Return to Education

[Mojo]

Which is only 3 weeks before they break up for Easter.

Depends on where you are, Schools round here (London) aren't breaking up until Weds 31st March.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Depends on where you are, Schools round here (London) aren't breaking up until Weds 31st March.

My Bad! I've just check the term dates I was thinking of and I'm a week out, the last day of term is actually the 1st April.

So 8th March gives 1 day short of 4 weeks worth of being "open" in one way or another.

 

[The Ham]

That's insane, how much of our lives are we going to let them take in a delusional quest to 'control' a virus, there are always risks; and to children and most staff, there is most likely more risk from crossing the roads on the way to school than from a respiratory virus.

Whilst the risk to those in schools is generally very low, the issue is the risk it applies to everyone, so far the risk of dying from Covid-19 is about 1:700 (and for every death that rate gets a little worse) whilst the rate of dying from a road accident is 1:250.

However a few weeks ago we were seeing the same number of deaths from Covid-19 in a day the same as whole years worth of road deaths.

Once we've vaccinated significant numbers of people and cases are much lower (current 7 day total is 225,000 during December it for down to about 100,000) then things will be able to return towards normal.

With a likely end date of early September for doing the vaccines the fact that transmissions fall significantly during the summer months hopefully the harshest restrictions should be fairly short lived.

However for that to happen everyone should take up the offer of having a vaccine, otherwise we may need to keep restrictions in place as we've not vaccinated enough of the population for it to limit the spread (estimates put it at needing nearly 100% the adult population due to 25% of the population being under 18).

Therefore if anyone doesn't like the restrictions then they should be encouraging everyone that they know to get the vaccine.

 

[Yew]

Whilst the risk to those in schools is generally very low, the issue is the risk it applies to everyone, so far the risk of dying from Covid-19 is about 1:700 (and for every death that rate gets a little worse) whilst the rate of dying from a road accident is 1:250.

However a few weeks ago we were seeing the same number of deaths from Covid-19 in a day the same as whole years worth of road deaths.

Once we've vaccinated significant numbers of people and cases are much lower (current 7 day total is 225,000 during December it for down to about 100,000) then things will be able to return towards normal.

With a likely end date of early September for doing the vaccines the fact that transmissions fall significantly during the summer months hopefully the harshest restrictions should be fairly short lived.

However for that to happen everyone should take up the offer of having a vaccine, otherwise we may need to keep restrictions in place as we've not vaccinated enough of the population for it to limit the spread (estimates put it at needing nearly 100% the adult population due to 25% of the population being under 18).

Therefore if anyone doesn't like the restrictions then they should be encouraging everyone that they know to get the vaccine.

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

 

[hwl]

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

What is the definition of vulnerable?
Just the government's vaccination priority groups where 85-90% of the deaths are occurring or ICU patient levels that are significant at defining the acute functionality of the NHS?
The government appear to have recognised there is a difference between the two and it isn't as simple as just ticking the first box.

 

[Ianno87]

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

You could be vulnerable and not realise it...

 

[Bayum]

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Vaccination isn’t absolutely guaranteed at this moment to reduce severity of illness in every single person. You also have the added complication of high numbers of non-vulnerable in hospitals being treated currently.

Whilst the risk to those in schools is generally very low, the issue is the risk it applies to everyone, so far the risk of dying from Covid-19 is about 1:700 (and for every death that rate gets a little worse) whilst the rate of dying from a road accident is 1:250.

It’s interesting you say this. Boris seems to be absolutely adamant that teachers are not at an increased risk of dying - absolutely correct - but he does not say teachers are at an increased risk of contracting the virus.

 

[Bantamzen]

Vaccination isn’t absolutely guaranteed at this moment to reduce severity of illness in every single person. You also have the added complication of high numbers of non-vulnerable in hospitals being treated currently.

There are no absolutes in anything, I'm certain there won't be with vaccines. But I'm more certain we can't stop everything because of that.

 

[Yew]

Vaccination isn’t absolutely guaranteed at this moment to reduce severity of illness in every single person.

No vaccine does, but these measures are not sustainable, and we have to understand that, as with everything in life there are risks. For most people the risk from this virus is negligible, we cannot ask more from them for this insane idea that we must protect 'everyone'. We do literally nothing for many respiratory illnesses that kill tens of thousands every year; we must look at this in context of that being the baseline.

You could be vulnerable and not realise it...

And we should keep the entire country shut down for such edge cases?

What is the definition of vulnerable?
Just the government's vaccination priority groups where 85-90% of the deaths are occurring or ICU patient levels that are significant at defining the acute functionality of the NHS?
The government appear to have recognised there is a difference between the two and it isn't as simple as just ticking the first box.

Then why aren't we vaccinating some in the second group to reduce ICU loadings? Wasn't this the whole point of all this to 'protect the NHS'? Instead we seem to be solely focused on deaths of people who are already at around the median life expectancy?

 

[The Ham]

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Whilst it would mean that most deaths would be avoided, it doesn't mean that most hospital admissions aren't avoided, even if they were then there's still going to be quite a lot of people for whom it would be fairly unpleasant if they caught it.

That's all assuming that there's no longer term issues which come off the back of having Covid-19 (whilst Long Covid may only be the same as you may get off the back of any other virus it still causes issues even if that's just another few weeks off work).

The issue is that whilst for many the risk is low there's still quite a lot of people for whom it would be fairly unpleasant, even if it doesn't cause them death.

As we don't know the full range of variables which leads to needing to go to hospital with it or from complications from it.

 

[greyman42]

Despite the damage this is doing to children and staff, the Prime Minister has today announced that schools will not be returning until 8th March, at the earliest.

I f they do re open on the 8th March surely there will not be any need for a 2 week break at Easter?

 

[Mojo]

I f they do re open on the 8th March surely there will not be any need for a 2 week break at Easter?

Not quite sure how you work that one out. Secondary schools for instance have been teaching their full timetables and staff will need a break; indeed if hospitality is open then many staff and families will have booked holidays. I know we have!

 

[DB]

That's all assuming that there's no longer term issues which come off the back of having Covid-19 (whilst Long Covid may only be the same as you may get off the back of any other virus it still causes issues even if that's just another few weeks off work).

A small proportion of people having a few extra weeks off work is completely insiginificant compared to continuing restrictions on everybody.

 

[The Ham]

No vaccine does, but these measures are not sustainable, and we have to understand that, as with everything in life there are risks. For most people the risk from this virus is negligible, we cannot ask more from them for this insane idea that we must protect 'everyone'. We do literally nothing for many respiratory illnesses that kill tens of thousands every year; we must look at this in context of that being the baseline.

And we should keep the entire country shut down for such edge cases?


Then why aren't we vaccinating some in the second group to reduce ICU loadings? Wasn't this the whole point of all this to 'protect the NHS'? Instead we seem to be solely focused on deaths of people who are already at around the median life expectancy?

We don't do nothing, we vaccinate about 1/2 the population for the flu. Which is likely to increase going forwards.

Yes there's certainly more that could be done, for instance is likely that office workers are likely to be encouraged to WFH in the future of they are unwell and people could be more cautious about going and seeing people of they are unwell.

We are likely to be much more conscious about washing our hands in the future, especially during flu season.

 

[Yew]

We don't do nothing, we vaccinate about 1/2 the population for the flu. Which is likely to increase going forwards.

Yes there's certainly more that could be done, for instance is likely that office workers are likely to be encouraged to WFH in the future of they are unwell and people could be more cautious about going and seeing people of they are unwell.

We are likely to be much more conscious about washing our hands in the future, especially during flu season.

Apologies, I was speaking in terms of NPI's

 

[The Ham]

A small proportion of people having a few extra weeks off work is completely insiginificant compared to continuing restrictions on everybody.

The issue is that, let's say 0.5% are of for an extra 2 weeks, when you've got 250,000 people a week getting ill (slightly above the current 7 day total) that's about 5,000 people a month taking an extra 2 weeks to recover.

If you assume 1/2 are working then that's a lot of lost hours.

Now whilst that's fairly small compared to what's happening in the economy due to the lockdowns we were at about double that at the start of January and without the lockdown then the figure would currently be much much higher.

The big problem though it's the unknown unintended consequences of the NHS failing due to it being overloaded by there being too many cases.

It's easy to highlight things like "what happens if there's an RTA and there's no capacity to send an ambulance" the difficulty is what happens if the NHS do something like decide to pull GP services (so they can us have more doctors in hospitals) and route everything through 111. That could lead to basic things like repeat prescriptions going wrong and people dying or needing hospital care (even that is something which could be thought of and so isn't a great example).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Despite the damage this is doing to children and staff, the Prime Minister has today announced that schools will not be returning until 8th March, at the earliest.

The schools were safe when BoJo was on Marr three weeks ago now they still aren't despite cases are well down. To me this empathically tells you that lockdown 3 is in part attributable for not dealing with school transmission earlier and everything else being closed down was scapegoating the real issue.

To be clear pupils need to be in education but it has to be done in way that moderates transmission and the govt had all summer to have come up with a way of teaching that addressed the transmission risk rather than just sending them all back without any controls.

 

[DB]

without the lockdown then the figure would currently be much much higher.

That is unproven - as is evidenced by there being no correlation between those countries with the most draconian lockdowns and the outcome. While lockdowns may have some impact (but not enough to justify the damage they cause), there is no evidence that it's as significant as some would have us believe, or that it's the main reason for the decline (in this case, it was already starting before the lockdown).

For some reason those in favour of lockdowns seems to refuse to accept the well-evidenced fact that there will be peaks and troughs in any epidemic / pandemic.

 

[Bayum]

No vaccine does, but these measures are not sustainable, and we have to understand that, as with everything in life there are risks. For most people the risk from this virus is negligible, we cannot ask more from them for this insane idea that we must protect 'everyone'. We do literally nothing for many respiratory illnesses that kill tens of thousands every year; we must look at this in context of that being the baseline.

And we should keep the entire country shut down for such edge cases?


Then why aren't we vaccinating some in the second group to reduce ICU loadings? Wasn't this the whole point of all this to 'protect the NHS'? Instead we seem to be solely focused on deaths of people who are already at around the median life expectancy?

For most, the risk of death is negligible. The concern government have at the moment is not the rising death toll but on keeping the NHS at safe levels of inpatient care. Whilst transmission continues rampantly through the population, no one can be sure that hospitals are not going to be overladen with patients as we are seeing now. Don’t forget, nearly half of COVID admissions to hospital right now are in the under 65s. Less risk of death, yes, less risk of hospitalisation or severe illness? Unfortunately not it would seem.

 

[Darandio]

I f they do re open on the 8th March surely there will not be any need for a 2 week break at Easter?

Why? Do you think me, my partner and our three children have been sat on our thumbs every school day? We're doing work and mountains of it, not only do the staff need a break the children do too!

 

[Ianno87]

Why? Do you think me, my partner and our three children have been sat on our thumbs every school day? We're doing work and mountains of it, not only do the staff need a break the children do too!

Seconded. This term so far has been more exhausting than usual for teachers, pupils and parents!

Be under no illusion how utterly miserable this has been for kids.

 

[Yew]

For most, the risk of death is negligible. The concern government have at the moment is not the rising death toll but on keeping the NHS at safe levels of inpatient care. Whilst transmission continues rampantly through the population, no one can be sure that hospitals are not going to be overladen with patients as we are seeing now. Don’t forget, nearly half of COVID admissions to hospital right now are in the under 65s. Less risk of death, yes, less risk of hospitalisation or severe illness? Unfortunately not it would seem.

Then why is this not reflected in the vaccination programme? We're coming up to a year now, and we can't survive in this shadow of an existence. We can't keep moving the goalposts to justify the continuation of this inhumane campaign of psychological torture..

 

[greyman42]

Not quite sure how you work that one out. Secondary schools for instance have been teaching their full timetables and staff will need a break; indeed if hospitality is open then many staff and families will have booked holidays. I know we have!

Yes your right. It is easy to get into the habit of thinking that all schools are closed at the moment as this is what you constantly hear from the media. The reality is different.

 

[Mojo]

Yes your right. It is easy to get into the habit of thinking that all schools are closed at the moment as this is what you constantly hear from the media. The reality is different.

It isn't helped by the fact that the BBC are doing things such as showing programmes for secondary school students during the day. I'm not sure who exactly is watching these programmes given that they are on when students would be doing online lessons. I do know that primary schools are however not in lessons much at all.

 

[Darandio]

I do know that primary schools are however not in lessons much at all.

I guess that depends how you define a 'lesson'. We aren't doing online lessons with the youngest be we do get a rather large weekly work pack split into days that covers his normal learning timetable, it's a hefty amount of work as well. Then they have a zoom call each Friday so they can see each other and have a chat.

 

[Mojo]

I guess that depends how you define a 'lesson'. We aren't doing online lessons with the youngest be we do get a rather large weekly work pack split into days that covers his normal learning timetable, it's a hefty amount of work as well. Then they have a zoom call each Friday so they can see each other and have a chat.

That isn’t what I’d consider a lesson - Secondary school students are actually online with the teachers live, this is for the full period as per their normal timetable, a register is taken and attendance compulsory.

 

[londonteacher]

I f they do re open on the 8th March surely there will not be any need for a 2 week break at Easter?

Haha I know there are so many people out there who will say this.

Still working everyday from 8am to 5pm either in school or at home on remote learning. But even more than the teachers the children need the rest.

 

[DorkingMain]

Why is spread important if the vulnerable are vaccinated?

Except the vulnerable won't be anywhere near "vaccinated" by March.

The top 4 most vulnerable groups are not yet fully vaccinated, and won't receive their second dose until April. Until then the vaccine confers only limited protection. There are also many more vulnerable people who are potentially at risk of dying from the illness than the top 4 most vulnerable.

I'm not in favour of lockdowns or excessive restrictions, but I don't believe unlimited spread is a good idea either.

 

[Darandio]

That isn’t what I’d consider a lesson - Secondary school students are actually online with the teachers live, this is for the full period as per their normal timetable, a register is taken and attendance compulsory.

With the amount of work we are doing with him I certainly would consider it that, they are working through exactly the same stuff that the children attending school are. I really don't think that demanding younger primary age children to do the same format as those at secondary would be beneficial.

 

[DorkingMain]

Then why is this not reflected in the vaccination programme? We're coming up to a year now, and we can't survive in this shadow of an existence. We can't keep moving the goalposts to justify the continuation of this inhumane campaign of psychological torture..

The first wave of the vaccination program, ultimately, is focused on avoiding people dying from the illness. Risk of dying is negligible for most other groups but for over-65s + clinically vulnerable people it's a much higher risk.