seamus wrote: » Because the tranmissions risk is very low for that five year old
iamwhoiam wrote: » What ? Not sure why you are asking me that ?
seamus wrote: » And the ancillary stuff? Making sure kids have their masks on properly, making sure they stay on properly, making kids change them during the day, and then having to call up parents to collect a child who has invariable forgotten their second mask?
seamus wrote: » Now consider what you're actually trying to achieve. Are you trying to get a five year old to wear a mask for the sake of wearing a mask, or are you trying to reduce the spread of a virus?
seamus wrote: » Because the tranmissions risk is very low for that five year old, and you're punishing him and sending him home over a mask that he doesn't really need to wear.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » Anyone 13 years old or under doesn't have to wear a mask so it's not mandatory for children to wear masks as it stands.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Is it necessary to use bad language in almost all your posts?
average_runner wrote: » Does it have to match the school uniform and have the school crest on it?
Boggles wrote: » Jesus Christ the virus jumped fúcking species. But for some reason people are stating as fact that humans 18 or under are immune.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Why ? Uniforms are mandatory and people buy their own ? I am stunned to hear people thinking they cant buy a mask to wear .
iamwhoiam wrote: » 5 masks and wash them in rotation ? Not a huge ask in my opinion . Maybe a box of disposable masks in a class in case of spillage . But yes I would expect pupils to have their own masks
Cordell wrote: » It sounds like you have your mind set, and you're making up arguments. You have tha answer in your post: match the number of socks with the number of masks. Change and wash them together. The added expense is nothing compared to everything else related to school.
seamus wrote: » These are fair points, but they differ from masks. Uniforms you don't have to wash on a daily basis. Two of them get you through the week with no bother, and there's no public health issue with that (usually!). And of course clothes you otherwise wear all the time anyway. Masks you don't and won't. My kids have one mask each and that's all we need. Are we saying that we should have as many masks for our kids as we do socks & knickers? Even then it still differs; we don't send kids to school with a change of clothes and if they get their jumper dirty halfway through the day they just take it off and soldier on. Masks absolutely have to be changed during the day, and kids without them sent home. In many ways it is similar. But in the ways that actually matter - i.e. reducing viral spread - it's very different. It's a much bigger effort, which must be balanced against how necessary it actually is.
seamus wrote: » The effectiveness of masks diminishes with time anyway. They are effective at reducing spread for the first hour or two, after which their effectiveness reduces quite seriously. Thus it makes little sense to require masks when kids will spend 4+ hours together, but perfect sense to don the masks on busses and when leaving the classroom. So unless the guidance will include a requirement for kids to bring 3 masks to school with them every day and change them regularly, and have them washed and ready to go the next day, then wearing a mask in the classroom is of little use.Especially when we already know the covid risk for kids to be very low.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » I really have zero respect for that man. I've had dealings with him via the union when he was just a CEC member and can't stand him as a result.
jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » People are "forced" to do things everyday. Speed limits, no smoking in public places etc Students are "forced" to wear uniforms, do homework, arrive to school on time etc. A mask at school, that's all people are looking for. Wear a mask that you'd wear in a shop. Jesus wept, it's not an ordeal, it's not complicated
Cordell wrote: » Well, clothes are mandatory but you don't go around asking the gov to pay for your knickers. Wearing a mask is reasonable: it's cheap, way cheaper that almost any item you wear, and it's reasonable to expect kids at the primary level to be able to put it on by themselves.
seamus wrote: » It's another cost. Someone pointed out that you can get a box of 50 for €25. That's all well and good, but if you have kids at school using 2 masks a day, then that's 366 masks for this school year. Even at our 50 for €25 rates, you're talking €180 per child on masks alone for the school year. Multiply by 3 kids at school, and that's €550. Plenty of parents find it tough to dig out €100 for school uniforms, let alone €200 for masks. Sure, you have reusable masks, but who's going to police that? Soon enough the majority of kids will just wear whatever mask they can lay their hands on, nobody will be arsed washing new masks every day. And then you may as well have no masks. On the other hand if the DES buys a couple of hundred million masks, they'll get them for pennies apiece, you distribute them to schools and then you can be reasonably sure that anyone wearing a mask is wearing a fresh one from stock. Because why wouldn't they? Make a routine of it, dispose of your mask on the way out a door, pick up a clean one on the way in.
JRant wrote: » If they are to be mandatory then of course the DES should pay for them. Why wouldn't they?
Redordeadqwwer wrote: » What time are we expecting this plan?
titan18 wrote: » Only fair that they put something towards it imo. It's for their and their kids safety like. Why should someone else pay for their masks
wirelessdude01 wrote: » By our principal
seamus wrote: » 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.
BonsaiKitten wrote: » Anyone watch the John Boyle interview on Virgin Media’s 12:30 news? Lots of plamásing about individual packs, no shared materials etc - I can’t see that being sustainable in an infant class. Have lost a lot of respect for him over the past few weeks.
