hypochondriac

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"?

Well that's an absolutely ludicrous attitude that displays little to no understanding of child development. The youngest age groups are actually missing out the most in terms of development. Many have incredibly difficult home lives, stuck in tiny council houses, have had a very poor diet for months now etc. The idea that the youngest "won't miss out much" from losing half a year of their education is laughable.

What about if its like the one above with a new ld sports logo and a v neck collar?

If it's in any way similar to this can I claim itk status? What would people think?

There was a telegraph article yesterday that said something similar: While there is a general risk from ageing, the public faces a host of other risks in daily life. The avoidable mortality rate in Britain, which includes accidents, unintentional injuries and some preventable diseases, is currently 228 people per 100,000, or 0.2 per cent. But the risk from coronavirus for the general population does not rise above that until people hit their 50s – so for anyone under that age the disease is less risky than the general underlying chance of death from preventable causes. For road accidents, the fatality rate by population hovers around 2.8 deaths per 100,000 people. The Government is encouraging more people to cycle, but cyclists are 15 times more likely to be killed on Britain's roads than car drivers. Department for Transport figures show that, for every billion miles cycled, there are 1,139 serious injuries and 29 deaths. That compares with just 27 serious injuries and two deaths per billion miles for car drivers.

You can't social distance with such young children that is my point. You shouldn't be doing it and it would be detrimental to attempt to do it. I said it seems that some teachers want the schools to stay closed until there is a vaccine and they have said they feel unsafe but not said what needs to happen before they will feel more safe to the point that they can return. I know you don't like anecdotal evidence either but I'm very good friends with a group of teachers who are absolutely sick of the unions and their constant calls for strike action.

Erm actually that's inaccurate. If by nannies you mean childminders, they are allowed to look after children only if they are from one household.

Surely the caution bit is only allowing three year groups in at a time with possibly reduced numbers? It seems to me that some teachers want pupils permenently at home until a vaccine is found. Even if young children can transmit it, we are going to have to learn to live with that risk and manage it at some point since there is no workable alternative. Rather than moaning about feeling unsafe, unions would be better served coming up with very specific and practical plans that they feel would make them happier about a plan. Have you seen anything about exactly what they are asking for? Because I haven't. Asking the government to "make it safe" whilst providing no workable outline of what they actually want is idiotic.

Erm no I didn't. Where did I say "they cannot"? Please stop making up things it's tiresome.

No I'm fully aware of the findings because it relates directly to my job. Like I said, at worst there is no conclusive evidence and I haven't seen any source that has definitively shown that children can pass on the virus to adults. Of settings that have stayed open (quite a lot albeit with reduced numbers) there have been zero reported cases. There's obviously a risk, but the reaction from some teachers is absolutely absurd. The union is saying that social distancing "will be difficult to implement." That is obviously the case and it will be the case for the rest of the year. If some teachers are saying they will not come to school if you can't implement proper social distancing with 5 year olds then how do they propose to solve that problem? Why are some teachers saying they are happy to return if the daily death rate is below a certain level? Why are they suddenly experts on what is deemed a safe death level?

Hold on so you're saying that OF COURSE children under ten can pass on covid 19 to adults? This is huge news. Presumably you have some evidence for this claim? At best it is not known, there's no of course about it.