downthemiddle wrote: » What is recommended after two hours or does the danger mysteriously disappear? Perhaps you can clarify the science.
Augeo wrote: » https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/attendance_and_discipline_in_schools/school_attendance.html#:~:text=The%20legislation%20governing%20school%20attendance,Education%20(Welfare)%20Act%202000.&text=There%20is%20no%20absolute%20legal,primary%20educator%20of%20the%20child. Parents must ensure that their children from the age of 6 to the age of 16 attend a recognised school or receive a certain minimum education. There is no absolute legal obligation on children to attend school nor on their parents to send them to school. The Irish Constitution recognises the family as the primary educator of the child. It guarantees to respect the right and duty of parents to provide (according to their means) for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. Parents are free to provide this education in their homes or in schools recognised or established by the State.
seamus wrote: » Outside of these scenarios it is not necessarily recommended.
seamus wrote: » Mask wearing is appropriate in applicable scenarios. Namely periods of 15 minutes to two hours where social distancing cannot be maintained. .
blanch152 wrote: » The studies may have been limited, but they have been done, and the risk is low for teachers.
blanch152 wrote: » You have previously mentioned that the science has moved on, but you have yet to produce a study to back you up.
blanch152 wrote: » Schools have been back around the world for weeks and even months, yet we have no reports of thousands of teachers dying from Covid-19. Why is that? Answer: because the risk is very small.
blanch152 wrote: » Teachers are scared, I get it, but it is surprising that such a well-educated cohort are refusing to accept the science that there is little risk in a return to school.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Why is it acceptable that your workable solutions have to be different that let's say, shops? Mask wearing is being legislated for.
Boggles wrote: » The "study" is based on 6 infections, where the school was automatically closed? Are you being serious?
Boggles wrote: » The science has moved on since then. If they could do it again I imagine they would have tested a hell of a lot more. All children can get it and spread it, whatever the age.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Really? I see a lot of retail staff round my way wearing them. I assumed they offered a higher level of protection
seamus wrote: » I'm waiting for the, "We want to go back to work, but we also want to be safe" line to be trotted out again as if it explains the refusal to accept workable solutions.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Bus drivers: masks compulsory, 50% max capacity Retail workers: limits on customers per shop, masks compulsory now, footfall way way down for lockdown, no one spending long periods in shops with workers, socially distanced at the counters often with Perspex and masks in many cases too Hairdressers: two people allowed in my kids barber at a time. All wearing masks especially in the chair. My own hairdressers I had to put my handbag and all in a bag and wasn’t even allowed wear my own mask. There was massive space between every customer. Teachers: no masks necessary. No Perspex necessary. No social distancing unless you can manage it (hint: no classrooms can fit over 20 with 1m social distancing). 30 students at a time in a small room for 40 minutes stretches. See the difference?
blanch152 wrote: » I posted the link to the study in full already, maybe you should read it. Here is some more interesting reading about studies:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/coronavirus-infection-spread-in-children-cvd/ "It’s also unclear how easily kids can spread the virus, both to each other and to adults. One robust study of nearly 65,000 kids published by the South Korean Center for Disease Control last week showed that children in the 10- to 19-year-old age range could spread COVID-19 within households just as effectively as adults." So the Korean study is showing the transmission of the virus within household situations, but not in classrooms? For me, teachers should not have any real concerns about going back to the classroom. Compared to bus drivers, retail workers, care assistants, hair-dressers etc., who are all out there working for weeks, there is a much lesser risk. Parents of vulnerable children may have greater concerns that the teacher may spread it to them.
jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » Took longer than usual for this one to be trotted out. Fair play
seamus wrote: » This has been going on with this thread from the start. People making a big deal about having hot water in schools was the first one. "How can I go back into my classroom when we don't have hot water?!" About a month ago, I suggested that building modifications would need to be made to make this work, only to have posters scoff and claim there's no way the money would be forthcoming. Oh, look... Now it's masks. Suddenly a dire need for masks in schools, all the time, everywhere, even when the data says it's not that effective in this scenario. Somehow every problem is insurmountable, every solution is insufficient. One would be forgiven for thinking that there's a cohort who just don't want to go back to work. Or who won't accept anything less than hospital-level infection controls in schools.
blanch152 wrote: » I posted the link to the study in full already, maybe you should read it.
Sammy2012 wrote: » They are saying visors without masks are not preventing the spread .
seamus wrote: » One would be forgiven for thinking that there's a cohort who just don't want to go back to work. Or who won't accept anything less than hospital-level infection controls in schools.
seamus wrote: » Now it's masks. Suddenly a dire need for masks in schools, all the time, everywhere, even when the data says it's not that effective in this scenario.
Boggles wrote: » What exactly have they looked into? The schools have been closed, there is no evidence to look at. There was no scaled up robust testing or tracing system in place on March 12th. Quite simply the data doesn't exist.
blanch152 wrote: » Not clear from the HIQA document, it doesn't seem to distinguish between ages, but perhaps studies elsewhere, and since the 23rd June have found something.https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2020-06/Evidence-summary-for-spread-of-COVID-19-by-children.pdf "An analysis of Irish notifications of SARS-CoV-2 in the school setting found no transmission from children. (12) All notifications occurred in early March, before the universal school closure on 12 March 2020. Prior to this closure, when a case was identified within a school, either all children and staff within the school or all children and staff involved with an individual case were excluded, limiting the potential for further transmission. Three paediatric cases (all aged between 10 and 15 years) and three adult cases of COVID-19 with a history of school attendance were identified, along with 1,155 contacts (1,025 school contacts, 130 other settings). None of the original six cases were infected with SARS-CoV-2 via the school setting. All cases except one had symptoms of either cough or fever. Contacts were exposed at school in the classroom, during sports lessons, music lessons and during choir practice for a religious ceremony, which involved a number of schools mixing in a church environment, although the length of time of these activities is not reported. The three paediatric cases had a total of 822 child contacts and 83 adult contacts within the school setting. No additional cases were identified during the follow-up period (14 days) from last contact with the index case. However, only contacts who developed symptoms were referred for testing, thus asymptomatic secondary cases were not captured. Transmission was observed in one instance outside the school environment, between two adult cases and a further adult."
jazz_jazz wrote: » I think visors would be a lot more appropriate for teachers to wear than masks. They won't hide facial expressions and won't muffle the voice.
CruelSummer wrote: » The hysterical posts on this thread re masks are ridiculous. No child should be forced to wear one on their faces all day long. There is research out there that shows masks are ineffective after a certain amount of time. Also..what about children who cannot keep on a costume mask, Halloween mask for more than 5 minutes? They handle, fiddle with them constantly, they find them suffocating at times and that alone would spread Covid easily...are any of the posters on this thread actually teachers or even parents?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I was wondering about this. I sometimes struggle to make myself heard by a shop assistant a couple of yards away, so is not difficult for a teacher wearing a cloth mask to project their voice to the back of a classroom?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b02137c72155734a0d6608f88d445229.svg)
