Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Boggles

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So the numbers dropping in Dublin where the largest and most schools are????

88 today.

I'd imagine most of the schools are outside Dublin, you know where the majority of the population live.

But I guess you learn something new every day.

Jinglejangle69

Boggles wrote: »

I'd imagine most of the schools are outside Dublin, you know where the majority of the population live.

But I guess you learn something new every day.

I meant highest out of each county.

You knew that if course but couldn't help yourself.

Boggles

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I meant highest out of each county.

You knew that if course but couldn't help yourself.

Dublin have been under restrictions longer than any other county and have had consistently higher numbers in terms of actual infections than anywhere else.

It might help if you had an actual coherent point to make?

Looks to me like you are simply stating the obvious but doing it badly.

Thats me

OK, bak to MOH's post.

First the graphs of new cases taken with different averages:

MOH wrote: »

Different average are different ways of presenting the same data, but if you're making statements about the general course of the pandemic , and whether things are getting better or worse, then you pick a baseline statistic and stick to it. You don't chop and change to highlight the one that best supports the policy decisions you're trying to implement at a particular moment in time.
Being consistent is providing an objective measure of how the pandemic is progressing.
Not doing so is being deliberately misleading to try to influence public opinion.

OK,you speaking about taking decisions.

MOH wrote: »

For example, since a 5-day period seems to be the new favoured metric, then level-5 was completely unnecessary.

Was it seen on the same graph at the time when the decision was taken? Back into 20 of October - who looking on any of type of the graphs could tell for sure: "guys, relax, we don't need this lockdown - since tomorrow we will have stable decresing of the rate new cases"?

I'm considering new cases but not positives rate which is showing nothing because "fluctuating numbers of tests", unknown conditions of tests, bias introduced because of reason tests were done. To evaluate the whole picture on more or less trustworthy way you need to do significant amount tests on randomly chosen people. These tests taken in hospitals on covid patients to ensure they have covid - these tests are biased. Tests done by results of contacts tracking - they are biased. Even tests in airport biased because taken on specific cluster having higher potential to contract the virus because they have to travel.

While test rates about nothing and should not be extrapolated to whole population, the new cases rate is the simple direct indicator of pandemic state.

MOH wrote: »

Or you could stick with the 14-day figure, which takes longer to turn around, and peaked the day after level 5 came in, so less of the decrease here can be clearly attributed to the earlier restrictions and better suits the narrative that level 5 was necessary. But that's still decreasing, so doesn't suit the desired story of an increase in numbers.

It hasn't been below 3.4 since then, so clearly the bulk of the improvement is due to the restrictions that were already in place.
Or you could stick with the 14-day figure, which takes longer to turn around, and peaked the day after level 5 came in, so less of the decrease here can be clearly attributed to the earlier restrictions and better suits the narrative that level 5 was necessary.

In any case your considerations are applicable to new cases stats also. But you missing your own point that the stats is used for taking decisions. And taking decision you will not rely on today's sudden deviation, you would need some generalised presentation of how things are going. In the case of covid we have 5-14 days interval where 5 days matches period of time taken to produce symptom in most patients, 14 days to late pulmonary stage (phases) and 7 days average is perfect to average weekly-based deviations.

Separately on this point:

MOH wrote: »

decrease here can be clearly attributed to the earlier restrictions and better suits the narrative that level 5 was necessary.

There is one parameter which is showing that the shutdown is necessary: it is availability of ICU beds. Shortage was reported few days before L5, and soon after L5 introduced Cork, if i'm not wrong, was reporting they have no free beds. Guessing hospital capacity for covid patients struggling from covid subsequences was also far away from optimum.

Also, remember, in March lockdown was introduced on the much lower level of cases, but that time nobody had any idea how to treat this, there was much higher mortality etc, so it is somewhat understood this time we were able to allow cases to grow significantly higher. But it was dagerously high since capacity of health care system was obviously reached. This was very dangerous situation caused by govt's conflict with NPHET which advised to go L5 one week earlier.

So L5 was necessary, i have no doubt in it.

But this L5 was like intentionally introduced to make as less difference as possible. I agree with you - on the graphs is see no sign that the L5 was ever introduced - nothing in the trends was changed. Home parties still going on, garda stops almost nobody from travelling, "essential workers" still bringing advertisements into my door, people in dense crowds are still drinking beed outside of pubs (definitely having masks properly fit), and schools are of course still opened. So i'm not sure do we need such L5.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

I think I might be coming around to the idea that open schools is what is keeping the numbers so high.

It can't be anything else. Yes there are occasional groups of outdoor drinkers (the chances of which catching covid outside when you are half a metre or so back from another person to me seems pretty low), and the occasional house get together that is happening despite the Level 5, but I can't see that being the reason that numbers are increasing again.

And I know I have argued in the past that numbers in the 5-14 age category had not risen at a higher rate than other age categories, and therefore this must prove that children don't spread the virus as much as adults do.

But now I doubt that statistic. If more children as asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, they are probably not getting tested. At least not so much now that September has passed and all the usual back-to-school lurgy isn't as prevalent.

So if they catch it at school, they are probably bringing it home. Once an older person in the house gets infected and has actual symptoms, they go and get a test, and then the child is tested as a close contact. If they child test positive, it'll be deemed that the child caught it from the parent, at home, and not in the school. Then their pod will be tested, and perhaps there will be one or two other children who also test positive (they may have been the ones that spread the infection in the first place). But there might be a child on the table behind the original child but isn't part of the pod, so isn't tested, but is infected. They bring it home to their family, and the same cycle starts again.

I don't want schools or creches to be closed again. Especially creches as it is impossible to work with a toddler. But it does seem to me that we are going to stay in the 300-400 cases a day category, despite the Level 5 restrictions, while schools stay open. Can we cope with that? Well yes, the hospitals will cope, but the economy won't.

Link kindly provided on the main thread to show kids are more likely to be a symptomatic actually shows them at the same level as 21 to 39 year olds
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08471

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3595?guestAccessKey=ca0196e6-d121-48fe-8a6f-b8a22464750b&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=091420

Along with other studies on the same matter can we dispense with the asymptomatic kids hiding the real numbers canard.

There is a debate to be had about the role of schools but inventing scenarios because the numbers don’t back up perceived “common sense” is not debate

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Link kindly provided on the main thread to show kids are more likely to be a symptomatic actually shows them at the same level as 21 to 39 year olds
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08471

Jesus that is one limited study. You struggled to find that one I'd say.

Anyway the vast vast majority of people attending schools are not adults. You do realize that?

So I kind of fail to see your point to be honest.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus that is one limited study. You struggled to find that one I'd say.

Anyway the vast vast majority of people attending schools are not adults. You do realize that?

So I kind of fail to see your point to be honest.

I didn't find. It was provided on main thread as support to the view that kids were more likely asymptomatic. I was taken aback that in fact it did the opposite, and subsequently struggled to find conclusive data

khalessi

Interesting read
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-covid-19-testing-and-tracing-system-for-schools-fit-for-purpose-1.4403817

"However, some principals believe the criteria for identifying close contacts in schools for testing are too narrow and are keeping the positivity rate unrealistically low."

This falls in line with the NPHET Public Health Consultant Dr. Abigail Collins said as much a few weeks ago, stating they were being very conservative with who is chosen as a close contact in schools. https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1031/1175008-schools-covid/

This along with the fact that the only visible change post midterm, despite promises from the DES is that the terms determining close contacts has been tweaked to allow for mitigating circumstances such as those mentioned in the IT article, masks, access to doors and windows etc.

Thats me

Nov. 14, Austria Shuts Schools, Most Stores, To Curb Spread Of Virus

Austria announced Saturday that it is tightening its partial lockdown, including by closing non-essential stores and shifting schools to online teaching
...
Austrian health officials are unable to trace 77% of new cases
...
many intensive care units in particular will soon pass breaking point

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

Nov. 14, Austria Shuts Schools, Most Stores, To Curb Spread Of Virus

Austria have over 7,000 cases a day, equivalent to about 4,000 a day here

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Austria have over 7,000 cases a day, equivalent to about 4,000 a day here

But Irish health system was close to break point at 1800 if my understanding right.

Mrsmum

Just half caught some discussion on radio today about ASTI suggesting getting Christmas hols a few days earlier, the idea being to make gathering with elderly relatives on Christmas day that little bit safer. Tbh I mostly heard the comments on it afterwards which were not favourable. Personally I think why not change to three weeks hols for this Christmas and one week at Easter ??

ETA Not ASTI but TUI.

combat14

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just half caught some discussion on radio today about ASTI suggesting getting Christmas hols a few days earlier, the idea being to make gathering with elderly relatives on Christmas day that little bit safer. Tbh I mostly heard the comments on it afterwards which were not favourable. Personally I think why not change to three weeks hols for this Christmas and one week at Easter ??

No need to close for 3 weeks at xmas schools are extremely safe places according to norma foley

um7y1h83ge06nx

Yeah, teachers want a morale boosting early Christmas holidays - https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-seek-morale-boosting-early-christmas-holidays-to-reduce-covid-risks-39760736.html

I honestly don't know if teachers are just tone deaf to public opinion or they just don't care as I can see great public support for this.

If they were smart and wanted more time off they could have suggested an extra public holiday for everyone to "recharge" given the year that's in it - unlikely to happen for many reasons though. At least other groups might have backed that and put pressure on the government.

Meanwhile my wife who is also public sector is literally working in the middle of an outbreak in UHL.

thomasdylan

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just half caught some discussion on radio today about ASTI suggesting getting Christmas hols a few days earlier, the idea being to make gathering with elderly relatives on Christmas day that little bit safer. Tbh I mostly heard the comments on it afterwards which were not favourable. Personally I think why not change to three weeks hols for this Christmas and one week at Easter ??

I think it was the TUI. They're usually the least self-indulgent and blinkered of the teachers unions it was a bit of a surprise from them.

dinneenp

Also covered in the IT- link.

Totally ridiculous I believe- "moral boosting"; sure wouldn't all professions like some moral boosting? As mentioned above they're either not tuned in or don't care.

Icyseanfitz

Its two bloody days so that they can spend Christmas with their families/loved ones and not worry about bringing covid home after working in unsafe classrooms 3 days before Christmas day. So much for the appreciation of the hard work put down since schools reopening ffs.

lulublue22

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

Yeah, teachers want a morale boosting early Christmas holidays - https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-seek-morale-boosting-early-christmas-holidays-to-reduce-covid-risks-39760736.html

I honestly don't know if teachers are just tone deaf to public opinion or they just don't care as I can see great public support for this.

If they were smart and wanted more time off they could have suggested an extra public holiday for everyone to "recharge" given the year that's in it - unlikely to happen for many reasons though. At least other groups might have backed that and put pressure on the government.

Meanwhile my wife who is also public sector is literally working in the middle of an outbreak in UHL.

Elderly parent here in their 80’s living alone. we have decided they are coming down xmas regardIess. Hubby will use hols and kids will isolate. That just leaves me I would gladly take unpaid leave for 2 weeks but mangement nixed the idea due to H& S concerns ie availability of subs. I’m not going to lie would an extra week at xmas suit me - hell yes I would feel less guilty about potentially bringing covid home to my 84 year old mother. But whats the alternative stand in the garden waving in the door for an hour or two then heading off for the rest of the day while she’s left on her own ? She’s a very active woman who has knuckled down to the restrictions without complaint though it has had a very negative impact on her life - no dancing no trips away no ladies club no running into town for coffee.
Am I unique - no there are many many many in the same boat across all sectors. Do I think teachers deserve special consideration no but sometimes there are genuine concerns and worries behind the clickbait headlines - teachers could do with a recharge.

Mrsmum

Normally I'm all for schools staying open through hail, fire and brimstone kind of thing but on this one, I see the point of early closedown. First of all there will not be a tap done that day and a half so being at school is pretty wasteful and secondly by closing on the Friday, families will gain four days for the unique gathering of Christmas.

Boggles

dinneenp wrote: »

Also covered in the IT- link.

Totally ridiculous I believe- "moral boosting"; sure wouldn't all professions like some moral boosting? As mentioned above they're either not tuned in or don't care.

I know 2 families both working from home who are yanking their kids early so they can spend Christmas with loved ones, a decision made long before this idea was floated.

Your perceived outrage is clouding what is essentially a very sound idea.

HerrKuehn

lulublue22 wrote: »

Elderly parent here in their 80’s living alone. we have decided they are coming down xmas regardIess. Hubby will use hols and kids will isolate. That just leaves me I would gladly take unpaid leave for 2 weeks but mangement nixed the idea due to H& S concerns ie availability of subs. I’m not going to lie would an extra week at xmas suit me - hell yes I would feel less guilty about potentially bringing covid home to my 84 year old mother. But whats the alternative stand in the garden waving in the door for an hour or two then heading off for the rest of the day while she’s left on her own ? She’s a very active woman who has knuckled down to the restrictions without complaint though it has had a very negative impact on her life - no dancing no trips away no ladies club no running into town for coffee.
Am I unique - no there are many many many in the same boat across all sectors. Do I think teachers deserve special consideration no but sometimes there are genuine concerns and worries behind the clickbait headlines - teachers could do with a recharge.

Teachers have been working the least number of days of any sector since the pandemic started, by far. That is why it is laughable, the kids will have been in school for about 15 weeks since mid march! I suggested previously that holidays could be moved around to allow time off during times with higher covid rates. That was shot down as apparently holidays are sacred. I suppose the department regards the days you are supposed to be in as sacred. Flexibility is a 2 way street.

Smacruairi

Stupid idea. Those 2 days are handy anyway, no reason to take them off. Literally no one has been looking for this, no one I've talked to teacher or parent. Ffs.

dinneenp

Boggles wrote: »

I know 2 families both working from home who are yanking their kids early so they can spend Christmas with loved ones, a decision made long before this idea was floated.

Your perceived outrage is clouding what is essentially a very sound idea.

"Spend time with their loved ones." That's pulling at heart strings. Teachers get more than enough holidays throughout the year & will have about 2.5 or more weeks off over Xmas as it is.

How about people who aren't working at home & would have to take extra holidays or people who are working from home and have then to look after their kids while juggling work as well.

Why don't other public workers get the additional days then to "spend time with their loved ones." Virtually all public sector workers (besides teachers) have standard public sector holidays, far, far less than teachers so they'd appreciate the extra time to spend with their loved ones, wouldn't they?

KaneToad

lulublue22 wrote: »

Elderly parent here in their 80’s living alone. we have decided they are coming down xmas regardIess. Hubby will use hols and kids will isolate. That just leaves me I would gladly take unpaid leave for 2 weeks but mangement nixed the idea due to H& S concerns ie availability of subs. I’m not going to lie would an extra week at xmas suit me - hell yes I would feel less guilty about potentially bringing covid home to my 84 year old mother. But whats the alternative stand in the garden waving in the door for an hour or two then heading off for the rest of the day while she’s left on her own ? She’s a very active woman who has knuckled down to the restrictions without complaint though it has had a very negative impact on her life - no dancing no trips away no ladies club no running into town for coffee.
Am I unique - no there are many many many in the same boat across all sectors. Do I think teachers deserve special consideration no but sometimes there are genuine concerns and worries behind the clickbait headlines - teachers could do with a recharge.

Teachers could do with a recharge. But so could everyone else. A teacher's recharge would add to the stress of working parents who then have to cover the teacher's recharge.

It's not gonna happen.

eviltwin

Teachers unions have always had an over inflated impression of the job. They are doing great work atm but so are many others in just as challenging conditions and many of them don’t have a two week break over Christmas to look forward to.

Boggles

dinneenp wrote: »

"Spend time with their loved ones." That's pulling at heart strings. Teachers get more than enough holidays throughout the year & will have about 2.5 or more weeks off over Xmas as it is.

Again, your outrage is clouding reality.

They are not teachers I thought that would have been clear and it has absolutely nothing to do with heart strings.

It's a sound idea to limit possible spread of infection to vulnerable people.

Would you agree?

Blondini

Funny to see the spitting, seething, ignorant and angry anti-teacher crowd slither out of the damp woodwork at a non-story.

Embarrassing themselves as usual.

thomasdylan

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Its two bloody days so that they can spend Christmas with their families/loved ones and not worry about bringing covid home after working in unsafe classrooms 3 days before Christmas day. So much for the appreciation of the hard work put down since schools reopening ffs.

Rosters for over Christmas for emergency services and loads of other jobs have been made weeks ago. Parents will have very understandably accounted for the standing school holidays.

This 'morale booster' for teachers would cause lots of difficulties for a huge amount of other workers. I remember your reaction to the prospect of redeployment a few months ago. Everyone's actions have knock-on effects for everyone else.

eviltwin

Blondini wrote: »

Funny to see the spitting, seething, ignorant and angry anti-teacher crowd slither out of the damp woodwork at a non-story.

Embarrassing themselves as usual.

The only ones who should be embarrassed are the unions. Only back a matter of weeks and already struggling.

Russman

I'm not a teacher nor do I have anything to do with the public service.

But f--k me we're some nation of begrudgers. If I can't have it neither can they.
FFS its two days where nothing will be done anyway and it might, just might, make the difference of being able to safely visit someone over the Christmas or potentially bringing COVID into a household.
But no, its all "it mustn't inconvenience me" or "I don't get two days off why should they" or "ohh no I'll have to get childcare". Bloody hell if it snowed for two days they'd be off and no amount of complaining would change that.