kandr10 wrote: » Yeah I wouldn’t be keen for my child to be part of a trial run I have to say. Not when we’re still at a stage of not having had Proper contact with family and friends. Seems bonkers.
khalessi wrote: » There are also several reports to the contrary such as the one from Johns Hopkins University, which indicates that children are as suseptable to catching and spreading the virus as adults. There has has been an outbreak in France with the sd we have seen in the media. At least an open plan office has circulating air, in some schools they can't open the windows properly.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » And the French minister for education has confirmed that almost all of those new cases originated outside of the school.
khalessi wrote: » Almost, And the research from Johns Hopkins?
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » And yet again because someone has different views they are mocked.
plodder wrote: » In fairness, the evidence, from Denmark (haven't checked the others) is that opening primary schools has not resulted in spreading.
downthemiddle wrote: » I make no apologies for poking fun at someone who openly admits a willingness to experiment with more than half a million children. If you feel that you are in a position to defend such a perspective feel free to do so. I’m sure many posters would be interested in seeing you put a cogent argument in place for such an experiment.
Murple wrote: » Look at the numbers for Denmark. They have had much lower numbers all along than we do and they have been in decline for longer than ours have. Each country needs to look at their own figures and make decisions accordingly.
plodder wrote: » That means we are going to have to try things, and if they don't work, back off and try something else. Call it an experiment if you like.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » So your automatic defense is to slag and mock people instead of rational debate, same yesterday where a number of posters descended into mockery. Not a good reflection on your profession really. I can agree or disagree with someone's viewpoint without turning it into something like a gang of playground bullies and my opinion is not better or more important than anyone else's neither is yours.
pwurple wrote: » I think the long term impact on children's development should be at the core of the approach. Realistically, it's over here. We've done a good job. We are even below our normal baseline level of deaths in the country at the moment. For example, on a normal day 25-30 people die from cancer. It's down sub 20 for this virus. Yet, we're still stopped on cancer tests and diagnoses here... to treat the virus. That needs to come back around to the correct balance. We're all going to die of something, the novelty of this particular disease is going to wear off at some stage. Contact tracing will be important to get right over the next few weeks. Children for the most part, not affected by the virus. What they are affected by is a lack of social contact with their peers, and a lack of education. For every super-teacher who is pulling out all the stops and making distance learning work, there is a corresponding teacher who refuses to participate. Some parents have the means to pay for private tutors to teach their kids, some are turning on the TV and trying to work while the kids are also in the house. A large cohort of our children are being neglected in terms of education and social contact. This can have an impact for a whole generation. The longer we leave it unaddressed, the more severe that impact will be.
Flimsy_Boat wrote: » The incidence rate of cancer will not increase to the same degree as Covid-19. The virus incidence can increase 10 fold in a month.
downthemiddle wrote: » You referenced a report yesterday and made certain statements regarding teacher supply. I linked the report and ask you to backup your assertions. You avoided the question. You then made sweeping generalisations about schools, classrooms and teachers pulling the bullying card in the process without producing any evidence of being bullied or showing any understanding of what bullying actually is. It is demeaning to genuine victims to bandy around such a term so recklessly.
iamwhoiam wrote: » The incidence of untreatable cancer will increase if the tests that detect early cancers are not back in place soon . Cancers may not increase but because of undetected cases the impact will
pwurple wrote: » Which is why contact tracing is important, as I noted in my post.
Boggles wrote: » There is quite a bit of scare mongering by a couple of politicians around this at the moment, "explosion" in cancer cases. The sad reality is that screening as tool in certain cancers has a marginal effect on mortality rates. Screening is very important and needs to be brought back as soon as it is safe to do so, but the doomsday scenarios been painted are simply false.
daydorunrun wrote: » The principal sent no acknowledgment of the fact the current situation will likely carry on till September
kowloonkev wrote: » Family and friends would be an uncontrolled environment. It's fine that some parents don't want to send their kids to school when the risk to the kids and the parents is almost zero. But there are just as many, if not more parents who don't want their children socially stunted. For those who don't want schools to reopen, would you be happy for schools to reopen if your child wasn't attending, or does the selfishness extend to wanting all the kids in the country socially stunted?
Boggles wrote: » You want the principle to give you the exact information you all ready have? Nobody knows what is going to happen, teachers, principles, you, me or the governance, so using that as a stick to beat the principle is bizarre.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » I don't think it's too much to ask them to touch base now and again.
