hypochondriac

Since the sash.

Children numbers will be down but the vast majority of early years childcare settings will be opening if there is demand (assuming government advice doesn't change.) If child welfare is the primary concern then we already know that children benefit massively from school and that the risk from coronavirus is statistically tiny for younger children especially.

Why do you suppose the vast majority of nurseries are planning to return on June 1st? Maybe those who run nurseries care about their staff less? What do you reckon? Or could it be that theres a greater financial consideration that both early years workers and managers have that schools and teachers don't have? And the need to save jobs needs to be balanced along with sensible risk management.

It absolutely is one of the reasons for quite a few.

One week of work a month? No wonder there's no rush to return!

Loads of teachers aren't doing anything. One of my mates is a teacher at a private school and working bl*ody hard. Three other ones work at primary schools and are working one week on and three weeks off and are sat at home watching Netflix whilst they are off.

You realise there's a number of teachers that have been going into school this entire time and many who want to start up again? Also fifty percent of teachers aren't in a union.

No I'm not, I haven't ignored anything all I've said is that it's moronic to quote something like second highest death rate out of context and think that's some sort of gotcha. I'm also not the one making the fatuous claim that the government wants to kill children and that we should ignore scientists. Not sure why you are talking about kawasaki disease but of course it is a risk like anything else is. It has affected a relatively small amount of children, there is currently no proven link to covid (in fact the numbers with kawasaki are actually lower than average for this time of year) and last time I checked it had led to one death. As tragic as that is, the measures taken need to be proportionate to the level of risk which is low.

It's a lot which is clearly a concern. Many thousands dead from the virus and more on top of that due to the lockdown. That doesn't mean we stop listening to experts or think the government wants to kill children by opening schools though.

Lol so I assume you'll just ignore my question then. A guardian headline about the death rate just proves my point.

That article doesn't advocate for not trusting scientists and using common sense. It's also in the guardian.

Yeah scientists. Pfft. What do they know eh? We need some of that common sense instead. We've had enough of experts, let's use our instincts instead. Great plan.

OK then please find anyone you consider qualified who has used the phrase "second highest death rate" without any context. The only stipulation is it can't be a far left activist on twitter. I'll wait.

Shouting about second highest death rate completely out of context is moronic as anyone would know if they bothered to look into things at even a surface level or if they'd listened to most people qualified to talk about it because they've been saying as such for ages.

See it's things like this regurgitating ill-informed newspaper headlines unthinkingly like "second highest death rate" that means some balance is required.

All I'm doing is providing some balance from the people on here suggesting that the government want to sacrifice children.

I didn't conclude its highly unlikely, it was the words of professor Saul faust, Professor of Paediatric Immunology and Infectious Diseases within Medicine at the University of Southampton.

Actually very unlikely. Cited a study in Australia: "In New South Wales, nine students and nine staff at 15 schools were confirmed to have COVID-19 from the beginning of March to April 10 when the school term ended. Once confirmed, they were sent home to self-isolate for 14 days, along with all those who came into close contact with them. Altogether, 753 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these 18 cases. That's defined as being in face-to-face contact for at least 15 minutes or spending two hours in the same room with someone who is infectious. Researchers at NSW Health and the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance tracked the contacts, performing nose and throat swabs and antibody tests on those who agreed (about one-third of the total). They concluded that it was "most likely, but not certain" that just one child in a primary school and one child in a high school contracted COVID-19 from the initial 18 cases. "Our investigation found no evidence of children infecting teachers," said the researchers in their report. "One secondary case (in the child in a high school) was presumed to have been infected following close contact with two student cases. The other secondary case was presumed to have been infected by a staff member (teacher) who was a case."

Professor from Southampton on BBC. Children very unlikely to be a risk to teachers.

What about preschools or reception age children? Have you had any children out of interest?

OK let's deal with some hypotheticals. Let's suppose that children can pass it on to adults. Is ppe the thing that's required for schools to feel safer and consider opening? If so what form would that ppe take? If you're saying masks, if we suppose that the government agrees to that, with masks would it then be OK for those objecting to open in June? Some posters are saying that the death rate is too high for schools to open in June. I'm more sympathetic to that argument because I'm not an expert and if the argument is purely that science is saying that the rate of the virus is too high and the government is ignoring the science and opening anyway then I'm right behind that argument. Is that the case? What level does the death rate have to be before schools would feel safe to open and surely the most appropriate measure when assessing safety is the proliferation of the virus in the community? I suppose what I'm really asking is what steps would have to be taken for schools to feel comfortable with opening soon?

I'm not sure what sacrificing safety for money means. That just sounds like a slogan rather than something meaningful.

No it's not what it "all" comes down to- there are other issues as I've already explained- but the economics of the situation are definitely an important factor and a consideration otherwise we could easily just say let's keep the UK in lockdown for two years whilst we formulate a vaccine. What constitutes a "safe" workplace given that we know that young children will not be able to do social distancing? Also as you have recognised yourself, the last country I would use as an example for caring about individual citizens is China although not having a concept of human rights probably does lend itself rather well to virus control.

Given that we know that the early years are the most important in terms of long term development (despite some believing they "won't miss out much"), that many councils are concerned about the wellbeing of many children currently not attending school or preschool and that whatever the risk of transmission between children and adults is, that risk will still be there whenever settings decide to open what do you propose? Social distancing in early years settings is impossible, should they be shut down for another year or two or possibly permenently if a vaccine is never developed? Should the taxpayer continue to fund all wages and funding during that period?

It's a balance between safety of teachers and children and the damage that is being done by children not attending education. Let's also remember that many teachers actually support returning in June (and indeed many have been going to school on a regular basis anyway). What about nurseries and preschools? The vast majority are opening for all who need them in June because many will be returning to work and require childcare. Presumably you view this as "putting early years practitioners in the potential firing line"?