clinically vulnerable’ list return. I think numbers of pupils are likely to be low enough for schools to be able to accommodate them without the need for vulnerable staff to attend.

 

[Puffing Devil]

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.

And your evidence that deviating from your closely planned development trajectory will certainly cause your child problems is?

 

[Ianno87]

And your evidence that deviating from your closely planned development trajectory will certainly cause your child problems is?

Because the teachers wouldn't have done a plan and discussed it with us if it wasn't necessary. That being their job and expertise and what have you. He's more likely to have been fine in September by following the plan through rather than stopping half way.

I'm not prepared to treat his future as a gamble.

 

[507021]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Qwerty133]

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.

To suggest that we should be keeping children off school to prevent them getting a virus that will not effect the vast majority of them is absurd. The risk to children from the virus is, for the vast majority, lower than the risk of continued school closures preventing the detection of abuse and the lost opportunities.

 

[Esker-pades]

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.

What she actually said was that a plan should be put in place. As far as I can find, she has not said anything about the safety of staff (that's not her job), which is what the unions are concerned about. So, they're actually talking about slightly different issues.

Given the handling of the crisis by the government (especially the past week), there is little trust in large sections of the population. "Why should I trust the same government that oversaw the carnage in the care homes with the health of children under my care?"

The Children’s Commissioner accepts that there is no 100% safe option in the absence of a Covid-19 vaccine. Maintaining social distancing among very young children is clearly not feasible or practical, but in other countries where nurseries or primary schools have already reopened, we know that risks have been managed by:

• Staggering drop-off and pick-up times
• Regular handwashing and hand sanitising and not allowing children to bring in toys from home
• Keeping children in small groups of 4-6 with one teacher per group, and not interacting with children in other groups.
• Doing sessions outside where possible
• Not allowing parents to enter the building and social distancing of parents at school gates

This seems like a reasonable plan, but it raises questions.

• Given that class sizes tend to be ~25-30 (and more), these will need to be split into 5/6 groups (or more). Where will one get that additional space from?
• Where will one get the additional teachers from to staff each group (again, there tend to be 1 or 2 teachers per class, a class which has now been split in 6)?
• Will staffing even be at 100%? A percentage of teachers (like any other workforce) will be off either because they have COVID-19 symptoms, someone in their family does, or they are shielding a vulnerable person in a family, or count as vulnerable themselves. That means, at the time when we need a sudden and significant increase in the number staff, there will be fewer staff available.

Those questions probably do have answers, but until they are actually answered setting dates for re-opening schools to more pupils seems very premature.

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

Most people on the forum aren't epidemiologists or other scientists who have intimate knowledge with how pandemics work. The idea that because @Puffing Devil (or indeed anyone else) cannot come up with a plan means that your point is suddenly justified is not correct. The government has vast amounts of information and still managed to vomit out the current <expletive> show. So...what's the point of this comment?

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.

Most teachers are currently working.

Practially every teacher does want to get children back to school, but most of the ones I know have taken the view that it is not safe nor appropriate to do that now.

Of course, we both know that knowing many teachers does not mean that we have anything like a representative sample.

Finally, NAHT (National Association of Headteachers) carried out a survey of their members. They got over 7000 responses. Here are some key points:

We asked respondents what they considered to be pre-requisites before schools could re-open. The top five answers were as follows:

• A reasonable notice period (96%)
• Clarity on the number or proportion of pupils allowed in school at any one time (94%)
• Improved guidance on social distancing in schools (87%)
• Clearer guidance on supporting staff and pupils who live in households with high-risk individuals (81%)
• A clearer explanation of the scientific evidence underpinning the Government’s decision (in relation to both pupils and staff) (79%).

We asked respondents what percentage of staff are currently available to attend school.

• 48% said that 71% or more of staff were currently available to attend school
• 74% said 51% or more of their staff were currently available to attend school
• 25% said that less than 50% of their staff were currently available to attend school.

We asked why some staff were currently unable to attend, four main reasons were cited:

• Staff are in the at-risk category or living with someone in the at-risk (93%)
• Staff are shielding or living with someone who is shielding (77%)
• Staff have caring responsibilities due to Coronavirus (37%)
• Staff have been displaying Coronavirus symptoms (33%)

What are the unions actually saying? There is quite a lot of duplication in Union guidance and opinion. I have found 2 main themes.
1: Unions have provided a planning checklist for guidence on opening schools for more pupils.
2: Their response to the government essentially said that they didn't believe that the government plans were feasible. They questioned the rationale behind the year groups, they explained that schools would not be able to achieve staffing levels required (1 per the smaller groups, a point I identified earlier in response to the Children's Commissioner). Specifically re. @yorkie 's thing about a vaccine, NAHT said: "NAHT recognises that the response to covid-19 is highly likely to be a long-term one. We understand that any vaccine could take at least 18 months to develop and that there is no absolute guarantee one can be developed. We, therefore, recognise that some form of return to school for pupils and staff cannot realistically be put off indefinitely until a vaccine is discovered." Simply, they are not saying that children should not go back to school, they are saying that the current situation means that it is impossible to do so. Some of the assertions made on this thread about what the unions do/do not think are rubbish.


And the science?
Not enough to be conclusive (the science says that it doesn't yet know enough to know things). The 13th of May Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report is summaraised as this:

• Children may be less likely than adults to get infected with Covid-19
• The effect of Covid-19 is generally milder in children than in adults
• The role children play in spreading Covid-19 is not clear, but so far appears to be limited compared to adults

My emphases.


Sources:

Government and teaching unions should stop squabbling and agree a plan to get kids back into school | Children's Commissioner for England

Anne Longfield, Children’s Commissioner for England, is today (Saturday) intervening in the debate over whether some children should return to school on

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

We don’t need no education? | Children's Commissioner for England

The thorny issue of whether children should go back to school

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk

https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/cco-we-dont-need-no-education.pdf

ASCL - Coronavirus: essential information

ascl.org.uk

https://www.naht.org.uk/news-and-opinion/news/leadership-news/naht-coronavirus-survey-findings/

https://www.naht.org.uk/advice-and-support/coronavirus-news-and-guidance-for-school-leaders/advice-for-school-leaders-on-phased-returns/#an-response

Coronavirus Hub

NASUWT advice to schools on novel coronavirus, COVID-19, corona virus

www.nasuwt.org.uk

Coronavirus Hub

NASUWT advice to schools on novel coronavirus, COVID-19, corona virus

www.nasuwt.org.uk

NEU five tests for Government before schools can re-open

We outline our own five tests we think the Government must meet before moving to the further opening of schools.

neu.org.uk

 

[farleigh]

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!

Yes - that is exactly the sense I have.

 

[Bayum]

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

I never said children weren’t likely to get a more severe case of covid. You initially said the Swiss considered whether children can even become poorly from it. They can, and they do.

 

[Qwerty133]

I never said children weren’t likely to get a more severe case of covid. You initially said children don’t get poorly from it. They can, and they do.

Having the virus and getting poorly from it are 2 different things. It appears that the majority of children who get the virus do not have symptoms and therefore cannot be described as getting poorly from it, and even amongst the minority of children who do get symptoms for the vast majority it is no more severe than a common cold (and if schools closed for every common cold they would never be open).

 

[Bayum]

Having the virus and getting poorly from it are 2 different things. It appears that the majority of children who get the virus do not have symptoms and therefore cannot be described as getting poorly from it, and even amongst the minority of children who do get symptoms for the vast majority it is no more severe than a common cold (and if schools closed for every common cold they would never be open).

Did you actually read his initial comment? Relying on ‘evidence’ from the Swiss who question whether children can even get the virus, let alone pass it on.

 

[Qwerty133]

Did you actually read his initial comment? Relying on ‘evidence’ from the Swiss who question whether children can even get the virus, let alone pass it on.

People can and do get stabbed when out on their daily exercise and for some groups in certain areas the risk of being stabbed is considerably greater than the risk of dying from the virus. Just like we as a society don't tell such people to not go out to prevent them from being murdered we can't tell children not to go to school based on the theoretical possibility that a handful of children in the whole country may die.

 

[Bayum]

People can and do get stabbed when out on their daily exercise and for some groups in certain areas the risk of being stabbed is considerably greater than the risk of dying from the virus. Just like we as a society don't tell such people to not go out to prevent them from being murdered we can't tell children not to go to school based on the theoretical possibility that a handful of children in the whole country may die.

So now a completely different argument

 

[Bayum]

People can and do get stabbed when out on their daily exercise and for some groups in certain areas the risk of being stabbed is considerably greater than the risk of dying from the virus. Just like we as a society don't tell such people to not go out to prevent them from being murdered we can't tell children not to go to school based on the theoretical possibility that a handful of children in the whole country may die.

Until we know with antibody tests how prevalent the disease has been, we aren’t going to know how high that risk is. At the moment, we aren’t there.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Because the teachers wouldn't have done a plan and discussed it with us if it wasn't necessary. That being their job and expertise and what have you. He's more likely to have been fine in September by following the plan through rather than stopping half way.

I'm not prepared to treat his future as a gamble.

That is not evidence. You're relying on the advice of people with a vested interest in keeping your son in education. "More than likely" is not good enough. I would suggest that you are, in fact, taking a gamble as you do not know the conclusive odds.

 

[Ianno87]

So now a completely different argument

No it's not. Leaving the house every day involves accepting risks in doing so.

But now much of the population is not leaving the house (with significant impacts on their lives and futures) because of something which, to them individually, is a much much lower likelihood of causing them harm than many other day to day things and risks we generally accept without question.

Human beings are fantastically irrational at times.

 

[Esker-pades]

To add to my previous comment, the British Medical Association published a letter which agrees with the teacher's unions concerns.

Summary:

• Evidence is conflicting
  • A paper from Australia found little transmission
  • A paper from Germany (more recent) found children were just as likely to have mild/asymptomatic infection, and were just as infectious
• More evidence is required on the infectivity of children
• Case numbers should be lower before schools open
• That the BMA supports the NEU's (teching union) five tests before schools open more

Full text of letter from the BMA to NEU:

We have noted the launch of your campaign, and the publication of your five tests, and we stand in full support of you.

The BMA’s Public Health Committee (PHMC) has considered the evidence available on the re-opening of schools and has found it to be thus far conflicting, which is perhaps unsurprising given the relatively small amount of research available and the unchartered territory we find ourselves in. A paper from New South Wales found very little transmission associated with schools and suggested that children were much less susceptible to serious illness but were more likely to have asymptomatic infection. Conversely, a more recent paper from Berlin, looking at viral loads in children suggest they are just as likely to be infected as adults, and may be just as infectious.

We, therefore, need to know more about the infectivity of children, in light of these studies, however, the view of the members of the PHMC is completely aligned with the NEU that, until we have got case numbers much lower, we should not consider opening schools.

The NEU is absolutely right to urge caution, to prioritise testing and to protect the vulnerable. We cannot risk a second spike or take actions which would increase the spread of the virus, particularly as we see sustained rates of infection across the UK. In response to the government’s announcement this week on easing lockdown restrictions, I said that I believed their plan was too fast, too confusing and too risky. They would do well to heed your five tests before taking any further premature action.

My emphases.

Coronavirus: Doctors' union says it's too soon to reopen schools

British Medical Association says schools should not reopen until number of virus cases is lower.

www.bbc.co.uk

Note that in all countries cited where schools have gone back, the number of new cases and new deaths is lower.

 

[Ianno87]

That is not evidence. You're relying on the advice of people with a vested interest in keeping your son in education.

What, his own teachers invested in his education and success? How very dare they!

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it's not. Leaving the house every day involves accepting risks in doing so.

But now much of the population is not leaving the house (with significant impacts on their lives and futures) because of something which, to them individually, is a much much lower likelihood of causing them harm than many other day to day things and risks we generally accept without question.

Human beings are fantastically irrational at times.

You don't need to look any further than the fear of flying to prove that!

Indeed, this situation has a lot in common with that, it's caused by bad risk assessment - risk = severity x likelihood. With both cases, people forget to include "likelihood" and consider only the high severity. Yet they don't consider that when doing "daily" things like driving.

 

[Ianno87]

g a gamble as you do not know the conclusive odds.

I do know that:
-From actual evidence, his likelihood of contracting Covid and falling seriously ill from it is very low. Much lower than the risk involved with him crossing the road with me just now involved

-From the feedback with his teachers, his teaching plan was a key part of his learning development. Not now following it with structured learnng has a much higher likelihood of it negatively affecting his learning *and* thus having a long-lasting effect on him for years to come


On balance of probability vs impact, his loss of education is the bigger one. That's my judgement, from knowing his situation.

 

[sjpowermac]

I do know that:
-From actual evidence, his likelihood of contracting Covid and falling seriously ill from it is very low. Much lower than the risk involved with him crossing the road with me just now involved

-From the feedback with his teachers, his teaching plan was a key part of his learning development. Not now following it with structured learnng has a much higher likelihood of it negatively affecting his learning *and* thus having a long-lasting effect on him for years to come


On balance of probability vs impact, his loss of education is the bigger one. That's my judgement, from knowing his situation.

I can’t comment on your particular circumstances but what I do know is that secondary schools are working hard to alter their schemes of learning to accommodate Year 6 students who are not quite as ‘secondary ready’ as they would usually be.

I would be surprised if primary schools are not making similar adjustments.

 

[Ianno87]

I can’t comment on your particular circumstances but what I do know is that secondary schools are working hard to alter their schemes of learning to accommodate Year 6 students who are not quite as ‘secondary ready’ as they would usually be.

I would be surprised if primary schools are not making similar adjustments.

Whatever happens, I certainly don't envy Reception class teachers' jobs come September.... They'll have to push back some of the curriculum, almost certainly to all pupils' disbenefit.

 

[sjpowermac]

Whatever happens, I certainly don't envy Reception class teachers' jobs come September.... They'll have to push back some of the curriculum, almost certainly to all pupils' disbenefit.

Whilst I’m not totally without sympathy, if the worst thing that ever happens to a kid is that elements of the curriculum get pushed back a little, then I think the kid has been very fortunate indeed...

 

[Bayum]

I do know that:
-From actual evidence, his likelihood of contracting Covid and falling seriously ill from it is very low. Much lower than the risk involved with him crossing the road with me just now involved

-From the feedback with his teachers, his teaching plan was a key part of his learning development. Not now following it with structured learnng has a much higher likelihood of it negatively affecting his learning *and* thus having a long-lasting effect on him for years to come


On balance of probability vs impact, his loss of education is the bigger one. That's my judgement, from knowing his situation.

I can promise you, this will have very little impact on your child for the future. We have had children who have never attended nursery or any learning plans who have exceeded KS1 and KS2, some children who have moved a year ahead early. Yes, there will be some children who are impacted by this, but the very very small minority.

 

[Justin Smith]

I never said children weren’t likely to get a more severe case of covid. You initially said the Swiss considered whether children can even become poorly from it. They can, and they do.

I never said you did say children were likely to get a more severe case of Covid, if you mean more severe than most. The fact is Children almost always are either asymptomatic or get it very mildly, so much so the Swiss are unconvinced they get it at all. What is certain is the chance of a child dying from Covid, whilst not impossible (as far as we know), is vanishingly small and it should not influence, in any way, whether kids are allowed back to school.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The fact is Children almost always are either asymptomatic or get it very mildly

Your peer reviewed source of this fact is?

 

[Ianno87]

Your peer reviewed source of this fact is?

Literally just stated in the daily government briefing.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Literally just stated in the daily government briefing.

Not peer-reviewed, or even reliable. Wikipedia entries have been more trustworthy than the daily government briefing.

 

[Ianno87]

Not peer-reviewed, or even reliable. Wikipedia entries have been more trustworthy than the daily government briefing.

Has your statement in itself been peer-reviewed?

 

[Esker-pades]

I never said you did say children were likely to get a more severe case of Covid, if you mean more severe than most. The fact is Children almost always are either asymptomatic or get it very mildly, so much so the Swiss are unconvinced they get it at all. What is certain is the chance of a child dying from Covid, whilst not impossible (as far as we know), is vanishingly small and it should not influence, in any way, whether kids are allowed back to school.

Literally just stated in the daily government briefing.

See my comments about what the BMA (British Medical Association) and the Children's Commissioner have to say on the matter. I've pasted the appropriate bits down here. In essence, the science says that the evidence is conflicting, so we should ere on the side of caution.

Not enough to be conclusive (the science says that it doesn't yet know enough to know things). The 13th of May Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report is summaraised as this:

• Children may be less likely than adults to get infected with Covid-19
• The effect of Covid-19 is generally milder in children than in adults
• The role children play in spreading Covid-19 is not clear, but so far appears to be limited compared to adults

My emphases.

To add to my previous comment, the British Medical Association published a letter which agrees with the teacher's unions concerns.

Summary:

• Evidence is conflicting
  • A paper from Australia found little transmission
  • A paper from Germany (more recent) found children were just as likely to have mild/asymptomatic infection, and were just as infectious
• More evidence is required on the infectivity of children
• Case numbers should be lower before schools open
• That the BMA supports the NEU's (teching union) five tests before schools open more

 

[Puffing Devil]

Has your statement in itself been peer-reviewed?

Is that a serious question, or are you attempting to drop a dead cat?