My opinion: children are safer if they are attending school

[yorkie]

I saw this ludicrous comment and it made me angry:

Coronavirus: Nicola Sturgeon sets out options for easing lockdown

The moves could include a gradual reopening of schools and allowing people to spend more time outside.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ms Sturgeon said a return to school "might not be possible at all ahead of the summer holidays", and said "we will not compromise the safety of your children".

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.

At the current time the number of students in many secondary schools that I've got contacts at is around the 1% mark, which is unacceptably low.

We're in this for the long term; it could be 12-18 months before we get a vaccine. It really annoys me how some people think that children are safer at home than at school. Very few of the confirmed cases are for children (see https://assets.publishing.service.g...COVID19_Epidemiological_Summary_w18_FINAL.pdf page 2) and of those, the hospitalisation rate of the virus for children is incredibly low (and of those, the survival rate is extremely high).

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.

 

[Domh245]

If she'd phrased it differently, then she may have seemed reasonable but it just comes across as kneejerk. "we will not compromise the safety of families with children and vulnerable people" would be accurate and grounded in science, "we will not compromise the safety of your children" makes me wonder if she's been paying attention to what the science actually says.

 

[Huntergreed]

I must admit it can be a little demoralising living here in Scotland. On one hand Sturgeon seems significantly less optimistic and sounds like the action she intends to take will be more extreme than perhaps the rest of the UK, and on the other hand it seems she doesn’t really have a full understanding of the science behind it. My region has less than 5 in hospital and has had less than 10 new cases in the last week, yet she insists that we’re worse than the rest of the country, it’s hard to see the light at the tunnel that Westminster keep mentioning when it seems she’s trying to build a brick wall before we get there, trying to predict lockdown extensions ahead of Westminster and extinguish any hope that life will get easier this year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even on the background of the fact that I'd vote for the SNP if there was an English equivalent (not the BNP, obviously ) she seems to be constantly point-scoring by announcing stuff just before England does and needs to pack it in. Ideally all three countries would announce stuff at the same time - perhaps Bojo could do his bit on an "all UK" basis, then switch over to a "regional programme" for each country.

To her credit, so far she isn't doing what the Welsh are doing and point-scoring by being slightly stricter to no end.

 

[MDB1images]

Deleted

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I agree with them - get that mobile phone app fully working and in place, then start unlocking. It'd only be another week or two.

 

[farleigh]

I agree totally that children are safer - and certainly happier - in school. The sooner they return the better and I would prefer to avoid a phased return which will have questionable benefits for children, parents and staff. The risks presented by current lockdown measures to children and young people are - in my opinion - significant and will have a long term impact for many.

 

[Huntergreed]

I agree totally that children are safer - and certainly happier - in school. The sooner they return the better and I would prefer to avoid a phased return which will have questionable benefits for children, parents and staff. The risks presented by current lockdown measures to children and young people are - in my opinion - significant and will have a long term impact for many.

In Scotland, Sturgeon has confirmed that there’s no way they’ll be back as normal, it’ll be a phased return and it’s unlikely before August. I really do feel for the children who are losing out on an education and I fear that the government’s focus on suppressing the virus rather than sustaining the economy and getting children back will potentially jeopardise the prospects of the young generation.

 

[farci]

As citizens we're all entitled to our opinion but in a Tweet one month ago Prof Devi Shridar, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh wrote that a '...(relaxation) of Lockdown needs to be done with proper public health infrastructure in place, surveillance & appropriate guidance to public. Otherwise risk a second lockdown within weeks again. Little room to manoeuvre...'

The Telegraph, hardly a fan of 'Sturgeon' also seems to take a more nuanced view:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/06/end-when-uk-lockdown-exit-strategy-covid/

Follow the science?

 

[yorkie]

As citizens we're all entitled to our opinion but in a Tweet one month ago Prof Devi Shridar, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh wrote that a '...(relaxation) of Lockdown needs to be done with proper public health infrastructure in place, surveillance & appropriate guidance to public. Otherwise risk a second lockdown within weeks again. Little room to manoeuvre...'

The Telegraph, hardly a fan of 'Sturgeon' also seems to take a more nuanced view:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/06/end-when-uk-lockdown-exit-strategy-covid/

Follow the science?

Why are schools in other countries open then?

 

[scotrail158713]

she seems to be constantly point-scoring by announcing stuff just before England does and needs to pack it in

Definitely. She doesnae half go on about (translation: she keeps mentioning ) the fact they announced school closures slightly ahead of the rest of the UK when it was approximately 4-5hrs ahead.
Bringing pupils back may also bring much-needed economic benefits. I know that at the high school near me a good number of pupils buy their lunch from the high street. So if those places can safely open then they’ve got a chunk of revenue coming in.

 

[Huntergreed]

Definitely. She doesnae half go on about (translation: she keeps mentioning ) the fact they announced school closures slightly ahead of the rest of the UK when it was approximately 4-5hrs ahead.
Bringing pupils back may also bring much-needed economic benefits. I know that at the high school near me a good number of pupils buy their lunch from the high street. So if those places can safely open then they’ve got a chunk of revenue coming in.

I would be surprised if children are allowed off campus for break/lunch once schooling resumes, especially given that distancing can't be enforced, and school pupils (whilst I don't wish to generalise) aren't normally known for their perfect following of rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be surprised if children are allowed off campus for break/lunch once schooling resumes, especially given that distancing can't be enforced, and school pupils (whilst I don't wish to generalise) aren't normally known for their perfect following of rules.

This somewhat depends if they're "superspreaders" or not. If they're not (i.e. their IgM response can just knock it on the head straight away), it might basically be of no consequence if they do or not (and reopening schools may only pose a risk to the teachers' staffroom). We really could do with more research on that, and I don't doubt it's happening.

That some kids seem to get the "cytokine storm" phase without the rest of it is concerning, but the number is very low (I don't think it's even got into 3 figures yet) and I don't think it's yet proven that it even has anything to do with COVID.

 

[Belperpete]

This somewhat depends if they're "superspreaders" or not.

Agreed. The children may be safer, but what about everyone they come into contact with? The evidence suggests that children show very little symptoms, but what is not known is if they spread it to others. So if one child has the virus without symptoms, gives it to their teacher and half a dozen other children, who then pass it to their families, then this could cause the virus to spread rapidly.

 

[Belperpete]

Why are schools in other countries open then?

Generally, they are countries that have the virus under control, so it is highly unlikely that children will be bringing the virus into school. In the end, it is all one big experiment, and some countries are trying it out and seeing what happens. No doubt our experts are looking closely at what happens.

 

[Domh245]

but what is not known is if they spread it to others.

Apart from... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ing-coronavirus-adult-exists-evidence-review/

No child has been found to have passed coronavirus to an adult, a review of evidence in partnership with the Royal College of Paediatricians has found.

Major studies into the impact of Covid-19 on young children show it is likely that they "do not play a significant role" in spreading the virus and are significantly less likely to become infected than adults.

While experts have said more evidence is needed, they note that there has not been a single case of a child under 10 transmitting the virus even in contact tracing carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The development comes after public health officials in Switzerland announced that under-10s can hug their grandparents again because they pose no risk to them.

A review in partnership with the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health (RCPCH), found that the evidence "consistently demonstrates reduced infection and infectivity of children in the transmission chain".

Led by Dr Alasdair Munro, a clinical research fellow in paediatric infectious diseases, the study's research concluded: "Covid-19 appears to affect children less often, and with less severity, including frequent asymptomatic or sub-clinical infection. There is evidence of critical illness, but it is rare. The role of children in transmission is unclear, but it seems likely they do not play a significant role."

The review, by the Don't Forget the Bubbles paediatric research project, added: "Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult."

Among the evidence is a study of a nine-year-old British boy who contracted coronavirus in a French Alps but did not pass it on despite having contact with more than 170 people at three schools.

The boy, among the cases linked to Steve Walsh, the first Briton to test positive, also had influenza and a common cold which he passed to both of his siblings – but neither picked up Covid-19.

Kostas Danis, an epidemiologist at Public Health France who carried out that study, said the fact that children develop a milder form may explain why they do not transmit the virus.

He said that while it was possible children could infect others, there has not been a case to date and there is "no evidence that closing schools is an effective measure".

Further evidence from China showed that, when families had contracted the virus, children were "unlikely to be the index case".

Professor Russell Viner, the president of the RCPCH, said: "From around the world, we are not seeing evidence that children are involved in spreading or transmitting the virus, but we do not have enough evidence."

Prof Viner added that it was too soon to say children could hug their grandparents, particularly as the over-70s are the most vulnerable.

 

[Belperpete]

I would be surprised if children are allowed off campus for break/lunch once schooling resumes, especially given that distancing can't be enforced, and school pupils (whilst I don't wish to generalise) aren't normally known for their perfect following of rules.

Schools are "in loco parentis", not just while the children are at school, but also at lunch breaks and on their way to and from school.

 

[bramling]

Agreed. The children may be safer, but what about everyone they come into contact with? The evidence suggests that children show very little symptoms, but what is not known is if they spread it to others. So if one child has the virus without symptoms, gives it to their teacher and half a dozen other children, who then pass it to their families, then this could cause the virus to spread rapidly.

Yes to me this is the problem, it wasn’t really ever about the risk to children, but the risk to others, and in particular teachers.

I think it’s a very worthwhile objective to wish to get children back as soon as possible, but do we know enough yet?

 

[Belperpete]

Apart from... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ing-coronavirus-adult-exists-evidence-review/

Which is why it is right to concentrate first on re-opening primary and infant schools.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That 9 year old was having a bad time of things, wasn't he? A cold, the flu and COVID all at once!

You'd think that might kill him...except it didn't. It's thoroughly intriguing.

 

[Harvey B]

Agreed. The children may be safer, but what about everyone they come into contact with? The evidence suggests that children show very little symptoms, but what is not known is if they spread it to others. So if one child has the virus without symptoms, gives it to their teacher and half a dozen other children, who then pass it to their families, then this could cause the virus to spread rapidly.

x2

 

[cuccir]

There is a practical difference in Scotland, of course, which is the mid-June end of term. If we all agreed here and now that teaching should resume, realistically there'd need to be a week's prep so that schools can comply with whatever forms of social distancing that they'd need, so that's 18th May as an earliest practical return date. That leaves just 5 teaching weeks in Scotland, and I think even those who want to get things going again would see the 18th May as the asbolute earliest now possilbe, with the 25th May or 1st June more likely. At this point, many of the benefits of getting kids back to school drop off, meaning that the spend in terms of cash, effort and risk becomes less justifitable, if we're talking just 3 teaching weeks.

By contrast, if England and Wales come back after May half-term (which does not exist in Scotland I think?) then there'd be 7 teaching weeks, which is much more substantial time, and a much more realsitic timeframe for when would be safe to return than within the next week or so.

--
FWIW, I think start of June feels about right to me. Most other countries, where they have started sending children back to school, have done so where the deaths are lower than they currently are in England and Wales, and the half-term holidays create a natural point from which teachign can be resumed.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes to me this is the problem, it wasn’t really ever about the risk to children, but the risk to others, and in particular teachers.

I think it’s a very worthwhile objective to wish to get children back as soon as possible, but do we know enough yet?

I would accept essentially self-isolating my kids at home the rest of the time so they could resume some education now. Even if it was only one day a week attendance to keep daily attendance low (for the best attempt at social distancing as is possible with toddlers at least), it is better than carrying on with nothing.

Teachers may also have to be expected to essentially otherwise self-isolate too to resume work.

 

[cuccir]

Teachers may also have to be expected to essentially otherwise self-isolate too to resume work.

I don't think that's a realistic (or legal!) demand that can be made of anyone to do their job.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think that's a realistic (or legal!) demand that can be made of anyone to do their job.

Teachers are currently already working for children of key workers. No one is suggesting that is illegal. This wouldn't change that.

In all seriousness, I'd expect any further return to teaching work being required to be at the staff member's own discretion. Some may genuinely want to return.

 

[yorkie]

@Harvey B @Belperpete are you saying you don't want children in school until a vaccine is available?

Teachers are currently already working for children of key workers. No one is suggesting that is illegal. This wouldn't change that.

In all seriousness, I'd expect any further return to teaching work being required to be at the staff member's own discretion. Some may genuinely want to return.

My understanding in York is that at present teachers are volunteering to go in to work (and I know of schools that have many many more volunteers to work than students in school!), generally on a rota basis, however once schools return, staff will be expected to go to work (unless there is a good reason why not e.g. if they are in an at risk group).

That said, if the numbers of students aren't huge then some schools may continue with the voluntary system.

 

[Scotrail12]

My mother is a primary school teacher and they are on a rota to take care of the kids who have essential worker parents, I believe that she is needed about once per month (she's part time FWIW). I believe that they've combined all of the schools in the town and have a reasonable number of kids from each.

I agree with the original post.

I was worried in March about everyone demanding that schools be closed immediately. My biggest worry is for kids in abusive households whose only escape is school, of which there are many. Plus, kids cannot feasibly be kept indoors for months on end. I hope that Spain & Italy get investigated for this, other forum members are totally right that it was child abuse and IMO, very unusually harsh for the western world.

In addition, how are they supposed to be educated if their parents are working from home? How many parents can actually teach at all? It's easy for armchair experts to demand that schools must be closed and society must be shut down but I wonder how many are parents or have at least considered the impacts.

Sturgeon just talks a lot of rubbish. I wouldn't trust her to run a bath and she's the sole reason I do not back independence as I have 0 trust in her as a leader.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sturgeon just talks a lot of rubbish. I wouldn't trust her to run a bath and she's the sole reason I do not back independence as I have 0 trust in her as a leader.

I don't wholly agree with you on that (though I do believe, as I said elsewhere, that she's point-scoring over COVID and needs to pack that in) however I would certainly say a single-party state, which is near enough what it would be, is more than a little concerning as a thing. A stronger Scottish Labour/Lib Dems might help, I suppose (won't ever be the Tories up there )

 

[Llanigraham]

Well it appears that the advisory scientists in Wales feel that it would be inappropriate for schools in Wales to reopen before the 1st of June, as announced by the Welsh Education Minister today. And I am very happy that we are following their expert advice!

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon just talks a lot of rubbish. I wouldn't trust her to run a bath and she's the sole reason I do not back independence as I have 0 trust in her as a leader.

I must admit, I did have faith in her at the start of this crisis, but as the days go on she seems to simply want to prove a point at the risk of the mental health and livelihood of everyone in Scotland and the economy. My region has literally had less than 15 new cases in the last two weeks, 4 deaths in the last week, less than 5 in hospital, yet she insists that she wants to keep us locked down longer because our 'R' number is higher. I can appreciate that being the case in the cities, however I'm confident that our region has one of the lowest R numbers in the UK and I, along with hundreds of others I imagine, will be very annoyed if I'm under tighter restrictions with a lower R number than places where restrictions have eased just to allow her to make her point.