Covid-19

[Bordeauxclaret]

You're choosing not to take my words in which the spirit and context they were said. If you claim to know what my "approach" is then naturally you know what it isnt. I concede that taking my 2 quotes and looking at them side by side you could definitely argue that I'm contradicting myself and "lying" . However, if someone (you) claims that you (me) stand for something, and some else disagrees with it (TSC). If you then in the normal way that people interact , and given where we we were in the conversation. Just to emphasise and drive home what my opinion is. I, with sarcasm, to then point that fact TSC would never use raw mortality rates to make a judgement. . Something that you and I both know the TSC wouldn't do , and you and I both know you didnt say they would. In a face to face conversation youd know exactly where I was coming from. In real life you in debate you often hear "so you're saying that........!?" Knowing full well that the other party didnt literally say "it" And you know that.

Anyway Believe this or not, upto you.

I chose not to use the iplayer on principle. You know my views on the BBC.

So I'm definately not prepared to go through rigmarole of the signing up / logging in process.

But if either you can summarise who said what, and the context that would be good. I'm genuinely not trying to be awkward. Genuinely.

Let's have a look at a bit more detail and we can progress.

The post where the parody exploded.

[jackmiggins]

I’m concerned that there are ever more confusing and contradicting statistics being put out by our ‘exemplary leaders’. Could this be due to panic actions being planned in order to ‘catch up’ with other Nations who are releasing lockdown ahead of the UK?
I would much prefer we wait three weeks to observe if these relaxations have any detrimental effects in these countries. In the meantime, I shall remain alert (not a Lert) and will maintain my misanthropy for quite a while.

[ksrclaret]

The post where the parody exploded.

With his liver soon to follow.

[Colburn_Claret]

Does anyone know what the scientific advice was that persuaded the government to ask people to go back to work?

The government have been banging on for the last month and a half about the 5 key points that need meeting to go back to work.
Rather than just have everybody going back to work on the same day, they are breaking it in gradually.
The reason for the stepped approach is it a) gets key industries back in business and starts the economy moving, albeit slowly, and b) it allows the government the opportunity to take a step back, should the 'R' value start to increase.

Now I'm not a scientist, or listening to scientific advice, or even a member of the government, but if you choose to listen to the daily briefings, without sticking your fingers in your ears, then all of that was pretty obvious.

Watching the photos of a minority of Londoners ignoring government advice for the last 3 months, yet still seeing the 'R' value in London plummet is really good news. We still have a way to go before we are out of the wood, in the North we are still behind the curve, but everywhere the signs are that right or wrong, the governments measures are working.
Getting more people back to work, and children back to school, in a staged manner is essential as we move forward, yet some people are still trying to put a spanner in the works. All this petty point scoring and infighting is embarrassing, we should all be on the same page pulling together to combat this disease, yet the idiotic few will be willing the figures to shoot up again, just so that they can blame Boris. Thats ******* sad.

[FactualFrank]

'Virus could be wiped out in London in weeks as rate of infection is slowing' - researchers

The number of people becoming infected with coronavirus each day in London has fallen to 24, while the North East of England is seeing around 4,000 new infections daily, research suggests.

The rate of infections in England also appears to be slowing, according to modelling by Public Health England and the University of Cambridge's MRC Biostatistics Unit.

Data shows that the R value across England is 0.75, firmly under 1.0 - which the prime minister specified as a requirement for the continued easing of lockdown measures in the coming months.

The North East and Yorkshire are 0.8, the South West is 0.76, the North West is 0.73, the South East and East of England are 0.71 and the Midlands is 0.68, according to the research.

London's average rate has fallen to 0.4, meaning that for every 10 people who are infected, they are likely to pass it onto four people.

The figure also means the capital has gone from being the epicentre of the UK outbreak to having the lowest rate of infection in England.

[jackmiggins]

Problem is that the 'daily briefings' alter, very subtly, each day (words are very similar, but in a slightly rearranged way - same writing team after all). The statistics and their presentation are being altered, again very gradually. My conclusion is that the government (probably correctly) know that most people only latch on to the LATEST information and forget what was said before.

[dsr]

Problem is that the 'daily briefings' alter, very subtly, each day (words are very similar, but in a slightly rearranged way - same writing team after all). The statistics and their presentation are being altered, again very gradually. My conclusion is that the government (probably correctly) know that most people only latch on to the LATEST information and forget what was said before.

You mean to say they update the statistics every day? And the advice changes as the situation develops?

[CombatClaret]

Watching the photos of a minority of Londoners ignoring government advice for the last 3 months, yet still seeing the 'R' value in London plummet is really good news.

Two things wrong with that
1) Most of the photos you likely rolled your eyes at were deliberately shot using specific lenses and angles to cause most outrage.
2) If a minority are ignoring govt advise then the majority are so no surprises the R value has dropped significantly.

Also perfect response to someone asking what the scientific advice is

"Now I'm not a scientist, or listening to scientific advice"

proceeds to give an opinion and probably thinks it's equally valid.

outrage.jpg (371.5 KiB) Viewed 3059 times

[jackmiggins]

No - the wording is altering, very subtly, as is the method of statistical analysis - pay attentions.

[martin_p]

Two things wrong with that
1) Most of the photos you likely rolled your eyes at were deliberately shot using specific lenses and angles to cause most outrage.
2) If a minority are ignoring govt advise then the majority are so no surprises the R value has dropped significantly.

Also perfect response to someone asking what the scientific advice is proceeds to give an opinion and probably thinks it's equally valid.

outrage.jpg

Those pictures keep being used, but I’ve only ever seen them as demonstrating the difference a camera angle can make, I’ve never seen the first one used to ‘cause outrage’. Are there any pictures that show people breaking the rules that can be demonstrated to be false?

[CombatClaret]

Those pictures keep being used, but I’ve only ever seen them as demonstrating the difference a camera angle can make, I’ve never seen the first one used to ‘cause outrage’. Are there any pictures that show people breaking the rules that can be demonstrated to be false?

So did a paid journalist take a photo intending to cause outrage and then take and publish a second to discredit their own work?

Surprisingly not...

BUT! The first photo was used widely by the press in late April about people flocking to the seaside.

A Brighton local did an excellent job of breaking it down, showing the 40 people in the photo were spread over a distance of half a kilomenter which If you put them in a line would be 12.5m meters apart.

DM.jpg (287.21 KiB) Viewed 3037 times

brighton.jpg (224.96 KiB) Viewed 3037 times

https://twitter.com/alukeonlife/status/ ... 4928999425

[CombatClaret]

Here's another example from press in Norway, a photo used but taken to include a distance of over 450m.
Now obviously these are only a couple examples but it requires people familiar with the area to forensically analyse each photo so no wonder it's not happening regularly.

EUy0GG-WsAI9wm4.jpg (200.53 KiB) Viewed 3030 times

[martin_p]

So did a paid journalist take a photo intending to cause outrage and then take and publish a second to discredit their own work?

Surprisingly not...

BUT! The first photo was used widely by the press in late April about people flocking to the seaside.

A Brighton local did an excellent job of breaking it down, showing the 40 people in the photo were spread over a distance of half a kilomenter which If you put them in a line would be 12.5m meters apart.

DM.jpg

brighton.jpg

https://twitter.com/alukeonlife/status/ ... 4928999425

The people in the Brighton photo aren’t in a line. Besides, wasn’t this used to show there were a lot of people out in Brighton rather than to highlight lack of social distancing.

Incidentally, what’s Bournemouth Pier doing in Brighton?

[CombatClaret]

The people in the Brighton photo aren’t in a line. Besides, wasn’t this used to show there were a lot of people out in Brighton rather than to highlight lack of social distancing.

Incidentally, what’s Bournemouth Pier doing in Brighton?

Bournemouth, Brighton all the same.

The people are not in a line but quite probably in groups/couples they're allowed to be out with so that actually increases the probable space between them as the 40 people if in couples for example would be 20 groups over 500 meters.

I think I've done my part to show the misuse of photos in the media. If I had the knowledge & time I'm sure I could discredit countless photos intended to imply lack of social distancing.

[jackmiggins]

We seem to have moved from the merits of cycling to photographic composition? Really doesn't take much to distract from the actual subject does it?

[CombatClaret]

We seem to have moved from the merits of cycling to photographic composition? Really doesn't take much to distract from the actual subject does it?

Sorry side tracked, but Colburn seemed to imply the R value was dropping despite all the photos they see of people not social distancing. He was asked on the science and gave anecdote/opinion.

[martin_p]

Bournemouth, Brighton all the same.

The people are not in a line but quite probably in groups/couples they're allowed to be out with so that actually increases the probable space between them as the 40 people if in couples for example would be 20 groups over 500 meters.

I think I've done my part to show the misuse of photos in the media. If I had the knowledge & time I'm sure I could discredit countless photos intended to imply lack of social distancing.

I’ve followed your link and found the news story it appeared in. The photo is captioned ‘People walked along the seafront at Bournemouth’. The article it’s attached to talks about people ignoring the lockdown and going out, sunbathing (there’s also pictures of people sunbathing) and doing non essential shopping (picture of a couple coming out of a DIY shop). It also mentions that traffic is up 4% and that people had been driving to tourist destinations. Social distancing isn’t mentioned once. This was all on 27th April before the new guidance came in. I’m not sure how you think the photo has been misused as it is captioned correctly.

[NottsClaret]

One thing we've learned from all this is that it's only other people who don't observe social distancing.

You're in the park with everyone else, but as long as you remember to tut at the 'madness' of it all then you're still a responsible citizen. Not like those idiots.

[martin_p]

One thing we've learned from all this is that it's only other people who don't observe social distancing.

You're in the park with everyone else, but as long as you remember to tut at the 'madness' of it all then you're still a responsible citizen. Not like those idiots.

Speak for yourself.

[Colburn_Claret]

Two things wrong with that
1) Most of the photos you likely rolled your eyes at were deliberately shot using specific lenses and angles to cause most outrage.
2) If a minority are ignoring govt advise then the majority are so no surprises the R value has dropped significantly.

Also perfect response to someone asking what the scientific advice is proceeds to give an opinion and probably thinks it's equally valid.

outrage.jpg

My point was rather, why do you need to know what the scientific advice is. The daily briefings inform every layman out there what they need to know, or does Andrew have the brain to dissect, analyse, and pick holes in the scientific advice.

I've said on many threads, on lots of different subjects, Racism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Islamophobia. IF you look to find fault, you WILL definitely find it.
Andrew and others like him, actively look to find fault, and leech onto every bit of bad news, unflattering stats, biased diatribe, as facts. The vast majority of the time, its a load of embroidered ********, not always, but mostly, yet they still continue to try and rubbish the course the government chose with no other evidence but uncorroborated hearsay, from underlings with an axe to grind. I'm happy that they take an active interest in what the government are doing, we all should be, but if they are, then there is no need to ask what scientific advice the government is receiving, because in all probability it would fly straight over the head of any layman anyway.
The daily charts and the explanations delivered with them, have been excellent, or would be if it wasn't for the tragic circumstances, wanting anything above or beyond them is just looking for an excuse to mud sling, again.


The whole point of mentioning the minority, and the drop in R value in London was to point a positive note on how this virus, bad as it is, is not as bad as so many people believe, due to the continuous negativity delivered by our mass media. It wasn't a dig at Londoners, or anyone else, I know the North East still suffer from people who think government guidelines are for everybody else, but not themselves. Yet still the numbers drop.....

[jackmiggins]

I'm dubious of the figures regarding London and the South East. Ever since lockdown, I've been regularly travelling down on the A1 & M1 to visit construction sites (in isolation). The traffic has generally been very light until you get to Milton Keynes/Harlow. Gradually increasing from there, with the M25 being at around 80% of normal.

[CombatClaret]

My point was rather, why do you need to know what the scientific advice is. The daily briefings inform every layman out there what they need to know, or does Andrew have the brain to dissect, analyse, and pick holes in the scientific advice...

Yet still the numbers drop.....

The numbers dropped because we denied the fire it's fuel, now we're putting more logs out before the fire has gone out and people are asking what the science behind that is.
We know the fire will likely never be completely out but it's reasonable for people to ask see the reasoning behind why it's safe enough that they won't catch fire and not just take the word of some person at a podium without that evidence.

[Colburn_Claret]

Sorry side tracked, but Colburn seemed to imply the R value was dropping despite all the photos they see of people not social distancing. He was asked on the science and gave anecdote/opinion.

The first part is right, I was saying that the R value was dropping, despite.....

I wasn't asked about any scientific evidence, I was responding to Andrews need to know the scientific advice the government was acting on, and explaining that the daily charts and briefings are all we really need to know. To take it to the enth degree, would you tell all 77 million people in the land what the advice was, and then ask for 77 million opinions on what we should do next, because you'd probably get 77 million different answers. You don't run any country like that. I still think the government is doing a good job, but none of us will know the truth of that until we can look back on it in a few years time, when all the facts, and the stats, and the advice given at the time, can be digested and conclusions drawn. Trying to draw conclusions at this time is pointless, and just serves to undermine the government. Which is after all Andrews main objective.

[Grumps]

The first part is right, I was saying that the R value was dropping, despite.....

I wasn't asked about any scientific evidence, I was responding to Andrews need to know the scientific advice the government was acting on, and explaining that the daily charts and briefings are all we really need to know. To take it to the enth degree, would you tell all 77 million people in the land what the advice was, and then ask for 77 million opinions on what we should do next, because you'd probably get 77 million different answers. You don't run any country like that. I still think the government is doing a good job, but none of us will know the truth of that until we can look back on it in a few years time, when all the facts, and the stats, and the advice given at the time, can be digested and conclusions drawn. Trying to draw conclusions at this time is pointless, and just serves to undermine the government. Which is after all Andrews main objective.

It was going so well, then you mentioned we'll have to wait to do any proper and meaningful analysis.
That will get them all kicking and screaming this afternoon

[Colburn_Claret]

The numbers dropped because we denied the fire it's fuel, now we're putting more logs out before the fire has gone out and people are asking what the science behind that is.
We know the fire will likely never be completely out but it's reasonable for people to ask see the reasoning behind why it's safe enough that they won't catch fire and not just take the word of some person at a podium without that evidence.

I answered it in the next post, but to be more specific. Building sites have been encouraged to go back, because a) it is a major part of our economy, with many suppliers and trades involved. Working outdoors is far safer than working indoors, and with common sense, using face masks etc, then it is highly unlikely that it will push an increase in the R value. Schools have been told to prepare to go back, because we have learnt that children are far less susceptible to this virus, and far less likely to have serious consequences if they do catch it. Again, teachers and pupils can follow guidelines on distancing, wearing masks, gloves, washing hands.
At the end of the day we have to turn round sometime, and there is nothing there that leads me to believe that now isn't the right time. Personally I'd let all school kids go back, but it's not my decision.

[android]

Sorry, guys, I went out for a cycle ride shortly after posting link to and extract from ONS report.

Android has it right, ONS has measured prevalence of people infected with covid-19 in the community (i.e. not hospitals, not care homes) in a 2 week period: 27 April to 10 May - which is 5 to 7 weeks after the lockdown started. ONS didn't need to survey hospitals and care homes because those figures are being directly reported. Similarly, deaths are reported and available to ONS through death certificates mentioning covid-19, in addition to the NHS tested positive figures.

Grumps has it right, on average only 3 people in every 1,000 we might meet in the community had the virus in that period up to last weekend.

Martin's figures don't tie up, because he's thinking about totals that are estimates of how many people have had the virus at any time and in all settings, community, hospitals and care homes.

Of the health care workers included in the survey who were working in patient/care facing roles 13 in every 1,000 had the virus and a further 2 in a 1,000 had the virus and weren't working at the time of the survey.

I can only make sense of these health care workers figures by assuming they were included in the ONS survey of people in the community, i.e. the survey asked "what job do you do?" And, 13 (in every 1,000) healthcare people were found to test positive for covid-19 and were still at work because they didn't know they had covid-19. I also make the assumption that the 2 (in a 1,000) were self-isolating and knew they had covid-19.

So, maybe it's not just 3 people in every 1,000 that we might meet in the community, maybe we should add to this the 13 healthcare workers who are still going to and from work (and no reason why they shouldn't) but they don't know that they have the virus.

Add it all up and take the high numbers from the ONS ranges, I make it somewhere around 4 in every 100 people we might meet in the community may be infected with covid-19 at this time.

How many passengers fit in a tube carriage? If it's 50 (I've never felt the need to count passengers) then, base don the ONS survey, statistically 1 will have covid-19 on that journey.

Sleep well. Stay safe, everyone.

I believe the ONS included the 13/1000 healthcare workers in their overall average estimate of 0.27%. If so, the numbers are somewhere around my rounded 1 in 400 (0.25%) or as you and/or Grumps put it slightly more conservatively 3 in 1000 (0.3%) rather than 4 in 100.

All a bit too academic perhaps and if you were encouraging us all to remain cautious then I agree! Probably better if we imagine that 4 in 100 might still have it even if the real number might be lower according to the ONS.

[CombatClaret]

The first part is right, I was saying that the R value was dropping, despite.....

I wasn't asked about any scientific evidence, I was responding to Andrews need to know the scientific advice the government was acting on, and explaining that the daily charts and briefings are all we really need to know. To take it to the enth degree, would you tell all 77 million people in the land what the advice was, and then ask for 77 million opinions on what we should do next, because you'd probably get 77 million different answers. You don't run any country like that. I still think the government is doing a good job, but none of us will know the truth of that until we can look back on it in a few years time, when all the facts, and the stats, and the advice given at the time, can be digested and conclusions drawn. Trying to draw conclusions at this time is pointless, and just serves to undermine the government. Which is after all Andrews main objective.

...Schools have been told to prepare to go back, because we have learnt that children are far less susceptible to this virus, and far less likely to have serious consequences if they do catch it...

Sorry but that's sounds very docile and accepting of any authority with a good power point presentation. A graph or a chart is just that, a collection of data presented in one of many ways. The question is how and why we are acting on such data, and yes there maybe 66 million people in the country but we don't need their opinion. What we're asking for is the opinions of the few thousand people who've made it their lives work to study, health, epidemiology etc. Because not all of them will agree and it's highly likely that scientific advice and guidance can be corrupted by ideology once it meet politics.
For example there's been no hard evidence to suggest children do not spread the disease just as much as adults. Should teachers not be entitled to know that before they put themselves and their own families at home at risk? I think that evidence was asked for in PMQs and the response was "We'll tell you later", that's not acceptable.

[Grumps]

People do realise that most schools are already open don't they?
Looking after the children of those most at risk of having the virus
How many of these teachers have caught it?
I would suggest, not many, or we'd have heard about it

[Devils_Advocate]

People do realise that most schools are already open don't they?
Looking after the children of those most at risk of having the virus
How many of these teachers have caught it?
I would suggest, not many, or we'd have heard about it

I thought the children still at school were there because their parents were key workers who couldn't stay at home and look after them and not because the children are most at risk of catching the virus. I appreciate you might be talking about a different subset of children at school so please educate me as always happy to learn

Also you must understand the difference between a school only being partly populated with small ratios of teacher to pupils in terms of social distancing and being at risk compared to a school at full capacity?

[CombatClaret]

People do realise that most schools are already open don't they?
Looking after the children of those most at risk of having the virus
How many of these teachers have caught it?
I would suggest, not many, or we'd have heard about it

How many teachers and students are in these open schools?

Between 9 March and 20 April, a minimum of 65 staff working in the education sector died after contracting the virus – more than two dozen of whom were nursery, primary, secondary, or special school teachers, according to figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
Other educational staff who have died with the virus include 10 teaching assistants and two school secretaries.

This is simply their occupation so we don't know if they were working in a school with children at the time and these are only the ones who were tested, 238 education staff died during that period. If they were working staff at the time I would assume the majority were under 65.

Would you like to go and teach a classroom right now, why are we asking them to be 'Heroes' if there's very little risk?

[Grumps]

I though the children still at school were there because their parents were key workers who couldn't stay at home and look after them and not because the children are most at risk of catching the virus. I appreciate you might be talking about a different subset of children at school so please educate me as always happy to learn

Also you must understand the difference between a school only being partly populated with small ratios of teacher to pupils in terms of social distancing and being at risk compared to a school at full capacity?

So doctors, nurses, care workers aren't at high risk of catching the virus, and passing it on to their family?

Who has mentioned schools being at full capacity?

[Grumps]

How many teachers and students are in these open schools?

Between 9 March and 20 April, a minimum of 65 staff working in the education sector died after contracting the virus – more than two dozen of whom were nursery, primary, secondary, or special school teachers, according to figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
Other educational staff who have died with the virus include 10 teaching assistants and two school secretaries.

This is simply their occupation so we don't know if they were working in a school with children at the time, one thing I would imagine though is that the majority were under 65.

Would you like to go and teach a classroom right now, why are we asking them to be 'Heroes' if there's very little risk?

So we don't know where they caught the virus?

If the correct processes were in place I'd have no problem going to work.... Other than having to deal with a load of kids
Several of my family have remained teaching for past 7 weeks. They don't see themselves as media driven heroes.

[jackmiggins]

So R values are now being compared for different regions with news that relaxation may be on a regional basis (no doubt London being the first). I don't understand how accurate these figures are, given the low level of testing, but I am suspicious that they are being manipulated.
Of course, following relaxation, the govt has stated that these will be SWIFTLY reversed if the figures are seen to deteriorate. Unfortunately that would be about three weeks after the cause of the deterioration, so perhaps, not so swift?

[Devils_Advocate]

So doctors, nurses, care workers aren't at high risk of catching the virus, and passing it on to their family?

Who has mentioned schools being at full capacity?

On the first point I misread it so yes if you are talking about children of those most vulnerable then thats a fair comment

On the second point you referenced how many teachers have caught the virus. This would be a good stat to use to highlight the danger if teachers had managed to catch the virus with the bare minimum of pupils.

To use teachers not catching the virus as a way of measuring the risk of opening schools further is just bad math and pointless. As soon as we start to ramp up the pupil numbers the risk starts to increase and using the stats when it was practically empty tells us nothing. (I bet no teacher has caught the virus in an empty school)

Mentioning full capacity was just an illustrative example but the point stands for any sort of increase.

If I have misread your second point please explain what purpose the question 'How many of these teachers have caught it?' served as part of the wider post/point you were making?

[Devils_Advocate]

Just to add I have no skin in this game and Im happy for a conversation between teachers, their representatives, the govt and their education department to work together all supported by and with access to the relevant science.

If this can happen then I am happy to trust any collaborative decision they come to as they all want the same thing at the end of the day which is to get schools back up and running safely

Edit: plus input from groups that represent the parents

[martin_p]

People do realise that most schools are already open don't they?
Looking after the children of those most at risk of having the virus
How many of these teachers have caught it?
I would suggest, not many, or we'd have heard about it

Sending those that will understand the need for social distancing least, 4-6 year olds, back first seems to be mental to be honest. I have a son in year 1 and unless the situation improves significantly over the next couple of weeks I won’t be sending him to school whether it’s open or not.

[Grumps]

On the first point I misread it so yes if you are talking about children of those most vulnerable then thats a fair comment

On the second point you referenced how many teachers have caught the virus. This would be a good stat to use to highlight the danger if teachers had managed to catch the virus with the bare minimum of pupils.

To use teachers not catching the virus as a way of measuring the risk of opening schools further is just bad math and pointless. As soon as we start to ramp up the pupil numbers the risk starts to increase and using the stats when it was practically empty tells us nothing. (I bet no teacher has caught the virus in an empty school)

Mentioning full capacity was just an illustrative example but the point stands for any sort of increase.

If I have misread your second point please explain what purpose the question 'How many of these teachers have caught it?' served as part of the wider post/point you were making?

If teachers had caught the virus with the bare minimum of pupils, as you say, do you not think the unions would be shouting it from the roof tops?

Any sort of increase would be in small classroom sizes, similar to those at present.

[Grumps]

Sending those that will understand the need for social distancing least, 4-6 year olds, back first seems to be mental to be honest. I have a son in year 1 and unless the situation improves significantly over the next couple of weeks I won’t be sending him to school whether it’s open or not.

Your choice.

[Swizzlestick]

Topical

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/lifestyl ... 19-2854759

[Devils_Advocate]

If teachers had caught the virus with the bare minimum of pupils, as you say, do you not think the unions would be shouting it from the roof tops?

Yes and I stated this would be positive proof for not opening schools, did you not read my post.

What it not happening has to do with being any sort of evidence for increasing the numbers of pupils in schools is not clear and the main question I am asking of you

Any sort of increase would be in small classroom sizes, similar to those at present.

Couple of things on this.

First this is a plan to open up schools bit by bit so although the very first change might be able to main small class sizes then this wouldn't last for long. Once we start the process, then slowing it down and stopping it becomes a lot harder and I dont want us to have to wait until something serious happens to take action

Secondly it is not just class sizes but the volume of people within a fixed size environment. More pupils, teachers and support staff in the same size building increases the risk

Like I said in my other post lets give an opportunity for all the key groups and experts involved to have dialogue and move forward together. It seems too many people are ready to start playing politics with this one which is not what is needed

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

People do realise that most schools are already open don't they?
Looking after the children of those most at risk of having the virus
How many of these teachers have caught it?
I would suggest, not many, or we'd have heard about it

Yes but obviously the numbers currently in the building make it a lot easier to social distance and manage breaks, lunches, drop off and pick ups etc. Suddenly throwing 120 children plus back in isn’t going to be quite as easy to manage while trying to keep everyone safe.

[Grumps]

Yes and I stated this would be positive proof for not opening schools, did you not read my post.

What it not happening has to do with being any sort of evidence for increasing the numbers of pupils in schools is not clear and the main question I am asking of you



Couple of things on this.

First this is a plan to open up schools bit by bit so although the very first change might be able to main small class sizes then this wouldn't last for long. Once we start the process, then slowing it down and stopping it becomes a lot harder and I dont want us to have to wait until something serious happens to take action

Secondly it is not just class sizes but the volume of people within a fixed size environment. More pupils, teachers and support staff in the same size building increases the risk

Like I said in my other post lets give an opportunity for all the key groups and experts involved to have dialogue and move forward together. It seems too many people are ready to start playing politics with this one which is not what is needed

As far as iam aware, and you won't be shy in telling me if I am but the only thing being announced at the moment is the very small numbers in the first step. For a month at most, in June, which is all iam talking about
I don't think it's been announced who may, or may not be attending in September so pointless bring that into this discussion

[martin_p]

As far as iam aware, and you won't be shy in telling me if I am but the only thing being announced at the moment is the very small numbers in the first step. For a month at most, in June, which is all iam talking about
I don't think it's been announced who may, or may not be attending in September so pointless bring that into this discussion

It’s three years worth of pupils, F2, Yr 1 and Yr 6. Add that to the children of key workers already attending and you’re looking at 50% of the school being there from June. I wouldn’t call that small numbers.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

It’s three years worth of pupils, F2, Yr 1 and Yr 6. Add that to the children of key workers already attending and you’re looking at 50% of the school being there from June. I wouldn’t call that small numbers.

Definitely not small numbers! It’s a 6 week term and the government want all year groups back before the summer break.

[Grumps]

Yes but obviously the numbers currently in the building make it a lot easier to social distance and manage breaks, lunches, drop off and pick ups etc. Suddenly throwing 120 children plus back in isn’t going to be quite as easy to manage while trying to keep everyone safe.

120?
Lots of empty classrooms due to most of the school not being in, so small class sizes of 15, which they are doing at present
All other things you mention can have processes put in place
At the end of the day, if the environment isn't safe, the school won't accept more than it can

[Grumps]

Definitely not small numbers! It’s a 6 week term and the government want all year groups back before the summer break.

Where's that been said.... I missed that sorry
Plus it doesn't start till June, and some schools close before, or at the end of June

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

120?
Lots of empty classrooms due to most of the school not being in, so small class sizes of 15, which they are doing at present
All other things you mention can have processes put in place
At the end of the day, if the environment isn't safe, the school won't accept more than it can

In the school I work we have 40 reception, 40 year 1 and 40 year 6. We also have 66 key worker and vulnerable children. We have 9 classrooms. I’ll let you do the maths.

[TVC15]

Lots of key workers have not been sending their children to school during lockdown. And we know that only a small fraction of vulnerable children have been going in.

There are 1000+ secondary schools in our region where 2 or 3 children have been attending during lockdown.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Where's that been said.... I missed that sorry
Plus it doesn't start till June, and some schools close before, or at the end of June

No schools close they are open as they were during Easter holidays for key worker and vulnerable children. It’ll be the same week. D of E have stated they want all year groups in before the end of the school year if possible.

[KateR]

My daughter in-law is a teacher and has worked throughout, so her thoughts are that the risk has gone down considerably, the worry which was obviously highest weeks ago but nothing has happened, not one word regarding any parent being ill and no children removed. As mentioned and obvious all children have at least one parent on the front line so again obviously most at risk to bring the virus home and start spreading but not happened, this of course is only one school but she says they are in constant contact with some other schools and info in that regard is being shared.

While she feels the worry is up again concerning having more joining, she is happy it's phased and not just open the door to all, they do all the things one should do, wiping everything down properly and more than once, lot of hand washing etc. her thought process is IF everyone in this tight cluster does the right things and sanitizes everything, ensures the safe distancing then the risk to bring the virus into the cluster is low. Yet she knows people shop and parents are likely in some cases to be very close to others with the virus so on the other hand the risk from that could be high but she feels it is essential to look after the children and ensure the frontline workers can do the job they do.