munchkin_utd wrote: » temperature checks just show you have a fever, which ffs you would know anyhow as you'd be feeling well dodgy. The people who are causing the havoc are people with no symptoms, and that includes no temperature. Anyhow, we are abroad and my kids are back in school (week on, week off) for the past 6 weeks and this is now their last week before the summer holidays. Each class is split in 2 groups which alternate. I am fairly sure they aren't bothering with hand sanitiser, because washing hands with soap and water is incredibly effective against viruses (which we all know have a fatty outer skin which soap breaks up, rendering the virus "dead") and they wash their hands every time they come back into the classroom. In in the morning each class arrives staggered by 15 minutes, that leads to lunch break(s) staggered by 15 minutes, each half class only eats and plays within their own class, and even the play is socially distanced. So they are close-ish to those in their class/ group of 10 to 15, but barely see anyone outside of that. Should any case be detected, then only that (half) class would need to go into isolation, not the entire school, town, region or country. It's pretty basic sensible stuff . Each school chooses what works best for them regarding patterns of attendance, i.e. other schools are in every other day rather than a week on, week off. Come september it looks likely that they'll all be in with full classes, with permission for vulnerable kids to stay at home (as is the case now anyhow) and I have no idea what the arrangements will be with that. All in all it works really well. At this stage all schools at all levels across the country have been back before the summer holidays to some sort of school attendance. The thinking was that it was safe with the measures PLUS should they have judged that wrong, then the summer holidays would be round the corner and they could reset the plans in safety and come back in Autumn either with better hygene plans, or proper distance learning. I looked up the figures and theres 32,500+ schools, just under 11 million schoolkids, and not one reported cluster tracked back to a school (yet). Autumn will be probably see an odd case here or there, but should classes remain separate and traceable then VERY localised action on a class level can be taken, letting the rest of the school carry on.
jrosen wrote: » <snip> My dentist and my kids dentists are not taking temps for this reason, my hair dresser said the same and my doctors office is not taking temps either although Im not sure why. My kids have been back to camp for 2 weeks and no temp checks either.
froog wrote: » Yeah alcohol at a certain concentration does that too by the way.
Lillyfae wrote: » Sanitisers are not very effective. Better than nothing but not the most effective. The washing your hands for 20 seconds comes about because the virus cells have a lipid layer that is only broken down properly by soap and warm water. So it's more of a physical reaction than chemical actually.
froog wrote: » What do people do after they touch the sanitiser? Think about it now for a second.
murphyebass wrote: » Even if it is a trigger they touch to get the sanitizer out..... they then sanatIze their hands so what’s the problem. It’s like the automatic soap dispenser for the home that were launched a year or two ago. No need to touch a trigger. Yay, oh wait I’m getting soap out to WASH MY HANDS!
timmy_mallet wrote: » Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with my kids using a santiser provided by someone else, would you? I will be providing them with their own. And if there are mandatory hand sanitising stations in schools from September, I'd argue they are a greater risk to safety than if they didn't exist. Each child in the school touching something with their hands on arrival is absurd.
Sammy2012 wrote: » Alot of sanitizer are now automatic. You place your hand under them. No touching at all.
Sammy2012 wrote: » Children were allergic to it apparently. Kids were around 9. My own 2 are 4 and 6. They were asked did they bring their own sanitizer and parent answered just soap and water.
Lillyfae wrote: » Why would anyone do this? Did they give any reason??
Sammy2012 wrote: » I just dropped my kids off at summer camp. Hand sanitizer at the door and temp check also. Felt very safe. However the parent behind me refused the use of sanitizer and the temp check. This is what schools will be facing going forward.
Lillyfae wrote: » There would have to be a waiver in place then. The parents are obliged to inform in case of allergies. I call a bluff, they should have been refused.
iamwhoiam wrote: » But they weren’t allergic to the thermometer I presume
Sammy2012 wrote: » Can you legally refuse them though?
iamwhoiam wrote: » Then she should have been refused entry .
...Ghost... wrote: » If a person is fit and able to return to work AND the employers duty of care is properly adhered to, there is no problem. If all steps are taken to protect staff, then there is no need for "high risk" employees to stay at home with pay, is there? My point was that a person should not be put in a position where they have an unnecessary risk of contracting a potentially fatal illness to themselves, or others outside their employment. If the employer can't provide a safe working environment, the employee should not be out of pocket, or health.
jrosen wrote: » If a person is fit and able to return to work they should, if they dont feel comfortable then that is their decision but they should not be able to sit at home on full pay. Employers have a duty of care to their staff, not to their staffs extended family. Perhaps you missed my comment as I have already clearly stated PPE should be available along with hand washing facilities/sanitizer
