Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Covid-19

TBM, Dave,

and therein lies the problem...old tired schools.

The recent arrival of an approved antibody tests from Roche and Abbot mean that it would be possible to get all teachers tested by September.
Only kids with underlying conditions would need to be tested, but it should be offered to all parents.

All teachers and kids with immunity would have to go back to school, parental and Union objection not allowed.
For those without immunity it would be, as you say Dave, spin the wheel and take your chance.

By September there should be a lot more evidence on the transmission, or lack of it, in school.
It also seems that there may well be some sort of vaccine by the end of the year.
Together that makes the risk no greater than for normal flue and who worries about that?

Old tired schools, due to 10 years of massive underfunding.

ASCL attended a meeting with the government’s chief scientific and medical advisers on Friday afternoon, along with other education sector representatives, to hear more on the evidence which underpins the approach to reopening schools in England to more pupils from a possible date of June 1. We said we’d report back to you first on what was said. Here are the key points from that meeting, as well as a follow-up meeting held later the same afternoon with Department for Education officials. We have attempted here simply to capture what was said, rather than offer any commentary on it.

Key points from Friday’s meetings:

• There is clear evidence that the risk of children suffering severe symptoms from coronavirus is much lower than in adults. That doesn’t mean it is zero, but it is substantially less for severe disease and mortality in particular. You may have heard of some children suffering from a multi-system inflammatory condition recently. It is believed to be a post-infectious reaction to coronavirus, and it is said to be ‘exceptionally rare’.

• It is believed that children are probably less susceptible to contracting coronavirus than adults. The evidence is not conclusive, but this appears to be where the data is leading. In terms of transmission – the extent to which a child with the virus infects other individuals – there is evidence from other countries that it may be lower than for adults, but the data is limited.

• Age is the main driver of severe symptoms, particularly for adults in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. The vast majority of parents of primary school children are below the age of 45 and are therefore at relatively low risk, other than those who are in clinically vulnerable groups (the guidance contains processes aimed at protecting vulnerable adults and children). The risk does increase for adults from the age of about 55, not
hugely but to a certain extent. The government recognises that a significant number of staff in schools are above 55, and that schools will need to be mindful of this.

• There is also clear evidence that people from BAME communities are more likely to contract the virus, and some evidence that they are more severely affected. Again, schools will need to be mindful of this.

• Analysis shows that the impact of the current provision in schools on the reproduction rate of the virus is marginal, and that it can be kept below 1 if the number of pupils is increased alongside control measures. These include effective testing and contact tracing, limiting numbers in schools, concentrating on younger age groups who are less likely to socially mix than older children, and keeping children in separate groups. One of the key tests for moving forward to reopening schools to more pupils as planned is that a widespread testing and tracing regime is available

• The proposed approach for Year 10 and Year 12 pupils is more limited, and there is no expectation of them coming back full time. Models are being developed on how this might operate. This limited approach is because there is more potential for older children to have more social contacts. They are more likely to travel to their place of education using public transport, so might potentially increase the risk of transmission.

My worry about Covid exit plans are due to...
1. The general lack of common sense by so many people. Ignoring recent travel guidelines, general “I can do what suits me”, ignoring what they might pass on.
2. The poor public information being passed on and resultant confusion. A cleaner can visit clients but you cannot visit your own family. A cleaner can visit multiple clients with associated risks yet family cannot be visited. Good logic there!
3. The sense that people think we have already solved it. Deaths dropping yet no clear data for numbers infected, especially asymptomatic people.
4. The original “Save the NHS” target has been met but other measures confused and questionable.
5. The Nightingale hospitals were a great idea, luckily not needed to bolster the NHS. Why were/are they not being used as a recuperative measure to aid safe release of recovered victims back into circulation?
Point 5 is particularly annoying as recuperative hospitals/care were available years ago. I remember my mum going to one post operation. It freed up the bed in the hospital. If used as part of the exit strategy then they could provide extra temporary beds to get the postponed operations back on track by using the recuperation system to unblock beds.
I fear economic reasons are starting to outweigh health issues in many cases. Mind you, I also think many firms may have jumped the gun in stopping work when they could have reorganised to carry on in a limited way. Supermarkets have managed a decent system involving large numbers of customers with staff safety being covered.
Personally I am taking a watch and wait attitude. Watch how relaxation measures are introduced and how effective they are. Playing golf? Not yet. Not a necessity but being missed. Morgan drives? Wales has not cleared such activity yet.