Covid and Work, Covid Advice and General Chat

[Max68]

Well my anxiety hit roof again! Just received email from work with an attached risk assessment for me to complete ASAP. I come out as low risk.i have passed it on to Union and waiting to hear back. Meanwhile although I know I cant be forced into anything I am really starting to doubt my own sanity sometimes

You have my empathy. I'm quite fortunate in some ways as I had a long chat with my Line Manager this afternoon. She said that they have to start planning for "as normal as possible" re Govt guidelines but stressed much can change in the six weeks we now have for summer holidays so persuaded me not to do anything rash decision wise, They have placed me in Science with someone who is also vulnerable so it a real stickler to the rules and also the Caretaker is 100% insistent on all rules being obeyed. Also looking to put me in PE outside and will be aiming to place me on lunch and break duties outside and she said if I wanted to go in with a mask and visor that's not a problem at all. If I were to be signed off for any reason with GP I would be given SSP, although how long they would accept me being signed off is open to debate.

A "little" less stressed after that (until I receive this mornings HBA1c result of course!!) but to be fair to them it seems easy for me to put forward my concerns and that at least I am grateful for.

 

[JRT]

That sounds very positive and helpful,its good that line manager is approachable and open to negotiation and compromise. Sadly mine are exactly the opposite, which is no surprise at all. It's purely bad timing on my part that happen to be in wrong place at wrong time. In every other way I'm extremely lucky. Every now and again since this all kicked off I feel a bit of an emotional wobble,normally when theres contact from work! Still I hope blood levels settle now you know theres a plan in place. I'm going to relax and watch a cheery film with a serial killer in it

 

[HSSS]

Might be because of the 2,086 0-19 yo deaths so far this year COVID has been "involved" in 15.
At least according to the ONS most recently released data. All incredibly sad of course.

Agreed the kids themselves it’s unlikely to be a major risk for.

But what about the families of those kids that they go home to? Should anyone vulnerable isolate from their child? What would that do emotionally to all involved? That is the huge elephant in the room

 

[JRT]

It certainly is and that is a horrific thought. To a lesser degree theres an impact on grandparents who provide regular childcare. Ideally you would hope there would be official advice in some form. Failing that advice from GP etc. Regardless the effect either way I imagine will be substantial.

 

[Mr_Pot]

What would the teachers on here suggest the government should do to enable children to continue with their education?

 

[bulkbiker]

That is the huge elephant in the room

Fairly small elephant to be fair though.. minute chances of catching it from a child (if any at all?).

 

[HSSS]

Fairly small elephant to be fair though.. minute chances of catching it from a child (if any at all?).

I’m assuming you aren’t living with a school aged child. (Though I might be just making assumptions of course) and also as someone with few personal concerns about the whole covid issue anyway it seems a pretty theoretical discussion for you. Not so much for others either working in or having children in school who also feel (rightly or wrongly) a whole lot more vulnerable than you do. The fear is real and that in and of itself has negative repercussions even if you are ultimately proved right about lack of risk. Simply saying don’t be scared doesn’t cut the mustard for me I’m afraid much as I’d like it to.

There is little evidence that your statement that kids don’t spread it is true. (Or please link me to more than one speculative article as perhaps I’d find it reassuring if I’m wrong). A fair amount that the kids themselves suffer little I agree.

 

[KK123]

I’m assuming you aren’t living with a school aged child. (Though I might be just making assumptions of course) and also as someone with few personal concerns about the whole covid issue anyway it seems a pretty theoretical discussion for you. Not so much for others either working in or having children in school who also feel (rightly or wrongly) a whole lot more vulnerable than you do. The fear is real and that in and of itself has negative repercussions even if you are ultimately proved right about lack of risk. Simply saying don’t be scared doesn’t cut the mustard for me I’m afraid much as I’d like it to.

There is little evidence that your statement that kids don’t spread it is true. (Or please link me to more than one speculative article as perhaps I’d find it reassuring if I’m wrong). A fair amount that the kids themselves suffer little I agree.

I agree. Some people are not concerned at all and that's fine but some of us are and to be honest I doubt any of us can change the views of someone else. We are all in different situations, some people may be retired and be able to have control over their interactions with other people and some HAVE to go to work regardless of the risk to themselves. Those who don't see any risk will always find reasons as to why (true or not) and the rest of us who tend to believe most of what we are officially being told are sometimes made to feel like snowflakes. Personally, like you, I find it immensely annoying when made to feel like a snowflake when I am anything but. xx

 

[Max68]

Most of what the virus is capable of is speculative at best at the moment with very few sure fire answers. It may be true that children don't spread the virus like they tend to do with flu. On the other hand it may be argued that because they tend on the whole not to be seriously ill with the virus, "could" mean that they are more dangerous in spreading it, as after all asymptomatic spread is the reason why we are all in this position in the first place!

As for Mr Pot's question above of course it's a real difficult balancing act. I work in Autism and we had a teacher who became ill with Covid. Many of the students were extremely distressed about this and some didn't return to school. Thankfully the teacher has recovered somewhat, although they are still having some unpleasant after effects weeks later. That original impact on the children was bad enough, if a staff member or student were to die from it it would have a massive impact mentally on the children and staff.

There will also sadly quite possibly at some point be the blame game. Student passes on to staff member who dies or staff member passes onto student who dies. Mental health for all works both ways. Sure the lockdown isn't healthy for anyone's mental state but people you know dying isn't either!

 

[Brunneria]

Fairly small elephant to be fair though.. minute chances of catching it from a child (if any at all?).

Surely you are not serious?
Children are plague vectors, and classrooms are petri dishes.
Having worked in open plan offices for years, I have seen virus after virus sweep through the places, all originating from the parent of a child ‘who brought it home from school’.

I’ve seen plenty of info claiming that children get mild or no symptoms of Covid-19 (except the tiny minority who get very ill indeed, and may die, including those with Kawasaki Syndrome). But I have seen no evidence at all that they can’t/won’t pass the novel coronavirus on to their classmates, siblings, parents and grandparents. If that evidence exists, I would love to see it, but doubt I ever will, since it is impossible to prove a negative.

I’ve seen claims that children have lower rates of positive antibody tests, but that is no indication. T cells could be stepping in instead.
And I've seen claims that without covid symptoms, children are less infectious. Tell that to the well documented asymptomatic superspreaders.

There actually seems to be a significant lack of anything conclusive regarding covid and children. Contradictory Chinese studies from Feb and March, a few studies of hospitalised children. I couldn’t find anything detailing rates of spread from children. No one seems to have studied that. They all seem to just quote inconclusive studies from earlier in the year, and then make cagey statements. It is certainly easy to say ‘there is no evidence that children spread it’ when no one is studying it.

different parts of the world contradict each other over almost every aspect
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18...tists-see-a-huge-puzzle-without-easy-answers/

In the meantime, I will cheerfully settle for any evidence that this new coronavirus behaves fundamentally differently from all the other coronaviruses that sweep through schools, pupils, and their families every year. Haven’t seen it yet.

I did find this an interesting read, which suggests that the risk is more about prevalence of virus in the general pop than whether children don’t spread it. Which is kind of common sense.
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-e...erge-unscathed-from-being-guinea-pigs/1698181

 

[lindisfel]

What would the teachers on here suggest the government should do to enable children to continue with their education?

It might help if they had 15 pupils to a room and a teacher pupil ratio of 1:15 like private schools.
Of course many are poor, so they don't deserve a good breakfast or teachers who are not overloaded by pupils.
I cant see how senior school children can move from a year class to sets and still stay in a bubble?
D.

 

[bulkbiker]

Surely you are not serious?

Very

https://dontforgetthebubbles.com/evidence-summary-paediatric-covid-19-literature/

" Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers."

 

[UK T1]

Very

https://dontforgetthebubbles.com/evidence-summary-paediatric-covid-19-literature/

" Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers."

Interesting, as I read this completely differently when read in the context of the whole paragraph. Their first sentence states the role children play in transmission is currently unknown. The rest goes to prove that there simply isn't enough evidence. This is true for both sides of the argument. They say in part, there haven't been enough tests. Them saying there isn't enough evidence for a robust conclusion is very definitely not the same as someone claiming children play no role in transmission. Indeed it goes on to say there were cases of transmission in younger children, but not significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Sorry but this article doesn't provide enough evidence to support your claim that there is 'a minute (if any) chance' of transmission from a child. Remember lots of the current studies fall within a backdrop of social distancing and reduced child numbers in their respective settings, so can't be compared to returning to 2019 'normal' education provision which some schools are proposing (luckily not mine!).

Full paragraph quote:
' The role of children in passing the disease to others is unknown, in particular given unknown numbers of asymptomatic cases. Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers. '

I think a school's response should reflect the demographic of its families. Where pupils state they live with elderly vulnerable etc. relatives they should not be punished for shielding those relatives. There needs to be more awareness that shielding is a choice, not a prison sentence. No one is saying don't have contact with family and friends, but that is very different from asking a teacher to supervise a fire drill with corridors possibly full of 100s of pupils. Personally, it would make sense to implement things like preventing the mixing of pupils from different year groups, or even within their own year group depending on school size. Year groups staying in set sections of the school and teachers moving if necessary (e.g. in secondary) to prevent mixing in corridors. It will be school specific and depend on staff numbers too. I really don't envy leadership at the moment, and appreciate the efforts being made. Only few schools seem to be trying to start back with no adjustments.

 

[purplesally]

I think that could be very helpful. As it stands at the moment the advice is still to minimize contact outside immediate household and work from home if can . If cant work must be covid secure. It sounds quite straightforward. Those that are shielding will be bought "down" to vulnerable. The problem seems to be the inconsistency out there by GPs and employers. I think the knowledge about how this virus affects the body is growing but not necessarily the advice to vulnerable groups,we are pretty much left to make our own decisions. I work in a care home that has lost a third of its residents to Covid, to get to work I need to take two buses. They ignore requests for individual risk assessments,alternative role etc. Just say I cant social distance in my role. They have paid me zilch since end of March. The Union are involved but it's a slow process which seems steeped in pre Covid practices. The only way I can either work or prove not Covid safe is too put myself at risk. At the beginning of pandemic my GP felt it was very unwise for me to be there but there was no box to tick for those who not shielded. Theres no not safe to work certificate. Last month she signed me off with work based stress. She said she had lots of patients in similar position and that this situation could carry on for the foreseeable future,she seemed quite weary of it all. There seem very few answers but the potential risk seems as high as ever. Fortunately I have a small amount of savings that can carry me through to the New Year.

Get on the CQC website - Look up requirements for care homes. Loads of information there including the requirement to complete individual staff risk assessments at all times not just during Covid. We complete them for all staff with a possible issue, allergies, asthma, diabetes etc. They are restricting inspections but are hot on anywhere issues have been hilighted. They also state exactly what PPE equipment should be used and when. I manage a care service and found them really helpful and human throughout the pandemic

 

[Brunneria]

Interesting, as I read this completely differently when read in the context of the whole paragraph. Their first sentence states the role children play in transmission is currently unknown. The rest goes to prove that there simply isn't enough evidence. This is true for both sides of the argument. They say in part, there haven't been enough tests. Them saying there isn't enough evidence for a robust conclusion is very definitely not the same as someone claiming children play no role in transmission. Indeed it goes on to say there were cases of transmission in younger children, but not significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Sorry but this article doesn't provide enough evidence to support your claim that there is 'a minute (if any) chance' of transmission from a child. Remember lots of the current studies fall within a backdrop of social distancing and reduced child numbers in their respective settings, so can't be compared to returning to 2019 'normal' education provision which some schools are proposing (luckily not mine!).

Full paragraph quote:
' The role of children in passing the disease to others is unknown, in particular given unknown numbers of asymptomatic cases. Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers. '

I think a school's response should reflect the demographic of its families. Where pupils state they live with elderly vulnerable etc. relatives they should not be punished for shielding those relatives. There needs to be more awareness that shielding is a choice, not a prison sentence. No one is saying don't have contact with family and friends, but that is very different from asking a teacher to supervise a fire drill with corridors possibly full of 100s of pupils. Personally, it would make sense to implement things like preventing the mixing of pupils from different year groups, or even within their own year group depending on school size. Year groups staying in set sections of the school and teachers moving if necessary (e.g. in secondary) to prevent mixing in corridors. It will be school specific and depend on staff numbers too. I really don't envy leadership at the moment, and appreciate the efforts being made. Only few schools seem to be trying to start back with no adjustments.

I agree with everything you say.

until we have more evidence, the argument ‘We don’t have enough evidence’ just reinforces the fact we shouldn’t be making assumptions.

 

[Brunneria]

Very

https://dontforgetthebubbles.com/evidence-summary-paediatric-covid-19-literature/

" Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers."

I think @UK T1 covered it perfectly.
Your quote does not reflect the message of the whole piece it comes from, and does not address points I made in post #70

 

[bulkbiker]

until we have more evidence,

So you don't think that" not having any evidence" at this stage of possibly the most investigated virus the world has ever seen isn't quite telling?

Logic and "science" has obviously gone out of the window.

 

[KK123]

Interesting, as I read this completely differently when read in the context of the whole paragraph. Their first sentence states the role children play in transmission is currently unknown. The rest goes to prove that there simply isn't enough evidence. This is true for both sides of the argument. They say in part, there haven't been enough tests. Them saying there isn't enough evidence for a robust conclusion is very definitely not the same as someone claiming children play no role in transmission. Indeed it goes on to say there were cases of transmission in younger children, but not significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Sorry but this article doesn't provide enough evidence to support your claim that there is 'a minute (if any) chance' of transmission from a child. Remember lots of the current studies fall within a backdrop of social distancing and reduced child numbers in their respective settings, so can't be compared to returning to 2019 'normal' education provision which some schools are proposing (luckily not mine!).

Full paragraph quote:
' The role of children in passing the disease to others is unknown, in particular given unknown numbers of asymptomatic cases. Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guangzhou, China, Israel, the USA, Switzerland and internationally. Limited data on positive cases in schools have not demonstrated significant transmission, except within adolescent populations. Studies of younger children in schools have found low rates of transmission, but with very low case numbers. '

I think a school's response should reflect the demographic of its families. Where pupils state they live with elderly vulnerable etc. relatives they should not be punished for shielding those relatives. There needs to be more awareness that shielding is a choice, not a prison sentence. No one is saying don't have contact with family and friends, but that is very different from asking a teacher to supervise a fire drill with corridors possibly full of 100s of pupils. Personally, it would make sense to implement things like preventing the mixing of pupils from different year groups, or even within their own year group depending on school size. Year groups staying in set sections of the school and teachers moving if necessary (e.g. in secondary) to prevent mixing in corridors. It will be school specific and depend on staff numbers too. I really don't envy leadership at the moment, and appreciate the efforts being made. Only few schools seem to be trying to start back with no adjustments.

Thanks for quoting the whole paragraph. I wonder also that we have been in lockdown for several months so we don't really know how opening the schools might affect the passing on of the virus. Let's face it, they KNOW there is a risk in doing this but are ignoring it because it is tied up with reopening the economy. Most schools I think have closed for 6 weeks now so I guess we will all have to wait and see how things are in 6 weeks time. x

 

[KK123]

So you don't think that" not having any evidence" at this stage of possibly the most investigated virus the world has ever seen isn't quite telling?

Logic and "science" has obviously gone out of the window.

No, because most of us have been in lockdown so most of the evidence will have been collected in non normal conditions. I would like to see what happens when all the schools are open, everyone is back to work and to 'normal', that's when we will know for sure. It really is typical for a person with a strong viewpoint based on as little evidence as the other side to label opposing viewpoints as non logical and non scientific.

 

[Dusty911]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BxAB&usg=AOvVaw3NbsejFKtZNuXGZE8IsT-S&ampcf=1

So it looks like we are finding out that all age groups are infected just as easily by the virus.
As we also now know asymptomatic individuals can and do spread the virus I find it eminently logical to assume an infected child can as well.
Maybe some on here think that unscientific but I think it's common sense and also the responsible position to take.
Surely totally irresponsible to take the opposite assumption thereby gambling many life's on your assumption until science proves your case.