Deleted User wrote: » Would require parental consent for under 16’s. Also the app only logs phones within range for 15 minutes
Conclusions and Relevance In this case series of hospitalized children who met criteria for PIMS-TS there was a wide spectrum of presenting signs and symptoms and disease severity, ranging from fever and inflammation to myocardial injury, shock, and development of coronary artery aneurysms. The comparison with patients with KD and KD shock syndrome provides insights into this syndrome, and suggests this disorder differs from other pediatric inflammatory entities.
Boggles wrote: » Parent digital consent cannot actually be done easily. Would take way too long. It's why the likes of Whatsapp pushed their age limit up to 16 instead of getting into an administrative nightmare with 3rd party consent forms, etc.
Deleted User wrote: » But it can be done if we deem it necessary. Under GDPR we can also set this age limit as low as 13 if we choose.
Boggles wrote: » We can do lots of things. But what we can't do at this moment in time, like the poster I replied to suggested. Is tell kids under the age of 16 to download and use the app.
khalessi wrote: » HSE chose 16https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0530/1143516-covid-app-hse/ At the same time the HSE will limit the app to those aged over 16 in order; it says in order to comply with the digital age of consent.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Which we have chosen to set at 16, but can set as low as 13 if we choose
Deleted User wrote: » Which we have chosen to set at 16, but can set as low as 13 if we choose
khalessi wrote: » Well all legal requirements can be changed but it takes time and certain protocols have to be followed, as was pointed out to you. If it was just a case of going hey lets make it 13 they would have at the outset but obviously it it not. We could legislate for 3 year olds to drive cars, a silly idea and not safe but it could be done.
Lillyfae wrote: » Of course it's not acceptable, but what's your alternative? Only educate the most vulnerable, or educate everyone to the best possible standard under the current circumstances for as long as is necessary??
jrosen wrote: » I said encourage not tell. We can then encourage all over the age of 16 to download the app then seeing as there is the age restriction.
Smacruairi wrote: » We could also reduce class sizes, hire more teachers, spread out the school day. All easier just need proper investment and planning and don't require legislative changes. But that doesn't suit most.
Deleted User wrote: » Where are we getting a large amount of extra teachers for September?
downthemiddle wrote: » I thought you would have the answer. You have constantly given your opinion on how poorly schools are run and offered your solutions. I’m amazed that we have finally found of school life that is beyond your level of expertise.
Boggles wrote: » Nobody knows really. Norma reckons there is piles out there willing to sacrifice themselves for her "death plan". :pac: Nearly 50,000 sub days were filled by retired primary teachers last year. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Alrigghtythen wrote: » There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs.
Alrigghtythen wrote: » We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.
Alrigghtythen wrote: » There loads of qualified teachers working in other jobs due to the lack of permanent teaching jobs. We could offer them an incentive of 20000 on top of the usual teachers wages to return.
Lillyfae wrote: » Aren’t I entitled to an opinion? Aren’t we all? Isn’t it better at this point to be solution focused rather than problem focused? Do you think the schools are well run?
combat14 wrote: » maybe it would work alot of teachers I kno in dubai for example are extremely reluctant to come back here due to low pay / pay disparity not sure if "usual" teachers would be happy if others getting 20000 euro bump teacher numbers is only one aspect of the health and safety issues of this "plan"
[Deleted User] wrote: » I said it’s a choice, not what believe what should happen. Some countries have set it at 13 under GDPR, and if we judged the benefits of rolling the app on to 13 to 15 year olds outweighed the risks of lowering the digital age of consent we could. We could also implement a system to allow parents to give digital consent under emergency powers. GDPR does not trump public health.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Given the level of disquiet on here about the reopening plans, there must be no end of public health specialists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists etc. coming out in public against the plans? It can’t just be unions and opposition politicians
downthemiddle wrote: » You still haven’t addressed the issue of discrimination against children with additional needs. Do you think it is right that schools have been asked to plan to cut resources for the most vulnerable in our school communities?
caveat emptor wrote: » Caveat: this could be a deep fake. I was working on my Fauci voice (sarcasm) Everyone sending a kid back should watch it. Educators too. I'm sure the department know it all.https://twitter.com/khanacademy/status/1288483417512968192?s=20
Deleted User wrote: » Don’t know does this say what you think it does - summary under 10 proven lower risk based on Korean study. When virus is low in community little risk in going to schools, as it increases measures should be increased up to and including school closures