Return to Education

[py_megapixel]

I understand and support the logic behind schools having a uniform or at least a basic dress code to limit bullying and ensure that clothing is at least sane; however, I have long thought that petty policies about things which are either entirely inconsequential - for example, length of hair or colour of socks - or discriminatory - e.g. banning girls from wearing trousers - should not be considered acceptable.

 

[35B]

I understand and support the logic behind schools having a uniform or at least a basic dress code to limit bullying and ensure that clothing is at least sane; however, I have long thought that petty policies about things which are either entirely inconsequential - for example, length of hair or colour of socks - or discriminatory - e.g. banning girls from wearing trousers - should not be considered acceptable.

Fair enough, I’d draw the line slightly differently but no matter. To be clear, my reference to my daughter’s school is to a girl’s school, and they do include trousers as an option within the uniform. However, we go off topic.

 

[yorkie]

You do your argument no favours by conflating your view of mask wearing with your interpretation of what a school may or may not do within it's policy, or by arguing that the law places limits which it clearly does not.

There's a lot of wordiness to your post but the fundamental facts are that the Government have said it is not actually mandatory and students should not be excluded for not wearing masks.

You can make comparisons with uniform if you like but it's not valid because the Government are not saying uniforms are not mandatory and they are not saying students cannot be excluded for not wearing uniform

We can go round in circles if you wish but pretending masks come under uniform does not negate that fact, and does your argument no favours.

I understand and support the logic behind schools having a uniform or at least a basic dress code to limit bullying and ensure that clothing is at least sane; however, I have long thought that petty policies about things which are either entirely inconsequential - for example, length of hair or colour of socks - or discriminatory - e.g. banning girls from wearing trousers - should not be considered acceptable.

I don't think banning girls wearing trousers and students having green hair are equivalents but that's a whole different subject.

 

[nedchester]

There's a lot of wordiness to your post but the fundamental facts are that the Government have said it is not actually mandatory and students should not be excluded for not wearing masks.

You can make comparisons with uniform if you like but it's not valid because the Government are not saying uniforms are not mandatory and they are not saying students cannot be excluded for not wearing uniform

We can go round in circles if you wish but pretending masks come under uniform does not negate that fact, and does your argument no favours.


I don't think banning girls wearing trousers and students having green hair are equivalents but that's a whole different subject.

I suggest to you that 35B may know a little more about the situation than you as he is/has been (AFAIK) a School Governor and therefore aware of the school legal intricacies. I have also been a teacher (and a union rep) in the past with 30 years experience and am aware of what can or cannot be done in an educational setting.

I am not a fan of overly strict uniform and other rules but nevertheless they are rules that are regularly enforced in schools.

The school could claim probably rightly that excluding a pupil for not wearing a mask made the remaining children and staff to feel 'safe' and I personally think that would be a more than valid argument. We are not talking about those genuinely except particularly those who are say autistic (I worked for many years with such children) but those being awkward.

But as you probably think it's more about your particular views on face coverings and authoritarianism (sic)

 

[35B]

There's a lot of wordiness to your post but the fundamental facts are that the Government have said it is not actually mandatory and students should not be excluded for not wearing masks.

You can make comparisons with uniform if you like but it's not valid because the Government are not saying uniforms are not mandatory and they are not saying students cannot be excluded for not wearing uniform

We can go round in circles if you wish but pretending masks come under uniform does not negate that fact, and does your argument no favours.

You conflate, again, two things. Government policy, which is that masks should be worn but are not legally required to be, and how a school may choose to implement that policy through inclusion of masks as part of uniform. The key word here is “may”; different schools will I’m sure apply different approaches.

According to government, school uniforms are entirely at the discretion of schools, yet those policies form a basis for school discipline. That, unless you can point me to legally binding guidance specifically barring a school from excluding a pupil not complying with school instructions on mask wearing (presuming of course that the breach meets the requirements of that policy for such sanction), leaves schools with the option if they include masks in their uniform policy.

In the autumn, my children were at schools that included mask wearing instructions within the uniform policies and did therefore have the right to impose sanctions (including requiring a pupil to return home to obtain compliant clothing) for breaking mask wearing rules. I fully expect the same to apply this term, and in practice for compliance at both schools to be good enough that overt enforcement is unnecessary.

As @nedchester suggests, I am a serving governor but not at either of the schools my children attend.

 

[yorkie]

I am not going to respond to the last two posts; I find such comments frustrating to read but I am no longer interested in going round in circles as I have made my valid points already.

In other news:

https://www.youthsporttrust.org/news/government-confirms-return-school-sport

The Government’s lockdown exit plan published today (22 February 2021) has confirmed that:

• All schools in England will return from 8 March from when under-18 sport can take place at school as part of educational provision, or as part of wraparound care. Wraparound care will be to enable parents or carers to work, seek work, attend education, seek medical care or attend a support group.
• From 29 March, the Government will also allow outdoor sports facilities to reopen, broadening the options for outdoor exercise and recreation. These facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, and swimming pools, can be used by people in line with the wider social contact limits. Formally organised outdoor sports – for adults and under 18s - can also restart and will not be subject to the gatherings limits, but should be compliant with guidance issued by national governing bodies. This will also be when inter-school sport can resume.
• As part of step two of the lockdown relaxations, no earlier than 12 April, all children will be able to attend any indoor children's activity, including sport, regardless of circumstance.

In other words, parents were led to believe that after school sports clubs could resume from 8th March but in practice many will not resume until at least week beginning 12th of April.

The last time I was able to run a sports activity was on 18th March 2020 and have been unable to resume these sessions, by the time I can do this it will be 13 months later!

We really are treating children disgracefully.

Coronavirus doctor's diary: Study shows one-in-three children have rarely been leaving the house

Only a third of children in Bradford had sufficient exercise during the first lockdown, a study shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

... there is another malicious pandemic that we must turn our attention to, one that causes far more deaths than Covid ever will. Less visible than Covid, but hiding in plain sight, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer and mental ill-health are the modern epidemics. While we have been like children playing Sunday football chasing after the Covid ball, we have left this particular goal wide open....

The limitation on focusing on individual behaviour, however, is that it potentially widens inequalities.
Telling children and families to go out and take more exercise is all well and good if they have a nice garden or live near a park. If you live near busy roads, without a garden or safe place to exercise, then you are going to be reluctant to let your children go out to play, and thus the seeds of NCDs are sown.

Two boys from a Pakistani family, Mehdi and Maseh, aged 11 and nine, say they have rarely been going out to play in the latest lockdown - the only real exception being when it was snowing.
"In the weekends we sometimes play video games together - we love playing computer games - and then we probably will watch TV," says Mehdi.
"We did go to the park at the start of the Covid but both our footballs are busted. There's a park but it's a long walk away, so we don't go. We'd go out and play with friends but because of Covid we don't see them and so we just stay in."

This really is an appalling state of affairs, which was entirely predictable. Those who advocated school closure and ''stay at home'' mandates and blocked the running of activities for children are guilty of acting in a morally corrupt manner in my opinion.

 

[35B]

I am not going to respond to the last two posts; I find such comments frustrating to read but I am no longer interested in going round in circles as I have made my valid points already.

In other news:

https://www.youthsporttrust.org/news/government-confirms-return-school-sport

In other words, parents were led to believe that after school sports clubs could resume from 8th March but in practice many will not resume until at least week beginning 12th of April.

The last time I was able to run a sports activity was on 18th March 2020 and have been unable to resume these sessions, by the time I can do this it will be 13 months later!

We really are treating children disgracefully.

Coronavirus doctor's diary: Study shows one-in-three children have rarely been leaving the house

Only a third of children in Bradford had sufficient exercise during the first lockdown, a study shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

This really is an appalling state of affairs, which was entirely predictable. Those who advocated school closure and ''stay at home'' mandates and blocked the running of activities for children are guilty of acting in a morally corrupt manner in my opinion.

I'm intrigued that your employer has not been able to run sports in and around schools, as the schools near me have provided sports as part of the curriculum. As for activities, though subject to capacity limits, the church choir in which my son sings was able to rehearse and sing in services through the autumn; the tennis club near me was providing organised group coaching to children over the same period. Both were, to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm intrigued that your employer has not been able to run sports in and around schools, as the schools near me have provided sports as part of the curriculum. As for activities, though subject to capacity limits, the church choir in which my son sings was able to rehearse and sing in services through the autumn; the tennis club near me was providing organised group coaching to children over the same period. Both were, to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal.

Don't think legal comes into it, some have their own rules that they've implemented banning certain activities, whether or not they'd be legal.

 

[35B]

Don't think legal comes into it, some have their own rules that they've implemented banning certain activities, whether or not they'd be legal.

Indeed, some places will go beyond the minimum requirements of the law.

 

[yorkie]

I'm intrigued that your employer has not been able to run sports in and around schools, as the schools near me have provided sports as part of the curriculum. As for activities, though subject to capacity limits, the church choir in which my son sings was able to rehearse and sing in services through the autumn; the tennis club near me was providing organised group coaching to children over the same period. Both were, to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal.

To be clear we have done non-vigorous sports as part of PE lessons (though in the 11 1/2 months the school has not been fully open, students will have only been present for a maximum of 14 weeks if they were fortunate enough not to be isolating), but not run any after school clubs (whether sports or otherwise).

I agree it would have been legal to do so between September and December except, I believe, for the one month lockdown period, so we could have had around 10 weeks of extra curricular clubs.

Indeed, some places will go beyond the minimum requirements of the law.

Indeed, schools are often keen to adhere to the most cautious approach suggested in the guidance and this was mentioned in this excellent interview:

David Perks is the founder and headteacher at the East London Science School, built on the principle of offering a strong foundation in science and maths and encouraging critical thinking. When they come back on March 8th, he will not be following government guidance and requiring his pupils to wear facemasks in class. Thanks to David for sharing his experience — we’ll be watching to see what other schools choose to do.

 

[bramling]

To be clear we have done non-vigorous sports as part of PE lessons (though in the 11 1/2 months the school has not been fully open, students will have only been present for a maximum of 14 weeks if they were fortunate enough not to be isolating), but not run any after school clubs (whether sports or otherwise).

I agree it would have been legal to do so between September and December except, I believe, for the one month lockdown period, so we could have had around 10 weeks of extra curricular clubs.


Indeed, schools are often keen to adhere to the most cautious approach suggested in the guidance and this was mentioned in this excellent interview:

Good to see someone making a strong case.

I saw on the news a couple of days ago a child being interviewed by a reporter, and when the subject of masks came up the child said something like “if I gave Covid to someone else I would feel really really bad”. I’m not sure we should be encouraging that sort of guilt-inducement in young children.

 

[yorkie]

And again not really 'news' as we knew this already, but another study to add to the list...

Covid: Teachers' risk 'similar' to other under-65s - BBC News

School staff do not have a markedly higher risk of infection than other working-age adults, a study suggests.

The number of staff testing positive for Covid antibodies increased by a similar percentage to their peers while schools were fully open.

In December, 15% of teaching and support staff tested positive for antibodies compared to about 18% of people of working age in the same local authorities - giving them about an average risk for their age.

Given schools were completely open during this period, "you would expect much higher antibody conversion if it was a high risk environment," Dr Ladhani said.
He said the long-term harm of keeping children out of school was "enormous".

 

[sjpowermac]

I suggest to you that 35B may know a little more about the situation than you as he is/has been (AFAIK) a School Governor and therefore aware of the school legal intricacies. I have also been a teacher (and a union rep) in the past with 30 years experience and am aware of what can or cannot be done in an educational setting.

I am not a fan of overly strict uniform and other rules but nevertheless they are rules that are regularly enforced in schools.

The school could claim probably rightly that excluding a pupil for not wearing a mask made the remaining children and staff to feel 'safe' and I personally think that would be a more than valid argument. We are not talking about those genuinely except particularly those who are say autistic (I worked for many years with such children) but those being awkward.

But as you probably think it's more about your particular views on face coverings and authoritarianism (sic)

You conflate, again, two things. Government policy, which is that masks should be worn but are not legally required to be, and how a school may choose to implement that policy through inclusion of masks as part of uniform. The key word here is “may”; different schools will I’m sure apply different approaches.

According to government, school uniforms are entirely at the discretion of schools, yet those policies form a basis for school discipline. That, unless you can point me to legally binding guidance specifically barring a school from excluding a pupil not complying with school instructions on mask wearing (presuming of course that the breach meets the requirements of that policy for such sanction), leaves schools with the option if they include masks in their uniform policy.

In the autumn, my children were at schools that included mask wearing instructions within the uniform policies and did therefore have the right to impose sanctions (including requiring a pupil to return home to obtain compliant clothing) for breaking mask wearing rules. I fully expect the same to apply this term, and in practice for compliance at both schools to be good enough that overt enforcement is unnecessary.

As @nedchester suggests, I am a serving governor but not at either of the schools my children attend.

Many thanks to you both for your well reasoned and informative posts, they have helped me in framing questions to my own school about their less than satisfactory arrangements.

As always, for the avoidance of doubt, I fully support the full re-opening of schools, have been at work full time from May onwards and don’t support face masks in the classroom. It’s the very difficult position that classroom teachers are being placed in with regards to masks that I object to and your posts have helped me to clarify my thinking.

And again not really 'news' as we knew this already, but another study to add to the list...

Covid: Teachers' risk 'similar' to other under-65s - BBC News

I’m so relieved that going into school is just as safe as hiding behind the sofa at home.

Regarding the video of David Perks, he does say that he believes face masks reduce transmission, I though that you disagreed with that? As I understand it he also seems to be saying that he’s confident his school community has built up immunity and that was part of his decision making process.

As usual, the DfE are more hindrance than help. Either make the masks mandatory, with suitable exemptions as per the railway, or simply shut up and don’t have masks in classrooms at all.

 

[yorkie]

I hope you are listened to, but I predict you won't be.

There are not many headteachers who are as good as David Perks.

Sadly our school has instructed teachers to issue warnings to students who are caught not wearing face coverings in classrooms.

Parents can email the school to exempt their child from these warnings.

 

[sjpowermac]

Good to see someone making a strong case.

I saw on the news a couple of days ago a child being interviewed by a reporter, and when the subject of masks came up the child said something like “if I gave Covid to someone else I would feel really really bad”. I’m not sure we should be encouraging that sort of guilt-inducement in young children.

Good luck to David Perks if there’s an outbreak at his school!

As I’ve mentioned, I’m very much against masks in schools but schools should not have been placed in this position. The DfE have got this completely wrong. Either make the masks mandatory, with exemptions or don’t have them at all.

I hope you are listened to, but I predict you won't be.

There are not many headteachers who are as good as David Perks.

Sadly our school has instructed teachers to issue warnings to students who are caught not wearing face coverings in classrooms.

Parents can email the school to exempt their child from these warnings.

It’s exactly the same system at my school. In addition, the exemptions require a letter from a doctor

 

[yorkie]

Good luck to David Perks if there’s an outbreak at his school!

That's the problem in this country, there is a belief that everyone should be seen to be doing 'something' and going beyond what is 'proportionate' because if 'something happens' they could get blamed for not doing enough.

As I’ve mentioned, I’m very much against masks in schools but schools should not have been placed in this position. The DfE have got this completely wrong. Either make the masks mandatory, with exemptions or don’t have them at all.

Indeed they have. The Government really have been terrible throughout, and as time goes on, have caved in to more and more unreasonable demands and pandering to hysterical people and unreasonable unions who represent the interests of their most fanatical members only.

This whole sorry episode has reminded me I need to cancel my Union membership.

 

[greyman42]

I heard on LBC this morning that some schools had sent letters to parents telling them to make sure that their children wear several layers of warm clothing as windows in classrooms will be open to allow natural ventilation. This does not sound like a good learning environment to me. In early March it is usually still very cold outside.

 

[sjpowermac]

I heard on LBC this morning that some schools had sent letters to parents telling them to make sure that their children wear several layers of warm clothing as windows in classrooms will be open to allow natural ventilation. This does not sound like a good learning environment to me. In early March it is usually still very cold outside.

That was going on throughout the autumn and quite so, it’s an exceptionally poor learning environment.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why are Tory supporting papers giving parents unrealistic expectations of what schools will be like from tomorrow? Both have idealistic images of single desks for every pupil where every desk has a perspex screen and there are plenty of movable screens around the classroom. Alongside hand sanitiser in every classroom and knee controlled taps in bathroom / toilet sinks. Granted I've not been in a school since I left a long time ago now, but the above doesn't seem realistic to me and my friends who are teachers also agree this isn't going to be accurate. No wonder why a lot of the public are against teachers if these are the expectations they are being fed.

Note I know I have a different view on schools returning than a lot of people on here. But this post isn't about that. This is about government supporting media spreading blatant lies about what it's going to be like.

 

[yorkie]

Why are Tory supporting papers giving parents unrealistic expectations of what schools will be like from tomorrow? Both have idealistic images of single desks for every pupil where every desk has a perspex screen and there are plenty of movable screens around the classroom. Alongside hand sanitiser in every classroom and knee controlled taps in bathroom / toilet sinks. Granted I've not been in a school since I left a long time ago now, but the above doesn't seem realistic to me and my friends who are teachers also agree this isn't going to be accurate. No wonder why a lot of the public are against teachers if these are the expectations they are being fed.

Note I know I have a different view on schools returning than a lot of people on here. But this post isn't about that. This is about government supporting media spreading blatant lies about what it's going to be like.

I don't know what you are referring to but there really is no issue with schools going back.

Schools were back for around 14 weeks in the autumn term with no real issues.

And I don't agree that a lot of the public are "against teachers" nor would I understand such a position.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't know what you are referring to but there really is no issue with schools going back.

Schools were back for around 14 weeks in the autumn term with no real issues.

And I don't agree that a lot of the public are "against teachers" nor would I understand such a position.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Sorry for the Facebook link, I'll try to find a better source after dinner.

By all accounts both papers are suggesting that each classroom will be as I described above. You and I both know that isn't going to be the case. As I said I'm not posting to discuss if schools should be going back or not, I'm posting to question why the above is being published by government supporting media when we all know classrooms are not going to look like that at all. Couldn't possibly be trying to lie to parents who may be worried could it?

 

[yorkie]

Some of it is true: basins at the entrance to school, sanitiser in classrooms, windows open and - disgracefully - masks in classrooms for 3 weeks .

The perspex screens, partitions etc is nonsense but not necessary anyway.

The rate of transmission among children does appear to be much reduced compared to the adult population and of course the symptoms for children are overwhelmingly very mild.

So it looks to me like it's scaremongering from the point of view of even suggesting such measures would ever be proportionate.

Sadly the media like to exaggerate and mislead people.

This is a classic example of that.

Some people really need to get a grip.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Some of it is true: basins at the entrance to school, sanitiser in classrooms, windows open and - disgracefully - masks in classrooms for 3 weeks .

The perspex screens, partitions etc is nonsense but not necessary anyway.

The rate of transmission among children does appear to be much reduced compared to the adult population and of course the symptoms for children are overwhelmingly very mild.

So it looks to me like it's scaremongering from the point of view of even suggesting such measures would ever be proportionate.

Sadly the media like to exaggerate and mislead people.

This is a classic example of that.

Some people really need to get a grip.

Well mate, I'll forever be of the opinion that we should have done a Wales and send kids back in stages. Their first "non-key offspring" kids went back a fortnight ago and the rise in cases is marginal if anything. Next phase there is the 15th of March, with all back by the 19th of April.

 

[yorkie]

Well mate, I'll forever be of the opinion that we should have done a Wales and send kids back in stages. Their first "non-key offspring" kids went back a fortnight ago and the rise in cases is marginal if anything. Next phase there is the 15th of March, with all back by the 19th of April.

For what purpose?

And for whose benefit? (Clearly not the kids!)

Keeping kids off school until 19th April would be absurd and negligent.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Some of it is true: basins at the entrance to school, sanitiser in classrooms, windows open and - disgracefully - masks in classrooms for 3 weeks .

The perspex screens, partitions etc is nonsense but not necessary anyway.

The rate of transmission among children does appear to be much reduced compared to the adult population and of course the symptoms for children are overwhelmingly very mild.

So it looks to me like it's scaremongering from the point of view of even suggesting such measures would ever be proportionate.

Sadly the media like to exaggerate and mislead people.

This is a classic example of that.

Some people really need to get a grip.

The sun's link is https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14254492/how-covid-safe-classrooms-look-monday/

The Time's one is basically identical.

I'm not commenting on if schools should should going back or not.

I'm questioning why the government supporting media is lying to parents like this.

Who wins from parents having unrealistic and untrue ideas of what schools are going to be like tomorrow?

 

[yorkie]

The sun's link is https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14254492/how-covid-safe-classrooms-look-monday/

The Time's one is basically identical.

I'm not commenting on if schools should should going back or not.

I'm questioning why the government supporting media is lying to parents like this.

Who wins from parents having unrealistic and untrue ideas of what schools are going to be like tomorrow?

Having a quick read of that I think it looks to be all pretty accurate except for the following, but even then it does say "encouraged", "could" and "could":

Gone are the days of copying a pal's work or sliding them a note, with kids now encouraged to sit 1m apart.

Perspex screens could shield pupils from the front of the class while desks could be separated with large screens at the side.

The first part is a bit pointless to "encourage" because in most lessons this won't be possible, though cleanly it will be in some. In practice if the room is large enough it will probably be enforced through seating plans rather than "encouraged".

The other parts are a bit misleading in that I doubt any schools will be doing this, though it does say "could" so is very non-committal.

It is poor journalism, and to say something "could" happen when it is highly unlikely to happen is misleading, but is it lying?

I still fail to see how this will turn people against teachers.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Well mate, I'll forever be of the opinion that we should have done a Wales and send kids back in stages. Their first "non-key offspring" kids went back a fortnight ago and the rise in cases is marginal if anything. Next phase there is the 15th of March, with all back by the 19th of April.

Exactly the same approach in Scotland. By April 19th my 14 year old sister won't have set foot in a classroom for over 4 months. In the last week of term she was subject to house imprisonment for being a "close contact" of a positive case.

 

[Jamesrob637]

For what purpose?

And for whose benefit? (Clearly not the kids!)

Keeping kids off school until 19th April would be absurd and negligent.

They've been off so long that three more weeks sadly won't make much of a difference at this stage. But our case numbers-obsessed Government will naturally worry when infection rates rise closer to Easter.

 

[sjpowermac]

The sun's link is https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14254492/how-covid-safe-classrooms-look-monday/

The Time's one is basically identical.

I'm not commenting on if schools should should going back or not.

I'm questioning why the government supporting media is lying to parents like this.

Who wins from parents having unrealistic and untrue ideas of what schools are going to be like tomorrow?

The whole article is nonsense. I can only comment about my own school and a few others where I have contacts but here goes.

The only Perspex screens are in the dinner hall where pupils are facing each other, there are none in classrooms.

In order to create a 2 metre buffer at the front of the room (as recommended by the DfE), desks have all been pushed together at the back of the room, resulting in pupils seated closer together than normal (the law of unintended consequences).

There are hand sanitising stations in each room but few students use them. Due to teachers being forced to move between bubbles, most of the time pupils are in the room before the teacher gets there and hence staff can’t check/enforce the use of sanitiser.

From what I’ve seen/understand, the testing has been a bit hit and miss so far in schools that started it last week. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I’ll go for 70% tops having consented to the lateral flow tests.

As always, I fully support schools being fully opened and have in fact worked full time in school throughout the lockdown.

They've been off so long that three more weeks sadly won't make much of a difference at this stage. But our case numbers-obsessed Government will naturally worry when infection rates rise closer to Easter.

I don’t think any rise in case numbers will make any difference, it would be easy to put it down to increased testing and besides the Easter holiday would be a natural ‘circuit breaker’ plus the breaking of the link between case rates and hospital numbers.

 

[yorkie]

They've been off so long that three more weeks sadly won't make much of a difference at this stage.

I really don't know how to respond to this.

You are really saying that kids have been off for so long, their education is so harmed it doesn't matter if we harm it any more?!

But our case numbers-obsessed Government will naturally worry when infection rates rise closer to Easter.

We need to tell them to stuff it; the link between infections and deaths has been well and truly broken (as discussed in other threads; let's not duplicate that discussion here). I don't think there is going to be a particularly big uptick in infections caused by schools and even if there was it would not have the sort of results any such uptick would have happened a few months ago.

I don’t think any rise in case numbers will make any difference, it would be easy to put it down to increased testing and besides the Easter holiday would be a natural ‘circuit breaker’ plus the breaking of the link between case rates and hospital numbers.

I typed my reply to @Jamesrob637 before I saw your post but yes I completely agree.