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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

thegreengoblin

Could someone explain how Denmark are now beginning the process of sending their younger children back to school and yet the general consensus here seems to be that schools won't be re-opening until September? I'm aware that Denmark was early into lockdown and has less cases and deaths than Ireland but equally it hasn't been as restrictive as other countries.

If Ireland does begin to get to grips with the virus over the next few weeks, and if there is no resurgence in Denmark and other countries that will follow suit in easing restrictions, is there any reason why schools cannot reopen on a limited basis by the end of May?

NOTE: I'm only seeing previous posts about Denmark on this page now, I did look for discussion on it but obviously posted while on the previous page if that makes sense.

GT89

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

But not everyone will get it all at once considering it has a two week incubation period

ILoveYourVibes

I would say they will let nursing students and medical students back.

Ace2007

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Do the math.

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

But we don't have 992 new cases in last 24 hours.

We have results of 992 positive cases, some of which were tested up to 17 days ago.

ILoveYourVibes

Ace2007 wrote: »

But we don't have 992 new cases in last 24 hours.

We have results of 992 positive cases, some of which were tested up to 17 days ago.

nope..it was confirmed by the hse ...they have just been messing with the nos but a journalist asked and they admitted it.

Murple

Some facts, figures and thoughts I have picked up from various media outlets that should influence discussion:
Almost One in 4 people diagnosed with Covid-19 in this country have been hospitalised. Of these, almost 50% have been under 65 (for those who have the image of only elderly people getting significantly ill).
Ireland has the highest rate of cystic fibrosis in the world. It also has the highest rate of families with more than one child with the condition.
‘Underlying conditions’ may wrongly give the impression that people were already at deaths door. Asthma is an ‘underlying condition’.
The reported deaths from some countries are only those who have died in hospital and don’t include those who have died at home or in care homes or residential institutions. In this country, we are reporting all Covid related deaths in our figures. 72% of our Covid deaths have been in a hospital setting.

We need to be at a stage where testing can be done and results returned within 24-48 hours before we should be considering returning to settings where large groups are in confined spaces, such as schools. Otherwise we will be opening schools and requiring them to shut repeatedly to allow for self isolation.

Ace2007

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

nope..it was confirmed by the hse ...they have just been messing with the nos but a journalist asked and they admitted it.

If you say so, we know at least one of those "new" cases was from 17 days ago....

El_Duderino 09

GT89 wrote: »

But not everyone will get it all at once considering it has a two week incubation period

If we did nothing it might take 2 or 3 months for most people to get it and it would still be a disaster as the health service couldn’t cope with the acute cases. And that’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to control the numbers so people get it at the rate where the health service can keep up with demand. There will also be a period right now when the health service need to get PPE and supplies and secure a steady supply for the future when demand increase. Presumably they’re also trying to increase capacity in terms of beds so they will need long term supplies for those beds too.

Doing it so the health service can keep up could take a year or 18 months or 2 years. It’s the sensible way to do it.

But back to the question, why do people seem to think herd immunity has to be done in a hurry in such a way that will overrun the health service? I genuinely would like to know why those two ideas are linked in people’s minds.

iguana

Murple wrote: »

Almost One in 4 people diagnosed with Covid-19 in this country have been hospitalised. Of these, almost 50% have been under 65 (for those who have the image of only elderly people getting significantly ill).

It's almost impossible to get a diagnosis in this country if you don't have a particular underlying condition. So our confirmed cases only include those who are most likely to be hospitalised. The vast majority of people who get Covid 19 in Ireland will not be hospitalised but they don't show up on the figures because they aren't tested. And they aren't tested because they aren't likely to be hospitalised.

El_Duderino 09

Murple wrote: »

Some facts, figures and thoughts I have picked up from various media outlets that should influence discussion:
Almost One in 4 people diagnosed with Covid-19 in this country have been hospitalised. Of these, almost 50% have been under 65 (for those who have the image of only elderly people getting significantly ill). ...

Those are interesting stats but the one about the over 65s could do with some context. The over 65s make up 13% of the population. So they make up half of the hospitalisations but only represent 13%of the population. The other half of hospitalisations come from the other 87% of the population. That's pretty heavily skewed towards the old.

But I always refer to the most at risk as the "vulnerable" people because it really doesn't mater what age the vulnerable people are. If they're vulnerable, they're vulnerable.

I heard someone say a young person died and "they weren't vulnerable". Well, they were vulnerable. They were highly vulnerable because they actually died. They just weren't in any of the categories that we know makes people vulnerable.

Idbatterim

What is the issue where practical with putting the older kids, like, 4th,5th, 6 years into the gym, parish centre, church etc?

Obviously use the normal schools , I propose these because with the bigger spaces, you can increase social distance and not have several hundred under one roof ...

[Deleted User]

Idbatterim wrote: »

What is the issue where practical with putting the older kids, like, 4th,5th, 6 years into the gym, parish centre, church..

As a teacher I can say this would be a logistical nightmare. No access to interactive white boards or proper technology. Accessing shared resources, books and equipment management, space for lunch, toileting facilities for 100s of students etc it wouldn’t be practical.

Mountainsandh

I don't buy the stance that "only reopening the schools", even a partial reopening for a certain cohort of students, would be a "gradual" de-confinement.

You get the kids in school, you are realistically exposing all parents and a good chunk of caregivers (who might very well be grannies where people have no other option) for all the teachers/SNAs'/janitors' children who need minding.

You are exposing siblings, even if they're not back into school or college themselves.

You are exposing a potentially very large number of essential workers to the virus, and their professional/personal contacts.

Let the kids back in school and watch the waves of "at risk" mothers, fathers and grannies flood the hospitals.

astrofool

I don't think people get that there is no other option, people have to be able to return to work and education in a reasonable time frame that is sometime this year, we lived with diseases all the time pre-vaccine, and continued as normal, many much more deadly than COVID-19.

khalessi

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think people get that there is no other option, people have to be able to return to work and education in a reasonable time frame that is sometime this year, we lived with diseases all the time pre-vaccine, and continued as normal, many much more deadly than COVID-19.

WHat diseases have we lived with that are more deadly?

iguana

khalessi wrote: »

WHat diseases have we lived with that are more deadly?

Measles.

Many people in Ireland today lived through TB.

Jurgen Klopp

iguana wrote: »

Measles.

Many people in Ireland today lived through TB.

I was actually thinking of this lately. I'm 30 and from say my parents gen to now we've had it really good. TB, Polio and measles for the most part phased out. So to be honest it's a serious shock to a lot of under 60s even I'd say at the thought of having to live alongside something threatening like this. Wondering if c19 will be our TB at least for a couple years

LilyShame

Scrooby this is a good innovative solution and glad to see it coming from a teacher. I think testing the concept in some areas this side of a summer break is an opportunity to see if it works. The Danish approach will have learnings in next few weeks. I have no doubt Leo and Co are considering the economic implications, just as the Danish pm has done.

It is impossible to work remotely and effectively at home over a 6 month period, and effectively home school young children.

scooby77 wrote: »

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.

scooby77

Germany beginning reopening from May 4th.

"Schools can reopen "gradually and very slowly" after 4 May, she said, with new safety measures for breaks and school buses, and priority given to those students with exams.

"It will be a great logistical effort and it needs very careful preparation," she said."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52299358

Gynoid

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

I was actually thinking of this lately. I'm 30 and from say my parents gen to now we've had it really good. TB, Polio and measles for the most part phased out. So to be honest it's a serious shock to a lot of under 60s even I'd say at the thought of having to live alongside something threatening like this. Wondering if c19 will be our TB at least for a couple years

A few days ago while looking for stats on something else I stumbled on these tables about death causes and rates comparing Ireland in 1916 and 2014. In 1916 there were about 3 million in Ireland, it was about 4.6 million in 2014. Look at the amount of people dying from influenza, respiratory diseases, TB and infectious diseases. The amount from bronchitis. It is quite shocking. Plus as a newborn in 1916 you had a life expectancy of 54. If you struggled through all the decades up to about 50 you greatly increased your chances of going all the way to 70+. 10% of babies under 1 died. This is a mere 100 years ago. We would be traumatised now to even think of living like that.
One of the things about Covid 19 is it gives us a glimpse, small enough now and hopefully controllable, about how it would be like to live alongside a very contagious disease which we do not fully understand, are struggling to medicate and which kills apparently more people than things like influenza.

Anyways for anyone interested in a gawk...
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/deaths/