How will schools be able to go back in September?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Would require parental consent for under 16’s. Also the app only logs phones within range for 15 minutes

Parent digital consent cannot actually be done easily.

Would take way too long.

It's why the likes of Whatsapp pushed their age limit up to 16 instead of getting into an administrative nightmare with 3rd party consent forms, etc.

caveat emptor

Look I know it's a very confusing and uncertain time.
Our government took the decision to close schools in the kids best interests.
I don't think I can say this plan is that.
Cherry picking and changing variable from other countries who fund and who have handled pandemic far better is not a realistic solution.

I know all of our little johnny's are wrecking our heads but kids do get this.
I just think they are going to wreck our heads even more when we have to home school them with impaired kidney function.

That's my honest opinion. People should be aware that this is new and we don't know what will happen, 1 year , 2 year or 5 years from now.

Have a read and address the authors if they've got it wrong. Read the literature and decide if you want to take a punt.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this case series of hospitalized children who met criteria for PIMS-TS
there was a wide spectrum of presenting signs and symptoms and disease severity,
ranging from fever and inflammation to myocardial injury, shock,
and development of coronary artery aneurysms.
The comparison with patients with KD and KD shock syndrome provides insights into this syndrome,
and suggests this disorder differs from other pediatric inflammatory entities.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2767209

Why do we continue to misunderestimate this pathogen?

https://twitter.com/QuickTake/status/1288459329566396417?s=20

combat14

interesting to see that schools in US are asking parents and teachers to sign covid 19 liability waivers that they wont sue the schools if they catch covid 19 in schools

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Parent digital consent cannot actually be done easily.

Would take way too long.

It's why the likes of Whatsapp pushed their age limit up to 16 instead of getting into an administrative nightmare with 3rd party consent forms, etc.

But it can be done if we deem it necessary. Under GDPR we can also set this age limit as low as 13 if we choose.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

But it can be done if we deem it necessary. Under GDPR we can also set this age limit as low as 13 if we choose.

We can do lots of things.

But what we can't do at this moment in time, like the poster I replied to suggested.

Is tell kids under the age of 16 to download and use the app.

khalessi

Deleted User wrote: »

But it can be done if we deem it necessary. Under GDPR we can also set this age limit as low as 13 if we choose.

HSE chose 16
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0530/1143516-covid-app-hse/

At the same time the HSE will limit the app to those aged over 16 in order; it says in order to comply with the digital age of consent.

jrosen

Boggles wrote: »

We can do lots of things.

But what we can't do at this moment in time, like the poster I replied to suggested.

Is tell kids under the age of 16 to download and use the app.

I said encourage not tell. We can then encourage all over the age of 16 to download the app then seeing as there is the age restriction.

khalessi

khalessi wrote: »

HSE chose 16
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0530/1143516-covid-app-hse/

At the same time the HSE will limit the app to those aged over 16 in order; it says in order to comply with the digital age of consent.

Which we have chosen to set at 16, but can set as low as 13 if we choose

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which we have chosen to set at 16, but can set as low as 13 if we choose

We could also reduce class sizes, hire more teachers, spread out the school day. All easier just need proper investment and planning and don't require legislative changes. But that doesn't suit most.

khalessi

Deleted User wrote: »

Which we have chosen to set at 16, but can set as low as 13 if we choose

Well all legal requirements can be changed but it takes time and certain protocols have to be followed, as was pointed out to you. If it was just a case of going hey lets make it 13 they would have at the outset but obviously it it not.
We could legislate for 3 year olds to drive cars, a silly idea and not safe but it could be done.

khalessi

khalessi wrote: »

Well all legal requirements can be changed but it takes time and certain protocols have to be followed, as was pointed out to you. If it was just a case of going hey lets make it 13 they would have at the outset but obviously it it not.
We could legislate for 3 year olds to drive cars, a silly idea and not safe but it could be done.

I said it’s a choice, not what believe what should happen. Some countries have set it at 13 under GDPR, and if we judged the benefits of rolling the app on to 13 to 15 year olds outweighed the risks of lowering the digital age of consent we could. We could also implement a system to allow parents to give digital consent under emergency powers. GDPR does not trump public health.

downthemiddle

Lillyfae wrote: »

Of course it's not acceptable, but what's your alternative? Only educate the most vulnerable, or educate everyone to the best possible standard under the current circumstances for as long as is necessary??

I thought you would have the answer. You have constantly given your opinion on how poorly schools are run and offered your solutions. I’m amazed that we have finally found of school life that is beyond your level of expertise.

Boggles

jrosen wrote: »

I said encourage not tell. We can then encourage all over the age of 16 to download the app then seeing as there is the age restriction.

What's the difference?

Schools can not encourage or tell kids to break the law.

There wasn't a mention of it in the "plan" anyway.

Also I am pretty sure there is strict rules in post primary for smart phone usage in schools, for good reason.

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

We could also reduce class sizes, hire more teachers, spread out the school day. All easier just need proper investment and planning and don't require legislative changes. But that doesn't suit most.

Where are we getting a large amount of extra teachers for September?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are we getting a large amount of extra teachers for September?

Nobody knows really. Norma reckons there is piles out there willing to sacrifice themselves for her "death plan". :pac:

Nearly 50,000 sub days were filled by retired primary teachers last year.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

Lillyfae

downthemiddle wrote: »

I thought you would have the answer. You have constantly given your opinion on how poorly schools are run and offered your solutions. I’m amazed that we have finally found of school life that is beyond your level of expertise.

Aren’t I entitled to an opinion? Aren’t we all? Isn’t it better at this point to be solution focused rather than problem focused?

Do you think the schools are well run?

Alrigghtythen

Boggles wrote: »

Nobody knows really. Norma reckons there is piles out there willing to sacrifice themselves for her "death plan". :pac:

Nearly 50,000 sub days were filled by retired primary teachers last year.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs. We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.

Given the level of disquiet on here about the reopening plans, there must be no end of public health specialists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists etc. coming out in public against the plans? It can’t just be unions and opposition politicians

Boggles

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs.

Really, how many? And how many are willing to work in unsafe conditions during a once in a lifetime pandemic?

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.

We could offer them a car and a new house, but the department have offered them fúck all, which is all that matters.

Also after the don the green jersey recruitment drive for the hospitals and all those poor sods were left high and dry, I don't think people will be fooled by that again and leave their solid employment.

thenetherrealm

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs. We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.

Offer them 20,000 extra to return, and every teacher that qualified post 2011 will walk away without a second thought (myself included). We have fought for years for pay equalisation, yet because people are returning they should be given 20,000 extra? Can I leave for a few weeks and then return, for 150% of my current salary?

downthemiddle

Lillyfae wrote: »

Aren’t I entitled to an opinion? Aren’t we all? Isn’t it better at this point to be solution focused rather than problem focused?

Do you think the schools are well run?

Despite the massive underfunding and the disgraceful class sizes my experience would lead me to believe that the majority of schools are well run. Unlike you I have children in the Irish system and I have great faith in the teachers, the vast majority of whom I believe to do a good job.

combat14

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs. We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.

maybe it would work alot of teachers I kno in dubai for example are extremely reluctant to come back here due to low pay / pay disparity

not sure if "usual" teachers would be happy if others getting 20000 euro bump

teacher numbers is only one aspect of the health and safety issues of this "plan"

Boggles

combat14 wrote: »

maybe it would work alot of teachers I kno in dubai for example are extremely reluctant to come back here due to low pay / pay disparity

not sure if "usual" teachers would be happy if others getting 20000 euro bump

teacher numbers is only one aspect of the health and safety issues of this "plan"

A lot of nurses came back to answer the call. A lot of them are unemployed now.

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said it’s a choice, not what believe what should happen. Some countries have set it at 13 under GDPR, and if we judged the benefits of rolling the app on to 13 to 15 year olds outweighed the risks of lowering the digital age of consent we could. We could also implement a system to allow parents to give digital consent under emergency powers. GDPR does not trump public health.

What does trump public health?

downthemiddle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Given the level of disquiet on here about the reopening plans, there must be no end of public health specialists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists etc. coming out in public against the plans? It can’t just be unions and opposition politicians

You still haven’t addressed the issue of discrimination against children with additional needs. Do you think it is right that schools have been asked to plan to cut resources for the most vulnerable in our school communities?

caveat emptor

Caveat: this could be a deep fake. I was working on my Fauci voice (sarcasm)
Everyone sending a kid back should watch it.
Educators too.
I'm sure the department know it all.

https://twitter.com/khanacademy/status/1288483417512968192?s=20

downthemiddle

downthemiddle wrote: »

You still haven’t addressed the issue of discrimination against children with additional needs. Do you think it is right that schools have been asked to plan to cut resources for the most vulnerable in our school communities?

I did. Compromises will be an unfortunate consequence of what we are dealing with. Do you believe they would be better off with no hope of access to special needs as they wait at home for thousands of extra teachers to drop out of the ether, rather than get at least some supports in school?

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

Aren’t I entitled to an opinion? Aren’t we all? Isn’t it better at this point to be solution focused rather than problem focused?

Do you think the schools are well run?

Well given so far your opinon over the last 48 hours has involved slagging off teachers qualifications and apologising to secoondary school teachers and then transfering that opinon to primary school teachers. Then adivising someone today looking for advice not to contact a principal, when they should as the teachers pointed out, and then again implying people (parents BOM principals) would deliberately loosely follow guidelines so they dont have to open schools I would think not you are not.

I think you have no knowledge of the Irish Education system. You live in a different country, go annoy the teachers there with your amazing knowledge and you have very litte applicable knowledge to the system here apart from slagging off the education system and teachers.

At least the people who post here apart from yourself are either parents or educators and though I might agree or disagree with them, they have more knowlege of the education system then you do and have a stake in it succeeding.

I rather the solutions came from someone actually involved in the sector whether parent or educator as least they have some idea of what education in Ireland is about.

And regarding whether schools are well run, for the most part yes on a day to day basis very well run, but sitting in the Netherlands you cannot experience that. Our PISA results would indicate this and other studies.

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

Caveat: this could be a deep fake. I was working on my Fauci voice (sarcasm)
Everyone sending a kid back should watch it.
Educators too.
I'm sure the department know it all.

https://twitter.com/khanacademy/status/1288483417512968192?s=20

Don’t know does this say what you think it does - summary under 10 proven lower risk based on Korean study. When virus is low in community little risk in going to schools, as it increases measures should be increased up to and including school closures

caveat emptor

Deleted User wrote: »

Don’t know does this say what you think it does - summary under 10 proven lower risk based on Korean study. When virus is low in community little risk in going to schools, as it increases measures should be increased up to and including school closures

• where does it say 30 kids in a portacabin?
• what about the bit where kids over 10 are just as likely to infect adults (accelerate community spread).
• alternating days.
• staggered opening times.
• masks in classes, teacher and kids.

Have you been in a school in a different country?
They are different. Check it out.

Give over. You are transparent at this point.