hypochondriac

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.

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.