Coronavirus

[Andrew]

From this a.m.'s Guardian:


Independent Sage warns against school reopening plan
Ian Sample Ian Sample
A group of senior scientists has warned that 1 June is too soon for schools to reopen safely and that more time is needed to set up an effective track and trace system to contain future outbreaks.

The independent Sage committee, chaired by the former government chief scientist Sir David King, say that new modelling of the coronavirus shows the risk to children will be halved if they return to school two weeks later than ministers propose. Delaying until September reduced the risk still further.

The extra two weeks would allow more time for infections to fall in the community and for crucial track and trace capacity to be built up so that new cases are found and isolated fast.

“It is clear from the evidence we have collected that 1 June is simply too early to go back. By going ahead with this dangerous decision, the government is further risking the health of our communities and the likelihood of a second spike,” Professor King said.

In a draft consultation published on Friday, the experts say local authorities must demonstrate low levels of infection and an ability to contain new infections before schools are reopened, with public consultation a “vital” part of the decision-making process.

The report urges authorities to consider summer camps and outdoor schools for educating children with community playing fields and sports clubs requisitioned for teaching purposes.

King said the decision of when to re-open schools was a “careful balance” but added it was vital for young people to get back to the classroom as soon as it was safe to do so. “The current climate is likely to disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged in society, therefore it is vital that the government also considers innovative ways to help those who need it most.”

Professor King established the Independent Sage committee amid concerns over the lack of transparency around scientific advice reaching ministers from the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), co-chaired by the chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance and England’s chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “Support for a fixed date for school return is vanishing quickly. What is needed now is local flexibility to determine when it is right for schools to open up to more pupils, informed by evidence of what is happening in their local area.”

I seem to have missed a point here: Schools have been looking after the children of essential workers since the beginning of the Covid outbreak. These are, presumably, children of N.H.S. staff, transport workers and other high risk workers, to name but some. All of these children would have been at a higher risk of carrying the virus than non-high risk parents, yet they were happy to care for them.

Come along more normal times, with children LESS likely to have been exposed to the virus, and the teaching unions object to their members teaching them. I TOTALLY agree with reasonable precautions, but there comes a time when things need to move on, and `I consider this time is near....

[teamsaint]

I seem to have missed a point here: Schools have been looking after the children of essential workers since the beginning of the Covid outbreak. These are, presumably, children of N.H.S. staff, transport workers and other high risk workers, to name but some. All of these children would have been at a higher risk of carrying the virus than non-high risk parents, yet they were happy to care for them.

Come along more normal times, with children LESS likely to have been exposed to the virus, and the teaching unions object to their members teaching them. I TOTALLY agree with reasonable precautions, but there comes a time when things need to move on, and `I consider this time is near....

You have indeed missed the point.

Teachers have had to look after key workers children. Many of them probably aren’t in fact “happy” about it.

Many teachers are only asking for what the goverment itself is seeking to put in place( apparently) which is to allow more children in when the infection level is much lower than presently, and when proper contact tracing is in place, as well of course as proper preparation of the school environment.

Another point, one of the scientists at todays government bridfing emphasised that this could very well be a long haul. Given that, the rush to open a fortnight earlier and double the risk ( as per the SAGE report) is complete nonsense.

[DracoM]

<< I'm assuming you live in London

Because in many other places this time is certainly NOT near >>

Yes, yes. Here in the Motor-Biker / TOURIST-HOTSPOT NW, I can tell you that [a] teachers and [b] the general population are most certifiably NOT looking forward to easing lockdown or having schools re-open. Stay at homr. Tough, yes, fully agree, but....but.....

[oddoneout]

I don't know about the situation elsewhere but in my neck of the woods there are not that many pupils in school at present so managing the distancing etc is not too bad even with the very young ones. However a friend who works as a midday assistant at an infants school says that they are struggling to work out how to manage the practicalities of having the two youngest year groups back. Another friend whose husband is a school governor with an Academy Trust that includes 3 primary schools mentioned that one of the schools, a very small rural one, is in its original Victorian building, and the guidelines they have been sent make assumptions about buildings/layouts which don't apply.

[ardcarp]

I wonder how M. Georges Lopez in Avoir et Etre would cope?

[muzzer]

This appalling government continues to behave as if it’s managed the whole thing perfectly, while the evidence is almost all to the contrary. It must go, and quickly.

[Dave2002]

I seem to have missed a point here: Schools have been looking after the children of essential workers since the beginning of the Covid outbreak. These are, presumably, children of N.H.S. staff, transport workers and other high risk workers, to name but some. All of these children would have been at a higher risk of carrying the virus than non-high risk parents, yet they were happy to care for them.

Come along more normal times, with children LESS likely to have been exposed to the virus, and the teaching unions object to their members teaching them. I TOTALLY agree with reasonable precautions, but there comes a time when things need to move on, and `I consider this time is near....

I now live in a relatively less dense part of Scotland. There are indeed people working, and some children attending school. The numbers are very low compared with "normal" times. Some of the vulnerable children have low attendance rates - normally a cause for concern. There have been teachers who became ill and some may have been hospitalised, though recovered. With an R number now thought to be somewhere between 0.7 and 1, and a putative half life of outstanding cases of about 2 weeks, the Scottish government appears to think that it is still too early to rush into a potentially risky return of all school children to their studies.

The situation in Scotland is slightly different from England though, as most schools would be breaking up in a short time for the summer in any case. Another difference, though I have no evidence other than a statement by the first minister recently, is that in March the R value in Scotland was thought to be 4, whereas Patrick Vallance was recently suggesting that it might have been 3 in England. As the claimed R values refer to periods when many in the UK were completely unaware of the significance of reproduction numbers, or even Covid-19, I am not sure that much reliance can be placed on those figures. However, it does suggest that at least in Scotland some people thought, for whatever reasons, that the reproduction rates across the country might have been higher than in England. I am not sure that I agree with that, but that's what the recent statements seem to imply.

Personally I think the Scottish government's approach makes a lot of sense, and there is no point in putting more people's lives at risk.

[Dave2002]

It won't. Dom might.

A recent report suggests that Dom should go, as he apparently violated the rules relating to CV-19 and travelled hundreds of miles north while infected. In the case of another adviser, Prof Ferguson, one could argue that whatever he did personally didn't invalidate his scientific advice, but nevertheless it was felt that this was an issue which should cause him to step down as an adviser. I suspect that the rules will be interpreted selectively on a "per case" basis!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-cummings-investigated-police-after-22072579

[MrGongGong]

It won't. Dom might.

What would your favourite option be

1: Get away with it and become even richer
2: Scuttle off back under the stone with wealth intact
3: "Die in a ditch"
4: Prison

[Petrushka]

It must go, and quickly.

Couldn't agree more but how is that to be achieved with an 80 seat majority? They would easily win a vote of no confidence. My bet is that Johnson will resign/be forced out, as being seen as a liability, in December once Brexit is 'done'. Other than that we're stuck with them for the next 4 years at least. Thanks voters!

[Count Boso]

It won't. Dom might.

Doubt if it would make much difference. He'd still be UNofficial chief special adviser "unpaid" (as if!) to the prime minister, with cause for much private mirth.

[Serial_Apologist]

This appalling government continues to behave as if it’s managed the whole thing perfectly, while the evidence is almost all to the contrary. It must go, and quickly.

Someone else who should go quickly - and I've been thinking this for quite some time lately, is preasenter Martha Kearney on the Today programme. As so often the appropriate Toady tag for BBC "impartiality" with regards to this programme had to be heard to be believed. Scots Nats MP Ian Blackford had raised questions over Dominic Cumming's lockdown-breaching Durham visit. Mr Blackford, who is always courteous in manner, was constantly sniped at by Ms Kearney insisting that he tell her what he would have done had he been in a similar position. MPs and others treated in this jostling matter really should stand up for themselves - there really is too much of this kind of unsubstantiated cross-examining by all broadcasting media these days - Andrew Marr - for all his and his top spot Sunday programme's faults in other ways, being one honorable exception - otherwise people such as myself and doubtless many others will cease altogether to listen to the BBC for balanced coverage. In fact I now just stick to the twin requirements of "social distancing" and regular handwashing as being the only two measures successfully applied to bringing down the infection rates in the UK, and if any policeman or woman comes up intending to arrest me for breaking any new rules, I shall just ask how could I have known?

Now, if I had been Ian Blackford I would have turned the question back on Kearney and said, well, what would you have done in the circumstances? To which the retort would probably have been, well, I'm not the one questioning Dominic Cummings's actions, you are. But, as far as we know, Blackford had not breached lockdown rules, and in any case as a parliamentary representative he has every right and duty to ask such questions. It was not even as if he had been evasive up to that point, which is the usual rationale for "tough interviewing". The fact is that if such lines of interrogation are not themselves checked we are theoretically in a position in which anybody, not just politicians, can be hauled into BBC HQ to be subjected to such when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife type interviews - not only unjustifiable but unilluminating. What was notable about this sorry incident was that Justin Webb was then expected to ask a like question of MP John Tugendhat in order presumably to show "balance" - I could imagine the, by contrast, rather too cap doffing Webb thinking, oh dear me, look what a spot you've put me in, as he querulously asked Tugendhat, "Would you have made that journey?"

[MrGongGong]

Couldn't agree more but how is that to be achieved with an 80 seat majority? They would easily win a vote of no confidence. My bet is that Johnson will resign/be forced out as being seen as a liability but oither than that we're stuck with them for the next 4 years at least. Thanks voters!

I think that, sadly, the full-on rehabilitation of Johnson is now underway
he will be re-branded as someone who "listens" and "responds" and people will cheer him again


Lee Konitz, Manu Dibango VS Boris Johnson

One can only conclude that there is no justice in the world

[Bryn]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/22/us-stores-against-face-masks?CMP=share_btn_fb

What can one say?

[Bryn]

Ah, a voice of sanity:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-latour-inte/stop-french-philosopher-latour-urges-no-return-to-pre-lockdown-normal-idUSKBN22K22G?il=0