How will schools be able to go back in September?

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I am a primary teacher. I think most will cope and catch up.

However, there would be children in my class who would be very weak academically and would not be supported by their parents at home. I'd worry greatly about them moving on a year.

An already big gap between them and their peers could have really widened in 6 months, if they haven't been doing any of the basics (literacy and numeracy) in that time.

I would love it if schools were given the option to offer a minority of children the chance to repeat a year, subject to their parents agreement.

I’m in the same boat. Sometimes even after short gaps like Christmas and Easter they can regress. I’m currently on maternity but from my class last year there is a large cohort that simply wouldn’t have access to technology or come from families were education isn’t a priority. The gap will widen for these children. It’s going to take a lot work to try to pull them up and carry on with the curriculum as well. Would love if these children were able to repeat but I can’t see this happening either as each class is at capacity therefore no space! We’ll just have to wait and see if we’re back come Sept. There’s not going to be any magic bullet unfortunately.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. If they go ahead a o open schools, we will all have to accept there will be a spike in transmission and more people will die. Maybe people will be happy with that scenario by then.

But let's be honest about it; without a vaccine, letting people out in 3/4/5/6 month will be exactly the same as letting them out right now. And maybe they will need to increase transmission rate because at the current rate of transom, it will take years, not months for every to get it. So the only way this thing can end within a year is if we get a vaccine, mass produce it and roll it out to the entire country or, just let everyone out assuming they will get it and accept that lots of people will die. Or else we just hubker down and it could take a few years for everyone to get it.

I'm not advocating for either approach. I'm just saying they're the options and they take closer to a year than a couple of months.

When you say lots of people will die, how many do you mean? The death rate is not constant, it will decrease over time. If the health care system gets overrun with extreme numbers of cases in a short period, deaths go through the roof. This is not the case if the health system is coping with a steady number of cases within capacity constraints. You can talk about letting people die but that is already happening and happened every day before Covid-19.

The rate of spread is also not constant over time, as more people get infected, the more who recover and develop antibodies, the less people who will get it later. It's all about slowing the rate of spread so the health system copes. There is also another side to the equation: what are the other consequences of slowing the spread? There are numerous other problems building in the background which combined will have severe consequences too.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

When you say lots of people will die, how many do you mean? The death rate is not constant, it will decrease over time. If the health care system gets overrun with extreme numbers of cases in a short period, deaths go through the roof. This is not the case if the health system is coping with a steady number of cases within capacity constraints. You can talk about letting people die but that is already happening and happened every day before Covid-19.

The rate of spread is also not constant over time, as more people get infected, the more who recover and develop antibodies, the less people who will get it later. It's all about slowing the rate of spread so the health system copes. There is also another side to the equation: what are the other consequences of slowing the spread? There are numerous other problems building in the background which combined will have severe consequences too.

Yeah I mean when the health system.gets overrun, then lots more people will die. Under the current lockdown conditions, the health service is coping bso the probably need to speed up transmission rates to reach the maximum the health service can cope with. Thst might mean letting people pit so they can catch it and spread it, but then quickly lock down again so the rate stays as close as possible to health service capacity.

And people getting it and being immune is a factor, fair point. It would allow a the restrictions to be relaxed for a little longer before being tightened again. If 40,000 people a week get it in Ireland, how long would it take for everyone get it with a population of 5m? How long for herd Immunity at about 2/3?. Work it out. In either case were talking at least a year and I've no idea if the health service could deal with the acute cases out of those 40,000 a week getting it.

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Have you been in an Irish primary school lately?? Highest class sizes in Europe! How do you expect social distancing to work with 35 students crammed into a classroom?

We wont be looking at social distancing within schools. Kids will still be kept away from grand parents but the idea is if a kid gets it, it be limited to that community, traceable and herd community.

Offices will have social distancing, more hot desks now and that will save companies money on rent and ease pressure on public transport

iguana wrote: »

Except we did live with polio and we did live with measles. Ireland didn't even introduce the MMR until 1985. Before that kids like me got the measles, mumps and rubella. The vast majority of us felt horrible for a week or so with measles and maybe a bit uncomfortable with mumps and rubella. And the rest of the world continued as normal. Unfortunately some people were not so lucky and it's good that we now have a way to keep those illnesses suppressed to protect the vulnerable. But we did live with them, life went on, society continued.

An illness that makes the vast, vast majority of people mildly sick for a few weeks, at worst, will not collapse society. As a society, we can and will live with it, if we have to. We will protect our vulnerable as much as we can. Scientists will work rapidly towards a vaccine and we are so, so lucky to live in a time where that is possible. But in the meantime, we are going to have to live with this for a while.

Exactly only be 1.8m in the world has it and 200,000 died. Very small number

youandme13 wrote: »

Yes I am aware thanks,, my sons primary school has over 1000 students alone! What I was saying is older children understand more about whats happening and the importance of hand washing etc compared to younger children.

Majority of kids don't wash their hands properly and as for social distancing in schools 😂🀔 Can you imaging kids who haven't seen each other in months staying 2m apart? Not a hope in hell.

I hope they don't rush to open schools too soon. Hopes or expectations of maintaining social distancing rules are pointless and only those with little experience of young children could think otherwise. Even visualising what school would be like if you had to spend the day enforcing 2 metre distance between children (apart from the fact that to have 2 metres between everyone in a classroom would mean only 4-6 children at a time). I think that would be very upsetting for children- sitting 2 metres from their classmates, no playing together, teacher can't come near your desk to help you, child can't go near the teacher either, collection and drop off a nightmare... Even seeing children out and about with their family at the moment and you can see how they just won't get it. Think about how people are advised to clean their shopping when they get in. What would happen with school equipment?
Saying that children will have to stay at home with any symptoms- it just won't happen. We had a vomiting bug sweep through the school in December. We had 75% of some classes absent and yet we still had children sent in only to be sent home at 9:15 as they were obviously unwell. We had parents phoned by 9:30 in some cases and the children weren't collected until the afternoon. On one day we had 6 teachers absent and no subs were available. Even that issue- a sub teacher in one school one day and another the next and another school later in the week. At the moment if we have no sub, we split a class. How could we do that?
The suggestion of having children attend one day a week, presumably on a rota, would be very difficult to organise if attempting to ensure that any children in one family in the same school attend on the same day. You could also have a situation where a family has children in several schools and each child attending on a different day. How does that help with getting people back to work? If crèches aren't open, there's no after school either. It's not as simple as people make out. I would also feel that if schools reopen in a format that is drastically different to the norm, that it could be a far more unsettling experience for children than continuing remote learning.
I don't know the solution but I think as we just had the highest number yet testing positive, we are risking undoing everything achieved over the last few weeks. It will have to happen at some time but recent articles talking about reopening schools in a few weeks are I hope premature.

Yes teachers are educators.. And even the juniors spend 4.5 hours in a learning environment with their peers, every day 5 days a week in school. This is supported by breakfast clubs and afterschool clubs, taking some children up to 9 hours out a day. Private childcare providers might be up for supporting some basic curriculum over the summer months. Particularly as some afterschools are small. I know two in my area that want to get back to work and would facilitate it. Not sure how the fees would work...would probably need more state aid!

I see some 6 year olds wash hands very effectively, but yes agree social distancing 6 year olds is not easy!

We all need to think more creatively about this problem.. There has to be a way forward to educate young kids without assuming everyone has WiFi and own laptops.

Again, very concerned that we would all just assume... Schools close til September... Let's see how the nordics get on in next few weeks.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

As a 'species' from a clinic cold perspective yes. As a functioning society ...no.

Fatalities have been low due to lockdowns and the fact that countries tried to save their healthservice. If we try to 'live with it'. That would not be the case.

And its not the flu ...mild is not the word.

I have heard many figures banded about as to how many are asymptomatic some say 10 % some say 50% some say 70%.

Its not predictable who is going to die. Its not older people. Its everyone.

So no...i don't think we will get to a point when people will simply say lets take our chances.

I think certainly Boris Jonson getting it has prevented that.

It's clearly not everyone. It's overwhelmingly beyond any doubt an old and vulernarable people killer. That is just as sad, because we all have old and vulnerable people that we love and worry about. Yes anyone can get it but they won't be too adversely affected. If you don't bank the facts then you are at nothing.
Scaremongering people is not the way to go because soon enough the strong and young will have to go and shoulder the wheel to get this economy moving so that there is resources to care for everyone.