How will schools be able to go back in September?

I'll be honest, I don't really care about the teachers, I do but I care about myself more.

And if the plan is to send 1.1 million people back into an environment where the government advice is not based on science but based on "shure be grand".

That effects everyone, every single person in the country, whether you are a teacher, a parent or not.

So people looking to have a snipe at feckless greedy teachers need to remember one thing, if they fúck up the return to schools and it goes títs up that will bring the whole house of cards down.

Then we will have real problems going forward.

blanch152 wrote: »

The studies may have been limited, but they have been done, and the risk is low for teachers.

The study so limited it's insignificant. Junk.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have previously mentioned that the science has moved on, but you have yet to produce a study to back you up.

I all ready quoted from the study that was cited.

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.

Well no, most schools are still closed, except for limited circumstances and where open very strict measures.

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.

You haven't cited any science.

Your ill informed opinion is not science.

seamus wrote: »

Outside of these scenarios it is not necessarily recommended.

You should get onto the CDC with your "science" and "recommendations" would save them a lot of trouble.

Guidance for K-12 School Administrators on the Use of Cloth Face Coverings in Schools

This thread could do with being split into a primary School and secondary School threads.

downthemiddle wrote: »

What is recommended after two hours or does the danger mysteriously disappear? Perhaps you can clarify the science.

Alternative measures are recommended. Such as social distancing, changing masks, ventilation, etc.

All of the recommendations are contingent on risk and location and should be balanced against such.

seamus wrote: »

The 20 days just gets flagged for a Tusla follow-up, parents aren't breaking the law if kids miss 20 days of school.

The purpose of the Tusla visit will be to ascertain that the kids are being cared for and it's not a case that they're missing school because they're covered in bruises or because the parents couldn't be arsed.

I'd be inclined to contact the school first with your plan and see if the teacher is willing to give you guidance on what she plans on doing with the kids for the first month. At least then when you send them back they won't be a month behind the class. The school may also be willing to ignore the asbsences if you're engaging with them - sending in homework, etc,

Yeah I'll be speaking with the school alright, was just really checking on the legality of it so thanks for that.

I am just weighing up the risk of sending them back, which I think at the moment is very low given the numbers of community transmission against what they would miss education wise in the first month.

If they do go back to segregated pods and staggered times they may not get a whole lot done in the first month anyway.

There are a number of kids in their classes from foreign countries and I know they are have gone back to those countries for the summer, if they arrive home a few days before school starts and just go in without 2 weeks quarantine that is my biggest concern.

downthemiddle wrote: »

Could you translate this to a school context please?

Short answer -

Kids under 10 are very low risk for viral transmission and thus social distancing or masks provides very little additional protection for the amount of effort required. Low-effort practices such as hand washing and avoiding large crowds should be maintained.

Kids over 10 present a slightly higher risk (which increases as you get towards 18) and should practice social distancing, or mask wearing if that's not possible. On top of the usual hygiene measures.

Adults (i.e. teachers and sixth years) should practice social distancing at all times and avoid mixing outside of their core class groups.

The riskiest and most difficult part of reopening schools is not the gaggle of kids in primary schools sitting without masks.

It's secondary schools - senior cycle especially - attempting to maintain wide subject choices & streamed classes while minimising risk.

seamus wrote: »

Short answer -

Kids under 10 are very low risk for viral transmission and thus social distancing or masks provides very little additional protection for the amount of effort required. Low-effort practices such as hand washing and avoiding large crowds should be maintained.

Children under 10 were roughly half as likely as adults to spread the virus to others....Even so, the number of new infections seeded by children may rise when schools reopen, the study authors cautioned. “Young children may show higher attack rates when the school closure ends, contributing to community transmission of Covid-19,” they wrote. Other studies have also suggested that the large number of contacts for schoolchildren, who interact with dozens of others for a good part of the day, may cancel out their smaller risk of infecting others

seamus wrote: »

Kids over 10 present a slightly higher risk (which increases as you get towards 18) and should practice social distancing, or mask wearing if that's not possible. On top of the usual hygiene measures.

those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do...The study is more worrisome for children in middle and high school. This group was even more likely to infect others than adults were, the study found. But some experts said that finding may be a fluke or may stem from the children’s behaviors

Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Large Study Finds

JRant wrote: »

Who pays for all these masks?
Is it nearly half a million daily users of the schools system in Ireland? That's a lot of masks that schools and the DES need to procure if that's the road they want to go down.

People cud pay half the cost for a pack of 20 reusable masks for the week, state cud cover rest of cost.

State cud do a deal with some crowd like O'Neills to buy them, we're p1ssing money away on plenty other things.

People wash masks at weekend. Job done

Edit: shud have been done a month ago but they cud still get a few companies to make them

JRant wrote: »

Who pays for all these masks?
Is it nearly half a million daily users of the schools system in Ireland? That's a lot of masks that schools and the DES need to procure if that's the road they want to go down.

Our local Lidl is selling 50 packs of surgical, 3 layer masks for €25 so 50c each, hardly a major expense for most. They are also selling cotton reusable ones too.
The younger kids in primary schools would be an uphill struggle to wear them but the senior kids aged 10+ should definitely do so IMHO.

Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: »

Kids won't be forced to wear masks in school, it won't be made mandatory so don't know why people keep banging on about it.

People can't believe they won't be required,that's why they're discussing it.

Thought it wud be the least they would do for ages 10+

I would hope unions push the issue for everyone's sake.

It's also an issue that's arising elsewhere

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/26/unions-urge-ministers-consider-making-face-masks-compulsory/

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Low risk isn't no risk and while no risk isn't possible, why aren't we looking to eliminate the risk we reasonably can?

Keyword there being "reasonably". Determining what's reasonable involves not just the level of effort required, but also the reward in doing so.

If the risk of viral transmission is very low, and the effort to do something (such as getting kids to wear masks) is high, then perhaps it's not a reasonable measure?

If you want to divide children into six-child "pods", then you need to double or triple your teaching staff.

If you want to do partial weeks, then society as a whole has to be restructured to account for kids not being in school five days a week.

But since the risk of transmission is very low, then none of these suggestions are reasonable for younger students.

Which leads to the conclusion that having younger kids go back to school without masks and distancing but with some of the other hygiene methods in place, is to "eliminate the risk we reasonably can".

Even with the alleged measures to be proposed today, schools are going to be considerably safer places than they were last September when there were practically zero hygiene practices in place.