‘The risk of infection from children is very, very low’

Probably not quite as crowded at Eton.

 

..............
......and then go and make your camp bed up in the garden shed?

 

Eton is quite full really. In fact it's a mess

 

The risk of infection from children is very, very low
No it isn't
Well this top scientist says it is
Well he's wrong - Yeah, I don't believe - It's just spin!
He seems to know what he's talking about
Well, what about long term risks, they're not telling us about those, we have to stay home until we've seen what the long term risks are
Erm, OK
Low risk isn't no risk. We should be barricaded in until there's no risk!
Right

This is a good thing. Children being less likely to pass it on is fantastic news. But it was treated on here like someone had let a serial killer in the house. It's bizarre. Any sign that things might improve are ridiculed, dangers are exaggerated beyond any sense of proportion, good news is treated as bad and bad news as good, because it means lock down can continue longer. It's beyond weird.

 

Actually it’s obvious that the risk of infection from children is lower ...... because adults are a lot taller.

 

That made me laugh. And then my stupid brain thought, I wonder if he's onto something, might be because children only breathe on your trousers.

 

I wonder if the people in this thread who are hammering others for suggesting schools may open have not bought any non essential items since lockdown?
Because if you are going out buying alcohol, buns, crisps, pizzas, paint, bunting, ect ect ect, then you may have contributed to killing someone.
"We must protect teachers until the risk is zero"
Ok well what about everyone else?

 

It's a fantastic thing.

I would very much like to see the study though that informs such a definitive statement.
It doesn't make sense that kids can't pass it on to me.
I'm not saying I'm right and he's wrong - I know that's very unlikely, I'd just be interested to see the science behind it. I'd also like to see how they've

I can see why it doesn't affect kids' health as much, but it's still a virus and it can surely still incubate in anyone.
The only thing I can think is that it doesn't give kids symptoms, so they're less likely to cough etc. and thus less likely to pass it on. If this is the case, I feel like it's a dangerously sweeping comment to make, however.
That only works if you don't hug, kiss etc. your kids and grandkids, doesn't it? This comment will make people complacent.

 

Maybe, the milder symptoms are due to the immune systems of younger, healthier people fighting off the virus much quicker and more effectively, not allowing it to multiply at such a rate, not allowing it to build up in their bodies and, therefore, not suffering the negative effects, while expelling far fewer of the pathogens due to the low levels within their bodies, so being far less likely to infect others.

 

And this is the school where we raise our future psychopaths, sociopaths, agoraphobes and serial killers.

Not a fc*king chance in hell I'd send my child into that kind of abuse.

 

But how many times have we heard: "The science has changed"?

That's where my general lack of trust has cone from - that and the lies they've told and spun.

Although in this occasion, all evidence does seem to back it up.

 

But that's politicians. The OP quoted and linked to a scientist. Yes, scientific views change as we learn and discover more. But they will give you the best understanding we have of it at the time.

 

Unfortunately you can't teach effectively without getting to their level though. Particularly the younger ones. I must admit to struggling to understand why there is so little risk apparently of them spreading it. Surely if that was the case schools could reopen to all years straight away?

 

Why not just wait until September?

 

That's a good point.

Cheers.

 

Provided the scientists aren't giving the best advice to fit the political decisions - as they have done at several points. The entire SAGE discussions were constrained within the perceived (or real) objections of the politicians to a full or partial lockdown. So instead of the best science, we got the best science within those political parameters. (See also quarantining at airports, tracking, testing and tracing, etc).

 

Scientists and doctors aren’t agreeing on this. So is your scientist better than my scientist... I don’t know.

If you had a jar of 100,000 skittles... but knew one was full of deadly cyanide.... would you let your child choose one to eat?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....open-lockdown-when-children-a9469176.html?amp

 

There is no way on earth the absolute nonsense the Department for Education have put out even starts to work on a practical - let alone humane - level.

My wife's a head in a primary school. Pretty much all class sizes are pushing 30. So there would only be enough classrooms at 50% occupancy. So let's start with that figure and assume only half the kids turn up and so there are enough classrooms. And by chance that 50% is spread evenly across year groups so classes of 15 can easily be formed. Bit of a leap but let's roll with it.

So if there's only enough kids in to require the same number of classes as normal then there's enough teachers right? Except the government says that they must have the same teacher every day. But around 30% of the teaching staff are part time, job share, or have other roles as part of the working week like Special Educational Needs Coordinators or focus on child welfare for at risk kids. OK, manageable perhaps. And maybe some leeway on having different teachers on different days and some staff may be able to do extra hours in this most unusual of times.

So we have a fully staffed teaching rota. Except 5 teachers are actually in high risk groups and have to remain self isolated. And someone else has a daughter with suspected COVID_19 and is also having to self isolate. So we're suddenly 6 classes short.

Right, let's not panic. Let's use teaching assistants to cover some classes. Not ideal but we can still open. Except the teaching assistants need to support the kids with Special Educational Needs who need one to one support. Hang on, actually they'll need to be in class too with the kids they support. So those classes will have to have two adults in them, not just one.

OK. No matter how we stretch the staff we're going to be 6 classes short at 50%occupancy. We'll have to say two year groups can't come in as we just can't staff it. So, we need to be fair so we'll draw out of a hat. Right years 2 and 5 can't come in.

So we've got 3 classes per year in reception, and years 1, 3, 4 and 6. 15 classes. Sorted. What next? Well the government says we need to stagger school times and lunchtimes so classes don't mingle and interact. So that's 15 staggered 30 minute lunch slots and arrival times. So if we start at 6am we'll have every class in by 1pm. Hmmm.

Scrap that, we're going to have to work in year groups. So that's 5 slots. If we start at 7.30am for reception until 1pm then year 6 can start at 9.30am. Reception won't mind having lunch at 10.30am will they? I'll let the catering team know. Ah. Two of them are shielding. Packed lunches it is then.

What about wrap around care? Afterschool club, breakfast club. Erm. Can't even begin to think about that yet. We'll just have to start with a standard day.

2 days before full reopening. 1 staff member gets COVID_19, 1 has a family member with suspected COVID_19 and another has a stomach bug. Let, say, year 1 know they're not to come in.

1 day before full reopening; Boris Johnson announces they've followed the science and kids can't go back to school.

 

Best analogy yet mate.