How will schools be able to go back in September?

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.

Technically, it jumped families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank, jumping species is more like a small lateral jump, but this one jumped 2 levels up

wirelessdude01

average_runner wrote: »

Does it have to match the school uniform and have the school crest on it?

Yes, if it will annoy you.

ðŸ€”ðŸ™„

iamwhoiam

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.

Is it necessary to use bad language inyour posts??

iamwhoiam

average_runner wrote: »

Does it have to match the school uniform and have the school crest on it?

What ? Not sure why you are asking me that ?

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Is it necessary to use bad language in almost all your posts?

Yes.

jimmytwotimes 2013

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.

Masks at 2nd level, least we agree on something

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?

Make a reasonable effort to get masks and theach children to wear them, just as you do with any other stuff. It's not a huge ask, and if they wear it upside down or inside out it's not the end of the world.

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?

We're trying to reduce the spread through measures that are reasonable. It's not going to work 100%, no one claims that, but even 10% is something, 10% here and 10% there from various measures it makes a huge difference in the end.

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.

You don't know that. Also, we don't know if masks in schools will be effective, but again, going back to reasonable, it's a resonable effort even if it doesn't work out. Maybe come October schools will close again, but at least we tried something.

seamus

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What ? Not sure why you are asking me that ?

I think it's a joke. A reference to the time-honoured tradition of schools insisting that school jumpers can only be bought from the school shop with a crest on it for twice the price of a normal jumper

seamus wrote: »

Because the tranmissions risk is very low for that five year old

How low?

What study are you citing?

Leftwaffe

I've a bad feeling about this plan. Hope I'm wrong.

wirelessdude01

seamus wrote: »

I think it's a joke. A reference to the time-honoured tradition of schools insisting that school jumpers can only be bought from the school shop with a crest on it for twice the price of a normal jumper

Think you'll find most primary schools give the option now. I know we do and surprisingly most parents still opt for the dearer one with the crest as they seem to think it lasts longer. Not sure how true that theory is.

bettyoleary

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Is it necessary to use bad language in almost all your posts?

I dont think the OP does. He has seemed pretty sensible to me. It makes absolutely no difference what this much awaited guidance says. The facts are the virus spreads in enclosed poorly ventilated spaces. Children carry and spread the virus the same as adults. Schools are no different in Ireland than anywhere else, or maybe they are , worse, worse for numbers , space cleaning measures. The virus will spread if we open schools fully, into the community. That is the facts. Schools cannot open safely until a vaccine. Online teaching is totally possible and probably better. Do not spend millions on stupid measures that wont have any effect on the spread of the virus and will be a total waste of money. Im 100 hundred percent sure that any parent that cant facilitate this for the short time required will not be a big loss to our economy anyway. We dont need to baby sit kids to allow for supermarket workers to work. Get a grip.

Educate kids at home for now. There will be a vaccine soon.

seamus

Cordell wrote: »

going back to reasonable, it's a resonable effort even if it doesn't work out.

This is where our disagreement lies.
Reasonable balances the effort against the benefit.

I believe the effort to make masks mandatory for under-10s outweighs any potential benefit.

FishOnABike

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.

And won't filter the droplets that carry the virus. A visor without a facemask provides little protection against anything except as a barrier to being hit by direct spray from a cough or sneeze straight into your face.

seamus wrote: »

This is where our disagreement lies.
Reasonable balances the effort against the benefit.

I believe the effort to make masks mandatory for under-10s outweighs any potential benefit.

Your belief is something along the line of "I don't think it's going to work so we don't try it even if there is no other option".
My belief is "since you got the under 10 little devil dressed slapping a mask on it's not that difficult and it may even work"
Clearly, we disagree.

vid36

seamus wrote: »

This is where our disagreement lies.
Reasonable balances the effort against the benefit.

I believe the effort to make masks mandatory for under-10s outweighs any potential benefit.

They should be mandatory for everyone over 10 or 12 and all today's advise will achieve is to hasten a second wave. Schools will be closed by Halloween

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What ? Not sure why you are asking me that ?

It was a joke.

No problem paying for masks, have them already.

vid36 wrote: »

They should be mandatory for everyone over 10 or 12 and all today's advise will achieve is to hasten a second wave. Schools will be closed by Halloween

We can't keep shutting down everything. This is expected to be around till next summer at least, so we need to adapt and move on

seamus

Cordell wrote: »

Your belief is something along the line of "I don't think it's going to work so we don't try it even if there is no other option".

It's that masks are an unnecessary distraction. The argument you're making here could be made against putting everyone in a plastic bubble - "I don't think it's going to work so we don't try it".

There are plenty of other options than masks. Hand & cough hygiene, minimising mixing. For over-10s, distancing is an alternative to masks. And if that's not possible, then maybe we should look at masks for them.

My belief is "since you got the under 10 little devil dressed slapping a mask on it's not that difficult and it may even work"

Hilarious. If you even have kids, I expect you can count the number of times you've gotten them ready for school, on one hand.

Putting everyone in a plastic bubble is not reasonable. Wearing a mask is.
Washing hands and using sanitizer and proper coughing and all that are also reasonable measures that complement each other. Not a single one is enough, but all together have a good chance of working.
I have kids, one under 10, and I can tell you there is no issue to get him to put a mask on by himself.

the corpo

Wall Street Journal posting that Google is to keep employees at home until at least July, 2021, but sure, we'll be grand to feck the kids into grotty old classrooms...

seamus wrote: »

It's that masks are an unnecessary distraction. The argument you're making here could be made against putting everyone in a plastic bubble - "I don't think it's going to work so we don't try it".

There are plenty of other options than masks. Hand & cough hygiene, minimising mixing. For over-10s, distancing is an alternative to masks. And if that's not possible, then maybe we should look at masks for them.

Hilarious. If you even have kids, I expect you can count the number of times you've gotten them ready for school, on one hand.

The benefit of masks especially for boys under 10 is when they get excited and shout, it will stop the droplets coming from their mouth.

Kids are smart and if you talk to them instead of ordering them, they will do most things.

glack

Cordell wrote: »

I have kids, one under 10, and I can tell you there is no issue to get him to put a mask on by himself.

Try getting him to keep it on for 5 hours everyday for a week!

I can't get the kids in my class to keep their hands out of their trousers and their fingers out of their noses.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

Masks won't be mandatory at all so don't be getting your hopes up.

If the unions push for it and throw their toys out of the pram well then be prepared for lots of notes from parents about why individual kids can't/won't be wearing them.

Balanced approach needed risk v benefits and masks for little children won't be required.

Sure if it wasn't masks I'm sure it'll be some other sticking point :rolleyes:

glack wrote: »

Try getting him to keep it on for 5 hours everyday for a week!

I can't get the kids in my class to keep their hands out of their trousers and their fingers out of their noses.

Teachers can get a class of 30 boys age 5 to focus. They will get them to keep the masks on most of the time also.

ChelseaRentBoy

the corpo wrote: »

Wall Street Journal posting that Google is to keep employees at home until at least July, 2021, but sure, we'll be grand to feck the kids into grotty old classrooms...

The government will huff and puff and may try to ram through school openings in September but they'll be shut down again in a matter of weeks.

Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: »

risk v benefits

Benefit = People may not die.

Risk = People may die.

vid36

Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: »

Masks won't be mandatory at all so don't be getting your hopes up.

If the unions push for it and throw their toys out of the pram well then be prepared for lots of notes from parents about why individual kids can't/won't be wearing them.

Balanced approach needed risk v benefits and masks for little children won't be required.

Sure if it wasn't masks I'm sure it'll be some other sticking point :rolleyes:

I have heard this rhetoric before.Lots of it in Texas , Florida Arizona et al. But after they have introduced mandatory mask wearing in public, their growth rates have started to flatten.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

Boggles wrote: »

Benefit = People may not die.

Risk = People may die.

Very dramatic :pac:

Have you found the secret to eternal life while you're at it?