Should younger children be required to socially distance?

[yorkie]

I completely and very strongly agree with this:

My honest opinion in all of this is that they need to forget about social distancing for the younger children. Older juniors and adults in the school setting yes, younger ones no. Nurseries aren’t socially distancing with the kids at the moment and nothing much is Happening because of it. My middle son is 5 and this is the longest him and his best friend have ever been apart in 4 years - in fact she said tonight the first thing she’s going to do when she sees him is hug him. I thought I’d be dancing from the rooftops at the thought of him going back (although his 8 year old brother isn’t just yet) but I’m not. I feel sick. My partner has been working throughout all of this (non keyworker role...online retail and as they’re open it was never an option or a thought for him to stay off). The country has got to get going, I need to see my mum. I’m a socially challenged person who spends a lot of time on my own (all my time in fact since my best friend passed away last year) but that’s my choice, it’s that Choice that’s been taken away. We need to strike a happy medium between normality and the virus.

While it is not proven that younger children cannot pass on the virus, there are no recorded cases of a child under 10 transmitting the disease to an adult, so even if it is possible, the risks of this appear to be miniscule.

But the damage caused to young children by attempting to force them into engaging in social distancing needs to be considered.

I do feel that, in attempting to mitigate against small risks, we are in danger of causing much bigger problems in society, and this is just one example of that. We need to be pragmatic, consider the big picture and strike a balance.

Children unlikely to transmit coronavirus, says study cited in PM's push to reopen schools

NSW report held up as Morrison government seeks return to classrooms across Australia despite warnings from teacher unions

www.theguardian.com

A new report, cited by the chief medical officer as the federal government advocates the reopening of schools, says children are unlikely to transmit Covid-19 between each other or to adults.

The study by NSW Health’s Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), released on Sunday, examined transmission of the virus in NSW schools and childcare centres between March and mid-April.

Coronavirus: No child known to have passed COVID-19 to adults, global study finds

The review found children have much less severe symptoms and often do not have any at all.

news.sky.com

No child is known to have passed COVID-19 on to an adult, a review of evidence from around the world has found.

The review into paediatric coronavirus studies found it is likely children "do not play a significant role" in transmitting the coronavirus and are significantly less likely to become infected than adults.

It also found there has not been a single case of a child under 10 transmitting COVID-19, even through contact tracing carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Coronavirus: Swiss children under 10 allowed to hug grandparents as they 'do not transmit COVID-19'

The country's coronavirus lead says scientists "now know young children don't transmit the virus".

news.sky.com

Children under the age of 10 in Switzerland have been told they can now hug their grandparents as the country begins to ease coronavirus lockdown measures.

The country has revised its initial COVID-19 advice to stay apart after Daniel Koch, head of the Swiss infectious diseases unit, said scientists "now know young children don't transmit the virus".

He said many grandparents "live to see their grandchildren, it's important for their wellbeing".

 

[nidave]

It's impossible for kids to socially distance anyway, how could you stop them? By putting them all in a plastic bubble?

 

[Huntergreed]

Absolutely not. Kids we’re somewhat sure don’t spread the virus, and it would be almost physically impossible to enforce social distancing for young children. I’m aware the public view differs in that if anyone comes within 2m of anyone else for even a fraction of a second they may as well drop dead there and then, but sooner or later we need to realise that a balance must be found and, in my opinion, there is little to no benefit to encourage or enforce social distancing for young children. Worse even still, if we teach our young children to socially distanced and discipline them for not doing so, this will teach them thay this is the norm and it’ll prevent them from developing social skills properly, some of them for a very long time, which would be very damaging.

 

[scotrail158713]

It's impossible for kids to socially distance anyway, how could you stop them? By putting them all in a plastic bubble?

Have you ever seen the big plastic bubbles used to play bubble football? We could get them to resume normal life with them.

These things

 

[BJames]

My friend working at a primary school has said that social distancing is already impossible, some of the kids they have coming in at the moment have learning disabilities and cannot understand why they should social distance, so they don't. You can't tell them otherwise either, they're not old enough to understand and not seeing why they should means that they decide not to. Forcing them apart by other means, not sure how, could create the kind of damaging effects mentioned above that could impact their social skills for many years to come.

So no, I don't think young children should be required to socially distance.

 

[yorkie]

Some parents refuse to send their child to school until there is a vaccine:

Class size of 15 pupils when primary schools return

Primary year groups in England could all have a month at school before summer, in latest Covid-19 plans.

www.bbc.co.uk

Gurmeet Bhachu added: "No, my child is not going back to school until it is absolutely safe for them and teachers."

Suzanne Mattinson said she would not send her child back to school until there was a vaccine,

"If my hand is forced, I'll remove him formally and home school."

This is not in the interests of the children; we could be looking at 12-18 months before a vaccine is widely available.

I believe these parents have lost sight of the bigger picture.

I've linked to this article before but this part is very relevant here:

Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?

Ministers are looking at how to ease the lockdown. How cautious should they be?

www.bbc.co.uk

For children, as you can see on the graph, the risk from the virus is so small that you might be better off worrying about other things. After the first year of life cancers, accidents and self-harm are the leading causes of death.

Some people are not being rational.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It could be never.

 

[Ianno87]

Some parents refuse to send their child to school until there is a vaccine:

Class size of 15 pupils when primary schools return

Primary year groups in England could all have a month at school before summer, in latest Covid-19 plans.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is not in the interests of the children; we could be looking at 12-18 months before a vaccine is widely available.

I believe these parents have lost sight of the bigger picture.

I've linked to this article before but this part is very relevant here:

Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?

Ministers are looking at how to ease the lockdown. How cautious should they be?

www.bbc.co.uk

Some people are not being rational.

Setting their kids back *years* developmentally with that attitude... As soon as mine can go back, he will!

To answer the OP; absolutely wrong to try and enforce social distancing between young kids. It's futile to try, and risks them not developing proper social skills that will last decades after this is all over.

 

[cuccir]

I find the wording on government guidance with children and face masks very unclear, particualrly the bold bit:

"Face-coverings should not be used by children under the age of two, or those who may find it difficult to manage them correctly, for example primary age children unassisted, or those with respiratory conditions."

It's unclear to me what "primary age children unassisted" means; do they mean primary age children unacomppanied, ie, when they are at school? Such that they should (is possible) where face coverings in mandated locations when with parents?

 

[7Paul7]

I find the wording on government guidance with children and face masks very unclear, particualrly the bold bit:

"Face-coverings should not be used by children under the age of two, or those who may find it difficult to manage them correctly, for example primary age children unassisted, or those with respiratory conditions."

It's unclear to me what "primary age children unassisted" means; do they mean primary age children unacomppanied, ie, when they are at school? Such that they should (is possible) where face coverings in mandated locations when with parents?

I take that as a child who can't put on their mask correctly without assistance?

 

[LancasterRed]

I'm in favor but can understand the opposing argument. I understand that children do not pass to adults, but what about irresponsible adults passing to children? While likely to survive, where possible we don't want anyone getting the virus.

These are strange times and as such, it is the case that unexpected, potentially unethical rulings need to be temporarily in place for the greater good and with respect to the bigger picture. I would propose that social distancing be implemented for children of primary school age and above and use developments in communication technology to keep social skills developed, under parental supervision of course.

 

[yorkie]

I'm in favor but can understand the opposing argument. I understand that children do not pass to adults, but what about irresponsible adults passing to children? While likely to survive, where possible we don't want anyone getting the virus.

Children encounter many risks; the virus is a low risk to them. What are you suggesting?

These are strange times and as such, it is the case that unexpected, potentially unethical rulings need to be temporarily in place for the greater good and with respect to the bigger picture. I would propose that social distancing be implemented for children of primary school age and above and use developments in communication technology to keep social skills developed, under parental supervision of course.

I'm confident that the greater good for children is to get them into school; yes the schools should do some things differently, but there are limits in what they can achieve. The idea that all kids have to remain 2m apart from others at all times is fanciful.

 

[LancasterRed]

Children encounter many risks; the virus is a low risk to them. What are you suggesting?

Implementation of social distancing but with some further research conducted to make a scientific decision on the implementation of various social distancing rulings for different ages. I think the research could be key and enable children to go back to school.

I'm confident that the greater good for children is to get them into school; yes the schools should do some things differently, but there are limits in what they can achieve. The idea that all kids have to remain 2m apart from others at all times is fanciful.

I don't disagree, but it depends on more research. Uncertain times and more research needing to be done. It's hard to speculate.

 

[richw]

Too many people believing the fear factor being spread by Facebook experts.
I’ve been spamming posts which contradict government advise with something along the lines of “please put your scientific and medical advisor in touch with the government As they appear to have different studies”

schools opening first to the younger kids, the ones that lick each other and sit on the carpet in huddles for learning

 

[greyman42]

It would be like herding cats.

 

[Qwerty133]

The risk of children coming into close contact with a relatively small number of the (same) other children is probably quite low, and in such cases it may be appropriate for some relaxation of social distancing within a primary school classroom as long as different groups of children are not coming into close contact with each other. Outside of the classroom in public places such as parks and supermarkets (where children should only be if it not possible for their other parent to look after them or for them to be left in the car) children should maintain social distancing in the same way as everybody else, and should be especially careful to avoid contact with vulnerable people due to the slightly increased risk due to the lack of social distancing in the classroom.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The risk of children coming into close contact with a relatively small number of the (same) other children is probably quite low, and in such cases it may be appropriate for some relaxation of social distancing within a primary school classroom as long as different groups of children are not coming into close contact with each other. Outside of the classroom in public places such as parks and supermarkets (where children should only be if it not possible for their other parent to look after them or for them to be left in the car) children should maintain social distancing in the same way as everybody else, and should be especially careful to avoid contact with vulnerable people due to the slightly increased risk due to the lack of social distancing in the classroom.

Probably? Your evidence for the assertion is what, specifically?

 

[BluePenguin]

Well, it would appear there are 2 confirmed cases of primary school children having caught the virus. This is proof that young children CAN catch the virus and are not as invincible as many once thought. They may cope better then many adults although are carriers nevertheless. In light of this, there can be no question that all children should socially distance

I am beginning to become highly suspicious of the amount of people who are persistently denying this fact. Anyone would think they were looking for an excuse for schools to re-open as soon as possible.....

Two cases of coronavirus have been confirmed at a primary leading to the school's immediate closure.

Teachers and the children of key workers and vulnerable pupils have been attending sessions at Springfield Primary School in Derby for the past few weeks, despite schools being closed down in March.


As the school cannot be specific about which staff or pupils have been in contact with the confirmed cases, it means that anyone who has been at the school with them will have to self-isolate.

Two cases of coronavirus confirmed at primary school now closing for deep-clean

Teachers and the children of key workers and vulnerable pupils have been attending sessions at Springfield Primary School in Derby for the past few weeks, despite schools being closed down in March

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[yorkie]

Well, it would appear there are 2 confirmed cases of primary school children having caught the virus. This is proof that young children CAN catch the virus ...

No-one is denying that.

and are not as invincible as many once thought.

No-one is claiming invincibility but the risks for children are so low, you'd be better off worrying about other things.

They may cope better then many adults although are carriers nevertheless.

No-one is claiming otherwise

In light of this, there can be no question that all children should socially distance

How would you get very young children to do this? Have you read this thread?

I am beginning to become highly suspicious of the amount of people who are persistently denying this fact. Anyone would think they were looking for an excuse for schools to re-open as soon as possible.....

I think you are looking for excuses to avoid acting in the best overall interests of children, when all risks are considered.

 

[Ianno87]

Well, it would appear there are 2 confirmed cases of primary school children having caught the virus. This is proof that young children CAN catch the virus and are not as invincible as many once thought. They may cope better then many adults although are carriers nevertheless. In light of this, there can be no question that all children should socially distance

Young children can also get knocked down crossing the road on the way to school in the first place - something probably statistically far more likely than passing on Covid (2 cases in the entire population of primary school kids is a tiny probability). But that doesn't stop people attending school in normal times.

It's about balance of relative risks and managing/mitigating versus long term damage to their education.

 

[BluePenguin]

No-one is claiming invincibility but the risks for children are so low, you'd be better off worrying about other things.

Do you have any evidence that the risks are as low as you claim? I fail to see how the risk however small is worth not worrying out compared to anything else. Why take a risk that can be avoided or minimised? My Aunt is a GP and has spoken to several children with the virus. I am sure none of us wish for them to pass it on.

How would you get very young children to do this? Have you read this thread?

Yes, I read the entire thread which made for good late night reading. Don’t appreciate the patronising tone. However, I fully accept it can be difficult to do this, especially with very young children but it is possible.

My Mum works in a primary school and staff are enforcing social distancing in the classroom. Each child has their own desk spaced out from their peers. Coloured tape has been used to split rooms into sections. Youngest pupils are gently reminded not to walk into another square if someone else is already in it. There have been few issues so far.

I think you are looking for excuses to avoid acting in the best overall interests of children, when all risks are considered.

What excuses may those be? I can assure you I am not. I am very concerned about the safety of children. am surprised by your response considering you have children of your own. In your opinion what would be best to act in the “best overall interest”?

The risk of a child falling seriously ill, however high or low isn’t worth taking in my view. Especially not in these times. I would be devastated should my child catch the virus, no doubt you would do.

Liverpool City Countil have decided not to re-open schools until 13 June at the earliest, so I cannot be the only one with this opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[yorkie]

@BluePenguin you are clearly not interested in taking a pragmatic approach taking into account the bigger picture.

The medical and teaching unions are representing the interests of their (most vocal) members; they do not prioritise the overall well-being of children or society.

I am struggling to contain my anger at how irrational some people are being on this matter.

I think the Children's Commissioner can be trusted to give a more balanced view than any Union.

Coronavirus: 'Stop squabbling' demand over opening schools

England's children's commissioner tells the government and unions to agree a plan to open schools.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government and unions should "stop squabbling and agree a plan" to reopen schools safely, the Children's Commissioner for England has said.

Anne Longfield said many disadvantaged children were losing out because of schools being closed for so long

the mayor of Middlesbrough said that, although children and teachers have to be kept safe, "no-one can ever be given a 100% guarantee", stressing the impact that school closures were having on deprived children.

"It's all about reasonable risk," Andy Preston told BBC Breakfast. "And my goal is that we are in a situation where I think people are reasonably safe, I think that I can hand on heart say that I would send my kids into that school, that I am willing to go into that school