Schools closed until February? (part 3)

lawrencesummers

joe40 wrote: »

Our current restrictions are very much pre emptive and targeted at reducing numbers for Christmas. I don't have a major problem with that. But we are not in a crisis situation as regards numbers or impact on our health system.
Therefore I see no reason to close schools for extended period. An extra week after Halloween maybe but no longer. Not at our current situation.

Is that the same health system that shut down one of the vital aspects of Covid response just this week?

Is that the same health system that is unable to provide staff for a nursing home with almost complete Covid infection?

Is that the same Health system that is cancelling routine procedures all over the place?


Not in a crisis situation? Our health system has never not been in a crisis even before this virus.

meeeeh

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is that the same health system that shut down one of the vital aspects of Covid response just this week?

Is that the same health system that is unable to provide staff for a nursing home with almost complete Covid infection?

Is that the same Health system that is cancelling routine procedures all over the place?


Not in a crisis situation? Our health system has never not been in a crisis even before this virus.

Well then we should just close schools permanently. Because if that's you criteria then our schools shouldn'tbe open.

That being said the nursing home situation is absolutely nuts. Whoever in HSE was dealing with it should be fired (they won't be) and nursing home should have malpractice investigation. I don't know if they did anything wrong but how almost every one there got infected in a few days is absolutely crazy.

Icyseanfitz

meeeeh wrote: »

Well then we should just close schools permanently. Because if that's you criteria then our schools shouldn'tbe open.

That being said the nursing home situation is absolutely nuts. Whoever in HSE was dealing with it should be fired (they won't be) and nursing home should have malpractice investigation. I don't know if they did anything wrong but how almost every one there got infected in a few days is absolutely crazy.

They are getting infected because community transmission is so high, which in all likelihood is connected to schools.

eagle eye

Lillyfae wrote:

Your own assumptions I have bolded here- opinions have nothing to do with facts. Assumptions are useless in science.

Long covid us not an assumption.

joe40

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is that the same health system that shut down one of the vital aspects of Covid response just this week?

Is that the same health system that is unable to provide staff for a nursing home with almost complete Covid infection?

Is that the same Health system that is cancelling routine procedures all over the place?


Not in a crisis situation? Our health system has never not been in a crisis even before this virus.

Those crises ( bar the contact tracing fiasco) are typical every year, with or without covid.
There are ingrained problems in the HSE that won't be sorted by closing schools.

meeeeh

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

They are getting infected because community transmission is so high, which in all likelihood is connected to schools.

So 24 out of 26 residents tested positive in a few days because they were mingling with school kids. Ok.

vid36

joe40 wrote: »

Those crises ( bar the contact tracing fiasco) are typical every year, with or without covid.
There are ingrained problems in the HSE that won't be sorted by closing schools.

If you close schools you reduce community transmission and Covid is not a reduce annual flu, it crushes health systems.

lawrencesummers

vid36 wrote: »

If you close schools you reduce community transmission and Covid is not a reduce annual flu, it crushes health systems.

Community transmission is the biggest Cop out of this virus.

It only exists in a minute tiny amount of cases and gives people the impression that you are going to pick up the virus by touching the wrong surface somewhere.

Community transmission is used as a term to cover up where the tracing is falling down. The more community transmission they report the less the tracking and tracing has been able to work.

lawrencesummers

joe40 wrote: »

Those crises ( bar the contact tracing fiasco) are typical every year, with or without covid.
There are ingrained problems in the HSE that won't be sorted by closing schools.

So your admitting the health system is in crisis.

lawrencesummers

meeeeh wrote: »

Well then we should just close schools permanently. Because if that's you criteria then our schools shouldn'tbe open.

That being said the nursing home situation is absolutely nuts. Whoever in HSE was dealing with it should be fired (they won't be) and nursing home should have malpractice investigation. I don't know if they did anything wrong but how almost every one there got infected in a few days is absolutely crazy.

You don’t need to close schools.

You just need to be realistic about the scale of the spread associated with it and isolate the vulnerable that are associated with it.

Kids are not effected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to close schools.

You just need to be realistic about the scale of the spread associated with it and isolate the vulnerable that are associated with it.

Kids are not affected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

I wish people would stop going on about kids not being affected. Some are and some are going home to houses with vunerable siblings or parents and also children are not the only ones in schools. THey can be asymptomatic like the class where the teacher got whole class tested and 7 children found to be positive.

We get it. Kids do not for the most part get gravely ill but they can pass it on.

I am starting to think people say stuff like that for a reaction, because no one after all the studies could still be dumb enough to think kids are not affected, well you got one

JP100

Today's number of cases has meant the national 14-day incidence rate has exceeded 300 per 100,000 of the population for the very first time.

8k71ps

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to close schools.

You just need to be realistic about the scale of the spread associated with it and isolate the vulnerable that are associated with it.

Kids are not effected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

The problem with isolating the vulnerable in this current system is that the department have absolutely refused to properly decide who is a high or low risk case purely off the basis of needing teaching staff and children in schools. also the contact tracing system is an absolute requirement if we're to actually protect anyone from the viruses path and so far it is a catastrophic failure.


Schools are part of the community and it's practically inevitable that as it spreads in schools it'll spread to most other elements of society unless you ban the elderly and the sick from leaving their house for any reason or something.


You don't need to shutdown the schools for a particularly long time, only enough to get test & trace back on it's feet and to adopt a hybrid model in schools.

jimmytwotimes 2013

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Kids are not effected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

This is true.

Maybe there's a halfway house somewhere between herding them around on full buses (still happening), packing them into small classrooms and locking them away in a tower.

lawrencesummers

khalessi wrote: »

I wish people would stop going on about kids not being affected. Some are and some are going home to houses with vunerable siblings or parents and also children are not the only ones in schools. THey can be asymptomatic like the class where the teacher got whole class tested and 7 children found to be positive.

We get it. Kids do not for the most part get gravely ill but they can pass it on.

I am starting to think people say stuff like that for a reaction, because no one after all the studies could still be dumb enough to think kids are not affected, well you got one

You don’t need to stop all the kids going to school because some have vulnerable people at home.

You need to take the teachers that have pre existing conditions and are high risk out of it.

You need to take kids that are high risk out of it.

If granny lives in the house either she makes other arrangements or you keep your kids home.

The average house with healthy kids and adults can continue with school, and that’s the majority of the country.

lawrencesummers

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

This is true.

Maybe there's a halfway house somewhere between herding them around on full buses (still happening), packing them into small classrooms and locking them away in a tower.

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

eagle eye

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

People need to take personal responsibility.

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to stop all the kids going to school because some have vulnerable people at home.

You need to take the teachers that have pre existing conditions and are high risk out of it.

You need to take kids that are high risk out of it.

If granny lives in the house either she makes other arrangements or you keep your kids home.

The average house with healthy kids and adults can continue with school, and that’s the majority of the country.

First off Medmark won't sign teachers off as very high risk to wfh, in fact teachers who have multiple ailments such as cancer and kidney transplant and considered very high risk were down graded to high risk and considered suitable to work. So there are not enough teachers to cover kids at home.

Secondly, moving granny is ridiculous suggestion what about getting vunerable dad or mum or sibling to move out just as stupid a suggestion. IF grandparents are living with family or vice versa, it is a long term arrangement and they have nowhere else to go and why should they. Where do you think they should go -nursing homes? Maybe they should move into schools as they are so safe.

Thirdly Tusla have said they will not tolerate kids at home, though I see earlier today someone posted that they managed to get round that.

irishblessing

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

You're on quite the roll. I don't see where anyone justified closing the schools based on mortality rate.

The current system needs to be upgraded to a hybrid remote learning system because there are at risk students, teachers and families ( I highly doubt the majority of the country is just fine) who need that option, classes and schools are already closing and therefore need this platform, people will continue to need to quarantine and become ill, we need to stop the spread into families and workplaces, we need to reduce class sizes, and we need to protect the health service.

The mortality of kids doesn't come anywhere into this consideration. But perhaps long term damage does, and I recently read, to even asymptomatic children.

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

Correction some lives go on

As pointed out before, kids get it and most are not affected, some are, but they can and do pass on to those who are vunerable such as family friends, and staff in schools.

8k71ps

lawrencesummers wrote: »

People need to take personal responsibility.

"it's our public responsibility if we do well, it's your personal responsibility if we fail".

Thats me

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.

They tends to not survive if thing turns to be hard. Every 1 of 9 5-14 yrs old patients requires ICU admission if hospitalised. For comparison for 15-24 yrs age group it is ~ 1 of 20, for 25-34 yrs age group - 1 of 15. You can check this out on p.8 of this document.

BTW, at which level of mortality ratio you would start worrying about your own child?

eagle eye

lawrencesummers wrote:

People need to take personal responsibility.

She was asking if it was safe to send her kids to school.
She was taking personal responsibility by looking for answers.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

School will only say that they are implementing the guidelines as supplied by the dept. The dept will say they don't run schools on a day to day basis and the govt will respond that it is a departmental issue.

In reality no one can guarantee anyone's safety. All we in schools can do it to try and mitigate the risk. Schools aren't and never will be a sterile environment.

What answer do you think you should get?

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately this is not possible anywhere else and as such a child attending school could very well bring the virus home with them.

...Ghost...

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

School will only say that they are implementing the guidelines as supplied by the dept. The dept will say they don't run schools on a day to day basis and the govt will respond that it is a departmental issue.

In reality no one can guarantee anyone's safety. All we in schools can do it to try and mitigate the risk. Schools aren't and never will be a sterile environment.

What answer do you think you should get?

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately thin is not possible anywhere else.

Someone suggested we take the class out instead

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately this is not possible anywhere else and as such a child attending school could very well bring the virus home with them.

I expected them to tell her that in her situation that she should not send her child to school. Sounds like common sense to me.

lawrencesummers

khalessi wrote: »

First off Medmark won't sign teachers off as very high risk to wfh, in fact teachers who have multiple ailments such as cancer and kidney transplant and considered very high risk were down graded to high risk and considered suitable to work. So there are not enough teachers to cover kids at home.

Secondly, moving granny is ridiculous suggestion what about getting vunerable dad or mum or sibling to move out just as stupid a suggestion. IF grandparents are living with family or vice versa, it is a long term arrangement and they have nowhere else to go and why should they. Where do you think they should go -nursing homes? Maybe they should move into schools as they are so safe.

Thirdly Tusla have said they will not tolerate kids at home, though I see earlier today someone posted that they managed to get round that.

If I’m a teacher and I’m high risk then I’m going out on whatever leave I need in the current situation, unpaid if necessary.

If granny can’t move out then I wouldn’t be sending the kids to school.

Tulsa can go and get fawked for themselves. They won’t get in the door of my house.

People need to do what’s right for themselves and their own family, which may well be at odds with the current advice.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

She was asking if it was safe to send her kids to school.
She was taking personal responsibility by looking for answers.

The answer to that question needs to come from within. I know what I would do.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

I expected them to tell her that in her situation that she should not send her child to school. Sounds like common sense to me.

That has to be a family decision.

Please be aware that according to the guidelines as dictated by the department that these children are not entitled to any support in any way.

Just this week a school in Kerry was ordered to stop facilitating the provision of such support.