Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Boggles

awec wrote: »

This is coming from your extensive experience of working at home with children, right?

"This simple measure". As I said, you haven't a notion.

I'm getting the sense you are not exactly a problem solver are you?

Fair enough, as you were.

tom1ie

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. Plenty have battled through. Not easy, but not impossible.

It's for essentially a few hours.

The resistance is hilarious.

Why should we battle through to give teachers two days off?

Dayo93

Blondini wrote: »

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

Disgusting comment

Theboinkmaster

Blondini wrote: »

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

Depends on:

1) age kids kids - 4 and 5 year olds are completely different to 11 and 12 year olds in terms of attention to them, safety etc.

2) how demending your job is - some people are working from home and easily managing their 8 hour day by really doing 3 hours work, others are absolutely pinned to their collar doing actually 8 hours per day.

Well done with the general sweeping generalization though - you're a model parent, the best in the world and your kids are lucky to have you as their parent. Or else you don't have kids and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

meeeeh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Why do people say things like “ dump kids on grandparents “ My siblings and my friends and myself are grand parents and would all be insulted at that expression. We help out gladly and enjoy our grandchildren and have mutual agreements with our families . Why judge us all when you don’t know the family dynamics ?

I actually meant it as arrange it the last moment. Mil used to take kids every Thursday afternoon and that was arrangement I was very grateful for but I would still say that I dump kids on her when something unexpected happens. It is not meant as any disrespect to anyone.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Blondini wrote: »

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

It hugely depends on the age of the children. I have 2 children - 1 and 3. Working with them here would be fun, thankfully I haven't had to do it yet as the wife was on maternity leave when the creches were closed earlier in the year.

jrosen

Anyone I know who has no skin in the game openly spoke about the challenges of working from home with their children and the pressure and stress that brought.
Its easy to trot out nonsense when your looking for another couple of days paid holidays.

Boggles

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

The benefit of shutting down schools?

It's very simple, if they close the schools 2 days early, that gives 7 days to Christmas day.

If people isolate for those 7 days, the chances of having a safer Christmas, i.e. not passing the virus onto the most vulnerable or passing the virus on full stop will mean we can go longer without wide sweeping restrictions again.

This is not my opinion, NPHET have stated they expect the reproductive to be 3 or above for Christmas, because the majority will not follow any sort of guidelines.

Thats me

awec wrote: »

While education is indeed essential, schools are also open because schools being closed has an enormous detrimental effect on the overall economy.

Not "also", this is simply different from education problem being solved, on the worst possible way.

I think short proper lockdown would be better for economy than series of inffective lockdowns.

awec wrote: »

This should not be a surprise to anyone.

What of this could be suprising for anybody?

Boggles

tom1ie wrote: »

Why should we battle through to give teachers two days off?

Jesus Titty Christ, I couldn't give 2 flying fúcks about teachers.

Forget them, pretend they are plumbers.

Now is the idea sound or not?

awec

Boggles wrote: »

It's very simple, if they close the schools 2 days early, that gives 7 days to Christmas day.

If people isolate for those 7 days, the chances of having a safer Christmas, i.e. not passing the virus onto the most vulnerable or passing the virus on full stop will mean we can go longer without wide sweeping restrictions again.

This is not my opinion, NPHET have stated they expect the reproductive to be 3 or above for Christmas, because the majority will not follow any sort of guidelines.

So why didn't they ask for the holidays to shift forward 2 days, instead of asking for 2 extra days off? Why trot out the "teacher fatigue" stuff?

tom1ie

Blondini wrote: »

Really? I know lots of people who managed it just fine.

Some people are just better parents and multi-taskers I suppose.

That’s a horrible comment to be honest.

Boggles

awec wrote: »

So why didn't they ask for the holidays to shift forward 2 days, instead of asking for 2 extra days off?

I don't really care.

The idea IMO is sound.

I have yet to here a reason why it isn't.

Again less focus on the teacher bashing (great craic :rolleyes:), engage the brain and problem solve.

jrosen

Boggles wrote: »

It's very simple, if they close the schools 2 days early, that gives 7 days to Christmas day.

If people isolate for those 7 days, the chances of having a safer Christmas, i.e. not passing the virus onto the most vulnerable or passing the virus on full stop will mean we can go longer without wide sweeping restrictions again.

This is not my opinion, NPHET have stated they expect the reproductive to be 3 or above for Christmas, because the majority will not follow any sort of guidelines.

So are you also assuming no parents go to work? Because Ill physically be at work right up to xmas eve so even if my kids are home and isolated I wont be. Therefore no safer for us to leave our house to see anyone at xmas. Those days off wont benefit my xmas whatsoever.

tom1ie

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus Titty Christ, I couldn't give 2 flying fúcks about teachers.

Forget them, pretend they are plumbers.

Now is the idea sound or not?

Not really no.
Plumbers wouldn’t be teaching my kids.
Your argument is ridiculous to be honest.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Boggles wrote: »

It's very simple, if they close the schools 2 days early, that gives 7 days to Christmas day.

If people isolate for those 7 days, the chances of having a safer Christmas, i.e. not passing the virus onto the most vulnerable or passing the virus on full stop will mean we can go longer without wide sweeping restrictions again.

This is not my opinion, NPHET have stated they expect the reproductive to be 3 or above for Christmas, because the majority will not follow any sort of guidelines.

I'm not all that convinced as you said "The benefit to the economy for a few extra weeks would be in the 100s of million s if not more."

If that really is the case then I would be all for shutting down schools until the vaccine is fully rolled out, for months if needed. By your reckoning there would probably be a boost in the order of billions of euro for the economy by the time that happened. And that money would be badly needed to prop up the economy.

Unfortunately I think that sounds like a fairytale.

Boggles

jrosen wrote: »

So are you also assuming no parents go to work? Because Ill physically be at work right up to xmas eve so even if my kids are home and isolated I wont be. Therefore no safer for us to leave our house to see anyone at xmas. Those days off wont benefit my xmas whatsoever.

You are an adult who is more than capable of being responsible with PPE, etc at work.

That's not the same thing as kids in schools.

Risk is different.

Boggles

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

If that really is the case then I would be all for shutting down schools until the vaccine is fully rolled out, for months if needed.

That would be an absolute horrific idea and one that could not be fully executed in this country whilst maintaining some level of education for vasts amounts of children.

Boggles

tom1ie wrote: »

Not really no.
Plumbers wouldn’t be teaching my kids.
Your argument is ridiculous to be honest.

So you don't think it is a sound idea in terms of limiting the spread of the virus.

By all means, tell me why?

Blondini

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Unbelievable isn't it.

And the poster is a teacher.

Horrible condescending attitude be passed on to their pupils.

Hold on. Why are you getting personal again JJ ?

We've been through this before.

Theboinkmaster

Armani Gray Redcoat wrote: »

It hugely depends on the age of the children. I have 2 children - 1 and 3. Working with them here would be fun, thankfully I haven't had to do it yet as the wife was on maternity leave when the creches were closed earlier in the year.

I feel your pain - we had a 2 and a 4 year old with both parents full-time jobs and working from home was my vietnam.

Everyone i know felt the exact same.

HerrKuehn

Boggles wrote: »

So you don't think it is a sound idea in terms of limiting the spread of the virus.

By all means, tell me why?

It will make little if any difference to the spread of the virus. I would imagine on those days half the class will be out anyway.

Lillyfae

Boggles wrote: »

So you don't think it is a sound idea in terms of limiting the spread of the virus.

By all means, tell me why?

Because 7 days isn’t enough for isolation, because parents have probably already arranged their holidays around their children’s (frankly, oddly timed) holidays, because a lot of people will use the extra 2 days to do a spot of Christmas shopping and totally ignore any guidelines anyway.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Boggles wrote: »

That would be an absolute horrific idea and one that could not be fully executed in this country whilst maintaining some level of education for vasts amounts of children.

But according to you we would be rolling in the cash, invest all that money in the education system when the Covid situation is resolved.

The above comment is tongue in cheek at your suggestion that closing schools for weeks would boost the economy by hundreds of millions.

My honest opinion is the opposite - that closing schools for weeks would negatively affect children's education and have a huge negative impact on the economy.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I feel your pain - we had a 2 and a 4 year old with both parents full-time jobs and working from home was my vietnam.

Everyone i know felt the exact same.

Jesus, fair play, would not fancy that. As I said I dodged a bullet with the wife being off.

TheValeyard

Footage of the TUI meeting last night

tom1ie

Boggles wrote: »

So you don't think it is a sound idea in terms of limiting the spread of the virus.

By all means, tell me why?

If you want to limit the virus close the schools and keep kids and parents at home.
If you don’t want to limit the virus teachers have to go to work.
It’s one or the other.

meeeeh

This thread is pure gold.

tom1ie

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I feel your pain - we had a 2 and a 4 year old with both parents full-time jobs and working from home was my vietnam.

Everyone i know felt the exact same.

Yep not easy. 5 and 7 for me.

2ndcoming

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No I agree, working from home properly with young children is not possible.

Anyone who says different must just stick them on the ipad for 8 hours.

I'm sure the entire population will be flat to the boards at the computer on the 22nd December alright. Get a grip of yourself man.