hypochondriac

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.

There is not one single reported case in the world of transmission of covid between a child under ten and an adult. Young children cannot do social distancing and they should not be asked to. Sensible precautions should be taken by the adults and risk should be managed just like everyone else who is still working is doing. Early years settings and schools have stayed open albeit at lower capacity and as far as I am aware there have been no cases in these settings. Even nurseries in hospitals have reported no cases. Lots of teacher unions and headteachers are making lots of noise about it being unsafe but have yet to come up with any solutions to make it more safe in their eyes. If they judge it unsafe now, at what point do they believe it will suddenly be safe again to the degree that they can open? Or are they proposing that schools stay shut for the 18 months to a year that it may take to possibly have a workable vaccine? Teachers unions don't speak for teachers, they speak on behalf of some teachers and also some who have been pressured into joining but actually disagree with a lot of what the unions say. I think you'll find there are a lot of teachers who have continued to go into work during all this and are quite happy to return in June.

I'm sick to death of some teachers and their attitude, making parents feel guilty for following government guidance. Teachers know they will get paid regardless and so have no economic pressure to return to work. This is just one example from a school earlier today: That's a complete distortion of the guidance and it seems to me that some teachers want the government to either cure the virus or keep them off from school indefinitely (this includes some of my friends who are teachers with this attitude.) it's not a surprise to me that the ones screaming loudest about having to return are those in the public sector who don't have to deal directly with the immediate economic impact that this is having.

Agreed. Easily replaceable and not a huge loss.

I wasn't particularly referring to her even if I disagreed with her politically.

It's obvious to anyone that starmer presents a much sterner challenge than Corbyn ever did. I could easily see starmer winning the next election, it's just a shame he has decided to appoint a load of loons to the shadow cabinet. Hopefully some of them can be quietly moved on after a while once he's done appeasing the far left nutters and those who can't tell you what the definition of a woman is.

Got told this in December: Anniversary next year. Almost certainly isn't going to be stripes, we may see a return of the sash. Someone got sacked for leaking the kit last year so understandably people don't want to reveal anything much this year.

There's a few things that get stuck in a glory hole though.

Tbf some of that stuff was actually essential. Having no locks on the upstairs windows and not having enough fire doors was a real hazard and I remember quite a few occasions havibg to wear my coat in the classroom when the boiler failed. You're right though that some of that was definitely unnecessary.

Imagine thinking that holding the canary of all things up as an example of honest and unbiased reporting is some sort of gotcha.

I only think in the last decade or so it's really lost its way.

Gone into administration so unlikely to survive sadly. Think it's gone to hell a bit recently though so maybe for the best.

Genuinely I'd be interested in seeing where it says that because I haven't seen it.

Oh christ is soggy banging on about Tommy Robinson again? He's like a one man fan club.

Yes but where does it say that fleeting contact and a small dosage is not sufficient to catch it?

What makes you say that? That looks identical to what has been said for the last few days.