nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How will schools be able to go back in September?

shoppergal

Just wondering if anyone can give any insight into how schools could safely re-open in September?

Everyone I'm talking to is saying they won't be back until September but in my head I'm wondering how they'll re-open even in September? The virus will still be there with a vaccine still months away at that stage.

Find more posts tagged with

schools

rte news

covid

Quick Links

Comments

iguana

khalessi wrote: »

and we do have 116 cases in South Korea which are recovered people reinfected so herd immunity might not work.

No. There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on what happened with these 116 cases. Most doctors when asked about it have stated it's most likely either faulty testing, because the tests we use have very high error rates. Or a case of the virus being one which recedes in waves, which matches what we do know about the virus. People appear to get better, then they relapse. Covid 19 wouldn't be the first viral disease to function this way.

Mountainsandh

GT89 wrote: »

But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll.

Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once.

Disagree.
I am 46 and immuno suppressed due to medication. Not awfully unhealthy, not fully healthy either.

Herd immunity option 1 (do nothing) puts me at serious risk of not getting a bed/services I may need in ICU should I get sick.
Option 2, current lockdown and progressive return to work situation means that whenever I do get sick, there will probably be a bed in ICU and resources should I need them to survive.

Option 1 : I could be part of the death toll.
Option 2 : I get a chance.

And that's only me.

There are many like me who may require critical care and will make it through provided they receive that care.

There is an entire cohort of people who need health services in parallel to Covid 19, who may not get appropriate care for lack of personnel and resources in option 1 scenario (ie other health complaints leading to death unrelated to Covid), over several months. The collateral deaths toll would be sizable.

scooby77

I'm a primary school principal in North West, school has about 300 children, but I have no insider knowledge. This is my opinion. I think the the question is whether we'll see the partial reopening in mid May or June (of primary schools- secondary is a different ballgame)
Other countries have admitted they are reopening for economic reasons-many people going to work, or who need to WFH effectively, need their children in school for child minding. Its heresy among my profession to say this, but the child care aspect of primary schools is important to society. Our government might not be as forthcoming in admitting this is a reason, but it will be a factor. From an education point of view, even with best will in the world, distance learning for younger children has limited scope.
How will they reopen? I believe regionally or locally. The HSE know where clusters/cases are. As a trial schools in areas with less infection could open. If this leads to a significant increase in cases, well then we're talking longer term closures. If not, roll out opening in more areas gradually. Unfortunately at risk children with underlying health issues would probably be advised to stay at home. The department would need to block pupils transferring schools during this period.
While there are some good suggestions on this thread eg making classes smaller etc, most are impractical, at least in the majority of situations...resources just aren't there. At least in our school children were doing very well with handwashing and coughing etiquette before the closure. Social distancing with young children is very difficult.
Of course if infection/ death rates spike remaining closed, or closing again will happen. However at the moment I'll go with 19th May or 2nd June for a reopening of some or all primary schools.
If I'm wrong...well it wouldn't be the first time, and certainly wont be the last.

Sammy2012

Just in response to the post about what Denmark are doing to allow schools to open. I'm a teacher in a small rural school. I currently have 28kids squeezed into a room which is about 6.5m x 6.5m. The school is filthy. I prefer not to think about it too much. Yes it is cleaned but not to any great standard. This year about half my class got vomiting bug within in the space of 3 weeks. Chicken pox was going around just before we closed. I've had children vomit all over the floor on numerous occasions. Often about half an hour after coming in.

There is no way that my school could facilitate social distancing to that extent. It's just not possible. And there are alot of schools in the exact same position. I would be healthy and would rarely get sick but I have parents who collect my kids from school and creche both of whom have underlying conditions. So that will also have to stop. There is no space in the local afterschool to take them in and there will be less space if they have to adhere to the same social distancing rules.

There needs to be alot of plans put in place in the coming months if schools are to reopen in some capacity in September. And the planning needs to start now.

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

Well regarding herd immunity, it has been shown as stated in Scientific America that recovered patients with Coivd 19 have antibodies for at leat two weeks and we do have 116 cases in South Korea which are recovered people reinfected so herd immunity might not work. This virus has been public knowledge since Decmeber in China, and rest of the world since mid January so there is not enough knowledge about it yet.

We have choosen a route involving testing and contract tracing and lockdown, one which other countries that tried herd immunity strategy are now embracing.

As with practically everyone else on boards, I can't answer your question re what is the alternative. At the moment we are trying to suppress it, get it to an manageable level that we can cope with.

As I have stated previously, going on what Simon Harris said yesterday, this will involve tweaking of the present restrictions, relaxing and tightening restrictions based on the levels of R0, capacity of ICU beds spread/growth of infection.
...

If contracting the disease doesn't make you immune to it or if there are multiple strains of the disease, then a vaccine is highly unlikely to be effective at all.

But if we can become immune either through a vaccine or contracting the disease and surviving, then that is exactly what we're doing. As you said, the aim is to relax restrictions and keep the ICUs at or below capacity.

But I'd love to know why some people think herd Immunity can only be achieved through doing nothing and allowing everyone to get it at once? Clearly what we're doing is allowing people to get it at the max rate the health service can deal with - this achieving herd Immunity as quickly and safely as possible.

If herd Immunity isn't possible through surviving the disease or a vaccine, then we're looking at the current scenario for the rest of our lives.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And what's the objective? If they're not trying to eliminate the virus, they're going to have to manage spread to a level where the health service can cope. At the same time they are going to need to balance lifting restrictions on economic activity while keeping the health service from.being overrun.

What's the alternative? Sit around in lockdown for as long as it takes for a vaccine to be invented?

Have a serious look at what's actually happening in front of us. If we're not trying to eliminate the virus, then what are we doing?

Well regarding herd immunity, it has been shown as stated in Scientific America that recovered patients with Coivd 19 have antibodies for at leat two weeks and we do have 116 cases in South Korea which are recovered people reinfected so herd immunity might not work. This virus has been public knowledge since Decmeber in China, and rest of the world since mid January so there is not enough knowledge about it yet.

We have choosen a route involving testing and contract tracing and lockdown, one which other countries that tried herd immunity strategy are now embracing.

As with practically everyone else on boards, I can't answer your question re what is the alternative. At the moment we are trying to suppress it, get it to an manageable level that we can cope with.

As I have stated previously, going on what Simon Harris said yesterday, this will involve tweaking of the present restrictions, relaxing and tightening restrictions based on the levels of R0, capacity of ICU beds spread/growth of infection.

It is the great unknown.

Life will have to be lived side by side with coronavirus until a vaccine is delivered if at all possible. It will be a slow emerging is all I can think, the reintroduction of services based on the numbers and school will have to be reimagined.

In my own school, in order to maintain social distancing, classes will I reckon have to halved at least but with multiple streams of the one year group and limited space, I don't know how that cn be achieved. I do see Denmark using other spaces such as museums, but with the amount of children in Ireland attending school between primary and secondary, it will take intricate and detailed planning.

How that wokrs with child safety, GDPR etc I dont know but if the zoo is available Im bagging that space:D

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But its still just letting it wash over the population.

No. It's controlling the rate at which it "washes over" the country. Balancing transmission rate with what the health service can cope with.

El_Duderino 09

GT89 wrote: »

The lockdown strategy is not to protect people. If the government wanted ro protect people they would tell people to buy a month's worth of food and medication and stay indoors for the month with everything closed and people not allowed to leave their homes unless a healthcare worker.

Under this strategy the population is being put under the same amount of risk as they would under the herd immunity strategy only difference is the healthcare system won't come under the same pressure and there would be less of a chance of civil unrest in the short. But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll.

Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once. It would be more of a sudden shock to the system. The strategy in use is just dragging it out. If we used herd immunity the death toll would soar in a couple of days/weeks then the virus will runs its course as those who get it bad will die off quickly in a huge number and those who get it milder will shake it off fairly quick. This is prolonging the inevitable.

Why do some people think that the only way to achieve herd Immunity is to do nothing and allow everyone to get the virus all at once? That would be the FASTEST way to do it and it would also be catastrophic in terms of the death toll because the health service couldn't possibly treat everyone who needs treatment. So lots of additional people would die due to lack of treatment.

The best way to achieve herd Immunity is to keep transmissions rates to a level where the health service can cope with, and treat, all the acute cases. That's the balance that needs to be achieved

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

It has dropped from 4.5% on 16th March to around 1% today after 2 and a bit week in lockdown so I would hesitate to guess it is heading the right direction

And what's the objective? If they're not trying to eliminate the virus, they're going to have to manage spread to a level where the health service can cope. At the same time they are going to need to balance lifting restrictions on economic activity while keeping the health service from.being overrun.

What's the alternative? Sit around in lockdown for as long as it takes for a vaccine to be invented?

Have a serious look at what's actually happening in front of us. If we're not trying to eliminate the virus, then what are we doing?

El_Duderino 09

Yosef Stocky Backspace wrote: »

But where is your evidence that this is the government's plan?? Or this is just your opinion rather than what you actually see happening in front of you? I'm not looking for what you think should happen, or what I think should happen, but what you think is happening in front of us - as you claimed.

Also, the virus is not spreading steadily during lockdown. The R0 has, according to NPHET, dropped from over 4 before schools closed, to over 2 before lockdown, to slightly above one now. That's not a steady spread.

I think it's pretty clear that were working towards herd Immunity through managing the population getting the disease while we cross our fingers and hope a vaccine comes along at some point in the next few years to allow the vulnerable people out of cocooning.

OK. He spread rate has gone from R4 to just above R1. So its still spreading to more and more people right now whilst on lockdown. When they get the spread below R1 do you think they will relax restrictions or do you think they'll push on and try to eliminate the virus altogether?

I tho k it's pretty clear that absolutely nobody is even pretending they are trying to eliminate the virus completely. So what does that leave? It leaves Managing the spread and keeping it at or below a level where the ICUs can cope.

It's clear as day that they're not even trying to eliminate the virus - Harris has said it's here to stay. So what approach does that leave?

Idbatterim

trapp wrote: »

Whether he is right or wrong is not relevant.

That man had no right to make a comment like that on national television.

He is not in an elected position of power and only someone in government could decide something like that.

He is an academic and in no way should he be allowed to dictate national policy in such a way on televison.

I found it absolutely outrageous.

I have just read this headline in the Irish independent, I am stunned! Who the **** is this person when he is home?! Lock down for rest of 2020? I wrote only a few days ago, how utterly conservative this countries governance was , how they love nothing more than no decision making and action, but you couldn't dream this **** up! A vaccine could be a year or two away ! Do something outrageous like this and the cost to life and economically, will dwarf the virus!

People need to get back to work and the schools need to reopen in September , the other stuff isn't as urgent, but they are absolute necessities!!!

That's needs to be done and allow small gatherings like oup to groups of maybe five etc, for some social interaction, they cant see past the end of their nose here , but if they think these levels of restrictions currently will be tolerated much longer good luck!

[Deleted User]

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But its still just letting it wash over the population.

But less deaths..

ILoveYourVibes

6 wrote: »

Eh, no.

If we did nothing the death toll would be far far higher.
Why? The health system would be overwhelmed quickly and a lot of people requiring specialist ventilators or treatment in hospital wouldn't have a bed. Therefore people would just die at home.

Keeping specialist beds from maxing out means more people get treatment and survive it.

But its still just letting it wash over the population.

ILoveYourVibes

GT89 wrote: »

The lockdown strategy is not to protect people. If the government wanted ro protect people they would tell people to buy a month's worth of food and medication and stay indoors for the month with everything closed and people not allowed to leave their homes unless a healthcare worker.

Under this strategy the population is being put under the same amount of risk as they would under the herd immunity strategy only difference is the healthcare system won't come under the same pressure and there would be less of a chance of civil unrest in the short. But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll.

Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once. It would be more of a sudden shock to the system. The strategy in use is just dragging it out. If we used herd immunity the death toll would soar in a couple of days/weeks then the virus will runs its course as those who get it bad will die off quickly in a huge number and those who get it milder will shake it off fairly quick. This is prolonging the inevitable.

Yeah I expected something more as a follow up plan to lockdown. And i don't like that the press is ignoring the moral implications of not having one. And the people seem like sheep.

[Deleted User]

GT89 wrote: »

The lockdown strategy is not to protect people. If the government wanted ro protect people they would tell people to buy a month's worth of food and medication and stay indoors for the month with everything closed and people not allowed to leave their homes unless a healthcare worker.

Under this strategy the population is being put under the same amount of risk as they would under the herd immunity strategy only difference is the healthcare system won't come under the same pressure and there would be less of a chance of civil unrest in the short. But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll.

Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once. It would be more of a sudden shock to the system. The strategy in use is just dragging it out. If we used herd immunity the death toll would soar in a couple of days/weeks then the virus will runs its course as those who get it bad will die off quickly in a huge number and those who get it milder will shake it off fairly quick. This is prolonging the inevitable.

Eh, no.

If we did nothing the death toll would be far far higher.
Why? The health system would be overwhelmed quickly and a lot of people requiring specialist ventilators or treatment in hospital wouldn't have a bed. Therefore people would just die at home.

Keeping specialist beds from maxing out means more people get treatment and survive it.

GT89

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown. So it’s clear that we can’t eliminate the virus by reducing transmissions to zero.

The ideal scenario would be, as you said, to find a new way to live that minimises there transmission but maximises the ability to get back to work. Getting back to work will obviously increase transmission. So the only logical thing to do is to try to keep transmissions to a level that is below ICU capacity.

So the balance they need to achieve is: maximum economic activity with transmission rate below ICU capacity.

They can also act to increase ICU capacity which will in turn increase economic capacity. The sooner we achieve herd immunity the sooner we can return to some level of normality. But that’s at least a year or two away.

The lockdown strategy is not to protect people. If the government wanted ro protect people they would tell people to buy a month's worth of food and medication and stay indoors for the month with everything closed and people not allowed to leave their homes unless a healthcare worker.

Under this strategy the population is being put under the same amount of risk as they would under the herd immunity strategy only difference is the healthcare system won't come under the same pressure and there would be less of a chance of civil unrest in the short. But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll.

Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once. It would be more of a sudden shock to the system. The strategy in use is just dragging it out. If we used herd immunity the death toll would soar in a couple of days/weeks then the virus will runs its course as those who get it bad will die off quickly in a huge number and those who get it milder will shake it off fairly quick. This is prolonging the inevitable.

ILoveYourVibes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Do the math.

Our reproduction rate can't be at 1 with 992 cases in the last 24 hrs.

r93kaey5p2izun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown. So it’s clear that we can’t eliminate the virus by reducing transmissions to zero.

The ideal scenario would be, as you said, to find a new way to live that minimises there transmission but maximises the ability to get back to work. Getting back to work will obviously increase transmission. So the only logical thing to do is to try to keep transmissions to a level that is below ICU capacity.

So the balance they need to achieve is: maximum economic activity with transmission rate below ICU capacity.

They can also act to increase ICU capacity which will in turn increase economic capacity. The sooner we achieve herd immunity the sooner we can return to some level of normality. But that’s at least a year or two away.

But where is your evidence that this is the government's plan?? Or this is just your opinion rather than what you actually see happening in front of you? I'm not looking for what you think should happen, or what I think should happen, but what you think is happening in front of us - as you claimed.

Also, the virus is not spreading steadily during lockdown. The R0 has, according to NPHET, dropped from over 4 before schools closed, to over 2 before lockdown, to slightly above one now. That's not a steady spread.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown.

It has dropped from 4.5% on 16th March to around 1% today after 2 and a bit week in lockdown so I would hesitate to guess it is heading the right direction

El_Duderino 09

Yosef Stocky Backspace wrote: »

What I see in front of me is a lock down of unprecedented scale with suggestions it might be lifted in a few weeks maybe, no guarantees. I see a Health Minister stating social distancing will remain until there is a vaccine - not until herd immunity via transmission. And I see chair of the NPHET modelling group Professor Philip Nolan stating "we need to think carefully about the things we can get back to doing in a way that does not spread the virus" and "the aim is to suppress it as much as possible. We are seeing a day-on-day reduction in the growth of the epidemic. The growth in cases is slowing down but, frankly, that number needs to be zero" and "We’re not going back, it’s best not to think about lifting the restrictions, it’s best to think about finding a new way to live that interrupts the spread of the virus".

That does not really tally with what you seem to be seeing about keeping transmission going to a level just within ICU capacity. That looks a lot more like suppression to me.

Where are you seeing plan leading towards herd immunity through transmission?

Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown. So it’s clear that we can’t eliminate the virus by reducing transmissions to zero.

The ideal scenario would be, as you said, to find a new way to live that minimises there transmission but maximises the ability to get back to work. Getting back to work will obviously increase transmission. So the only logical thing to do is to try to keep transmissions to a level that is below ICU capacity.

So the balance they need to achieve is: maximum economic activity with transmission rate below ICU capacity.

They can also act to increase ICU capacity which will in turn increase economic capacity. The sooner we achieve herd immunity the sooner we can return to some level of normality. But that’s at least a year or two away.

LiquidZeb

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do you think that?

You do realize you're talking to someone who suggested we lockdown for 18-24 months last night and when probed about how that's feasible responded with we'll just have to. There's some utter insanity on this site

r93kaey5p2izun

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not questioning your level of education, just your level of realism about what’s actually happening In front of us.

We are aiming for herd immunity. Whether we achieve it through a vaccine or through at least 2/3 of the population getting the disease is just a matter of how long each approach would take. If you think we’re trying to keep transmissions as close to zero as possible then you’re not being realistic about what’s happening in front of us. Lifting ANY restrictions would increase transmissions and schools would be one way to achieve that if the transmission numbers get too low.

What I see in front of me is a lock down of unprecedented scale with suggestions it might be lifted in a few weeks maybe, no guarantees. I see a Health Minister stating social distancing will remain until there is a vaccine - not until herd immunity via transmission. And I see chair of the NPHET modelling group Professor Philip Nolan stating "we need to think carefully about the things we can get back to doing in a way that does not spread the virus" and "the aim is to suppress it as much as possible. We are seeing a day-on-day reduction in the growth of the epidemic. The growth in cases is slowing down but, frankly, that number needs to be zero" and "We’re not going back, it’s best not to think about lifting the restrictions, it’s best to think about finding a new way to live that interrupts the spread of the virus".

That does not really tally with what you seem to be seeing about keeping transmission going to a level just within ICU capacity. That looks a lot more like suppression to me.

Where are you seeing plan leading towards herd immunity through transmission?

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are not. And they are not adding in the German figures.

You’re right. The Irish figures are not levelling off the American and uk figures are levelling off though. The Americans have been on about 30,000 cases a day for about a week now. The uk has about 4,000 a day for about a week now.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You won't be able to with lockdown alone. Lockdown alone won't balance this in our favor for much longer.

Why do you think that?

ILoveYourVibes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, the daily cases are levelling off, presumably as a result of the lockdown. The next couple of weeks will be interesting to see what happens and if the numbers fall too low, which methods will they use to raise them again.

They are not. And they are not adding in the German figures.

The correct fig 23 hrs about was 992 cases. Its not the figure banded about in the media.

ILoveYourVibes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I presume you mean the numbers at kept below the health service ability to deal with them. So exactly what I’m talking about. Keep transmissions below the health service capacity.

Whether they use schools to achieve it or not remains to be seen. We’ll achieve herd immunity by hook or by crook. It’s just about balancing keeping transmissions high without overwhelming the health service.

You won't be able to with lockdown alone. Lockdown alone won't balance this in our favor for much longer.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am just amused that Harris thinks the daily no of cases is going to start falling by may.

April twelfth has come and gone if we don't see a fall soon well then lockdown isn't enough to reduce the spread its just slowing it. That means restrictions cannot lift.

Well, the daily cases are levelling off, presumably as a result of the lockdown. The next couple of weeks will be interesting to see what happens and if the numbers fall too low, which methods will they use to raise them again.

ILoveYourVibes

khalessi wrote: »

Simon Harris has said social distancing is going to be with us for a long time yet and that the present restrictions will be tweaked and closely observed, which does not read as total relaxation.

There is no way he can have a relaxation or 'tweaking'.

And the enormity of this is going to dawn on him next sept when a new generation of student nurses doesn't graduate and a new generation of LC students don't get into nursing college medical degrees etc.

Lockdown is not enough. Yes we need a lockdown but its not enough and eventually lockdown is going to be useless if we don't realize this. Just like italy.

People screaming for testing and ppe are not trying to avoid lockdown its not lets do this instead. We know that eventually lockdown alone won't work.

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

Simon Harris has said social distancing is going to be with us for a long time yet and that the present restrictions will be tweaked and closely observed, which does not read as total relaxation. I think they will take softly softly approach reopening smaller businesses for example and watching the effect on the numbers. If that is ok another step of opening less essential places such as coffess shops. If numbers increase, tighter restrictions. It wil alll be done slowly and gently and schools will not be reopened until he is confident people wont die, he more or less said as much today, it was 57 minutes long he spoke for.

Ok. I presume you mean the numbers at kept below the health service ability to deal with them. So exactly what I’m talking about. Keep transmissions below the health service capacity.

Whether they use schools to achieve it or not remains to be seen. We’ll achieve herd immunity by hook or by crook. It’s just about balancing keeping transmissions high without overwhelming the health service.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

1. How will they do it?

2. How do you think they ought to do it that wouldn’t be as stupid or obvious?

Simon Harris has said social distancing is going to be with us for a long time yet and that the present restrictions will be tweaked and closely observed, which does not read as total relaxation. I think they will take softly softly approach reopening smaller businesses for example and watching the effect on the numbers. If that is ok another step of opening less essential places such as coffess shops. If numbers increase, tighter restrictions. It wil alll be done slowly and gently and schools will not be reopened until he is confident people wont die, he more or less said as much today, it was 57 minutes long he spoke for.