Covid and Work, Covid Advice and General Chat

[ert]

You have just over 2 students to each member of staff? That must be an expensive school.

Support staff are also admin, gardeners, kitchen staff, boarding staff, medical, and cleaners.

 

[ert]

Rather than children all moving around the corridors why don't they stay in their classroom and the teachers move?

We stream in every subject, so they change groups each lesson, for 7 x year groups. The only safe way of opening is online.

 

[Max68]

My senior school RA's focuses solely on hand washing. We have 800 students, 150 teachers and 200 support staff, not social distancing or wearing masks. They have stated parents can't talk to each at the gates. Also, there will be different entrances for the year groups. After they've entered the school, other than washing their hands, it's a free-for-all. They have insisted all staff sign compliance with the RA. No guessing I'm not. I've been signed off by my OCDEM specialist as I have type 1 and autoimmune t-cell issues. This week my HR and DP said they were refusing to accept medical advice and I need to be back in the classroom. Of course, I need to follow medical advice. I sought legal advice:
Phone conversation notes with Landau Law Solicitors 25.8.20 5 pm.
Advice given:
If you have underlying health conditions which pose a particular risk then staying at home is more likely to be justified. Indeed, if you have an existing disability such as type 1 diabetes, then not allowing you to work from home could amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustment, and therefore discriminatory.
You could argue that it would be a breach of your employment contract (more specifically a breach of the mutual duty of trust and confidence) to force you to come to work.
As you have a recognised disability, type 1 diabetes, your employer would specifically be required under the Equality Act to consider what ‘reasonable adjustments” can be made. Ignoring medical advice, by asking you to return to the classroom, would be discrimination.
If an employee has been advised to self-isolate by doctors, but they insist on coming into work anyway, then your employer may breach its health and safety obligations if they do not take steps to enforce your self-isolation.
https://www.landaulaw.co.uk/coronavirus-and-going-back-to-work/
My GP wrote a more forceful letter today. They have no chance, but it makes me cross that I've had to go through this. I'm ok, but my vulnerable colleagues haven't been so resourceful.

Sorry to ask as you have probably mentioned it before but were you on the shielding list originally?

 

[ert]

I think it is detrimental to teaching and raises anxiety for something which we should not be very anxious about given a) low rate of spread in schools open in Europe b) low risk to both kids and working age adults. (note that South Korean schools are closed because of outbreaks in churches and a rally) ./ It feels like the thin end of the wedge when it comes to other measures such as mass mandatory testing and compulsory vaccinations; I am not an anti vaxxer not a conspiracy theorist but feel that this has become a panic pandemic.
e.g.
I am a 49 year old type 1 and have calculated my risk of dying to be 0.3-2%* whereas my father in law by virtue of being type 2 and over 80 goes up to 9.6%+. Even my obese and type 2 diabetic dad is 3-5% just because he is a decade younger than the father in law.
* based on the estimates for population fatality 0.1-0.75% and the known risk multipliers for diabetes, age, obesity etc.

You are using pseudoscience to justify your option rather than looking at the studies and their limitations. In the Lancet article: [In studies] 'these very low rates of infection need to be interpreted with caution, because mitigation measures were in place: most educational facilities were closed briefly after case identification, and close contacts were expected to home quarantine for 14 days.'
The upward trend: A case 'in northern France, infection attack rates were high in students (aged 14–18 years) and staff (38% and 49%, respectively), and much lower among parents and siblings (11% and 10%, respectively) suggesting that infection was concentrated within the school environment.'
From South Korea: 'the index case was aged 10–19 years (43 [19%] of 231)'.
In summary: 'The French and Korean studies suggest that this might occur during adolescence, which could have major implications when schools, colleges, and universities return fully, as they must do soon.'
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30249-2/fulltext
It's equivalent to finding a few share prices that have dropped went the FTSE 100 has an upward trend. So no, as a teacher your comments are not reassuring.

 

[ert]

Sorry to ask as you have probably mentioned it before but were you on the shielding list originally?

No. I didn't receive a letter. I'm afraid medical sign off's have become DIY. I had to convince my specialist I needed to work from home.

 

[Tannith]

Interesting comment I saw earlier on a news site and I think this says it all really -

"Face masks send out a message that there's danger, therefore by logic it's not safe for schools to open, despite the fact that the government insisted that they were safe only 48 hours ago. The teachers that don't want to work now have a point.

"You can't have it both ways Boris, it's either one or the other."

You have beaten me to it. I was about to post a similar article:
Face coverings in schools a 'slippery slope' - Tory MP
Requiring pupils to wear face coverings in schools is a "slippery slope", says Conservative MP Huw Merriman.

The MP for Bexhill and Battle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he disagreed with the move because "we need to send the message out that our schools are safe with the measures that they've been taking and will be taking".

"Anything that sends a message out that it's not safe in the corridor means that it can't be safe in the classroom and we're on a slippery slope," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-53913625/page/2
The politicians want to convince us that schools are safe (and of course that everything else they want us to do like going to pubs/restaurants/back to offices etc for the sake of the economy, is safe). They are almost openly trying to manipulate us. Do they think we can't read? The official Govt safety precautions for schools say that heads must "reassure" teachers and parents that schools are safe. As if heads know any better than we do.

 

[Mr_Pot]

There seems to be a suggestion by some that the government's only interest is the economy, as if it doesn't really matter. They should note that without the economy functioning properly there won't be taxes to pay for pensions, benefits, the NHS, public servants including teachers and much more.

 

[JohnEGreen]

There seems to be a suggestion by some that the government's only interest is the economy, as if it doesn't really matter. They should note that without the economy functioning properly there won't be taxes to pay for pensions, benefits, the NHS, public servants including teachers and much more.

Tell us something we didn't know already that is patently obvious so are we going to be among the first to sacrifice our health or life for the economic good of the nation or are we going to leave that to the teachers and others who are being expected to put them selves at risk without adequate protection

The economy is or should be one of many concerns of a government not it's only or overriding concern above all else, this also is patently obvious and shouldn't need saying.

 

[Tannith]

There seems to be a suggestion by some that the government's only interest is the economy, as if it doesn't really matter. They should note that without the economy functioning properly there won't be taxes to pay for pensions, benefits, the NHS, public servants including teachers and much more.

I totally agree that the economy is very important for the reasons you state and others. But that does not mean that it is OK for the Govt to send teachers back into schools without adequate protection, thus making them the fall guys for economic recovery. There is plenty more that can be done to make schools safe, as I have said in other posts. More school buildings,so as to provide more space for social distancing, is a major step that the Govt should take if it is to become a responsible employer. We have empty Nightingale hospitals and numerous other public buildings that could be used until there is a vaccine. If employers of office workers can provide screens why can't schools?

 

[JRT]

The Government really never cease to amaze me. They really think we trust what they say.! There is an article in the Guardian about the unwillingness of office workers (and their employers) to return to the cities. Some will or need to. Others are working more efficiently at home and continue to do so.
I have tremendous sympathy for the small independent businesses that are suffering due to lack of trade. Do the government however really expect people to risk their health by returning to a rush hour commute? The recommendation is that you walk or cycle which is not feasible for many. I'm not sure the roads could cope with excess traffic either.
In many areas we are just not equipped to follow the safest procedures whether it be schools or public transport.
Meanwhile the government flap around contradicting themselves,their only talents being corruption and a world beating death rate but expect us to believe them when they wheel out Margaret Harries to say it's all perfectly safe.
It can be safe,but only if the conditions enable us to socially distance and we maintain scrupulous hygiene.
Meanwhile there is a tremendous amount of bickering going on regarding what we should and shouldn't be doing.
I am on another forum for grandparents which used to be quite a supportive one. In parts it still is. In the past month there is a definite divide between those who feel the government have said it's safe out there and some of these have returned to living life pretty much as pre covid with regard to social interactions, especially with grandchildren. Then there are the more cautious who are adhering as best they can to rather vague government guidelines. Should the second group pop their heads above the parapet and question the advisability of going from shielding to post school childcare theres an increasing group telling them of course they can.
Everyone's situation is so different depending on where you live,individual health,age,occupation. Increasingly however I feel I'm seeing an almost Brexit like divide on the risks of Covid!
Personally I have been very cautious since mid March. I live in one of the lowest risk areas although numbers have increased slightly. My youngest daughter lives nearby,works in care and is tested weekly. My eldest daughter lives two hours away with husband and two childeren under 5.
When both have visited its strictly garden visits and maintaining social distancing.
There have been occasions when I've felt I'm still being over cautious.
This week I made my first foray out. I dont drive so havent been able to go far. My youngest daughter and fiance thoroughly cleaned the inside of car and all wearing masks and windows down made 5 minute trip to cafe by beach. Lovely. My eldest daughter was also down last week with grandchildren. I had a socially distanced chat with them and longer socially distanced visit with daughter.
Yesterday eldest daughter messages us to let us know shes feeling unwell,clammy,sore throat,chesty. Shes very prone to chest infections but is having a test anyway.
Hopefully it is just an ordinary virus,but I'm rather glad I didnt let my guard down. Of course there was the brief car journey with youngest daughter who had hugged her sister,but we all wore masks etc.
So,its not easy even if think its relatively risk free. I remember when I was working in social care a few decades ago. We had service users who carried hepatitis B virus. Obviously you follow strict guidelines. When HIV/AIDS became an issue we were told we wouldn't be informed if someone was positive. At first we were rather surprised but then as trainer pointed out the PPE was available and effective and we should assume any body fluids were infected. Very sensible really and probably always been in back of mind with Covid.
On brighter side I did see an article on line when Boris visited a school this week and was pictured in front of a bookcase, some of the titles were very pointed .
There was also a documentary on Sky Documentaries about the hormonal pregnancy test Providos(?)which caused birth defects similar to thalidomide. It was truly shocking the fight those affected have had and the degree to which it was covered up at very high levels. It's still ongoing but did feature Matt Hancock actually admitting it was awful and apologising, he did look subdued. The campaigners had to get the permission of the Prime Minister to get an official review overturned. It was Theresa May who did listen and acted immediately. I did wonder if they would have had same response from Boris Johnson? I suppose it would depend if any of his pals were associated with Bayer

 

[Fairygodmother]

You are making the huge assumption of course that "masks" or "face coverings" have a significant impact on reducing the transmission of a virus.

If you actually read the studies that allegedly support this viewpoint then you find none of them in fact say that they do. Most in fact seem to point to the opposite view.

This alone is rather odd don't you think?

Where are you getting the information that led to this assumption? Interested because there’s a range of studies available.

 

[bulkbiker]

Where are you getting the information that led to this assumption? Interested because there’s a range of studies available.

It's contained within all the studies that allegedly support "face covering wearing".

There is always a caveat saying "all the studies have been carried out using surgical masks in healthcare settings. The findings are not necessarily applicable to community settings."

Every single quoted study has reported on surgical masks being "effective" against bacteria in surgical settings. Even surgical masks are labelled that they are ineffective against viral transmissions so an old t-shirt across your face certainnly won't help in the slightest.

There have even been studies in operating theatres where instances of bacterial infection have reduced when the surgeons aren't masked.

 

[ert]

Where are you getting the information that led to this assumption? Interested because there’s a range of studies available.

You are right in believing face coverings protect against Covid-19. Here is a summary of the studies:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Of course the N95 gives the better protection.

 

[Brunneria]

It's contained within all the studies that allegedly support "face covering wearing".

There is always a caveat saying "all the studies have been carried out using surgical masks in healthcare settings. The findings are not necessarily applicable to community settings."

Every single quoted study has reported on surgical masks being "effective" against bacteria in surgical settings. Even surgical masks are labelled that they are ineffective against viral transmissions so an old t-shirt across your face certainnly won't help in the slightest.

There have even been studies in operating theatres where instances of bacterial infection have reduced when the surgeons aren't masked.

every single study is a very strong claim. Can we see the references, please? Every single one of them

and it really is pointless quoting studies that focus on bacterial infection rates in hospital settings when this thread is discussing viral infection rates outside hospital settings.

It would also really help if you stayed on topic and didn’t use generalisations and inappropriate research to support your argument.

 

[Tannith]

You are right in believing face coverings protect against Covid-19. Here is a summary of the studies:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Of course the N95 gives the better protection.

"School leaders should explain to staff the measures the school is putting in place to reduce risks. We anticipate adherence to the measures in this guidance will provide the necessary reassurance for staff to return to schools.
If staff are concerned, including those who may be clinically vulnerable, clinically extremely vulnerable or at increased comparative risk from coronavirus, we recommend school leaders discuss any concerns individuals may have around their particular circumstances and reassure staff about the protective measures in place."https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...us-outbreak/guidance-for-full-opening-schools
So Govt advice is: if clinically extremely vulnerable staff are worried about returning just lie to them and repeat the Govt message that it is safe.Whether it is or not.

 

[KK123]

You are using pseudoscience to justify your option rather than looking at the studies and their limitations. In the Lancet article: [In studies] 'these very low rates of infection need to be interpreted with caution, because mitigation measures were in place: most educational facilities were closed briefly after case identification, and close contacts were expected to home quarantine for 14 days.'
The upward trend: A case 'in northern France, infection attack rates were high in students (aged 14–18 years) and staff (38% and 49%, respectively), and much lower among parents and siblings (11% and 10%, respectively) suggesting that infection was concentrated within the school environment.'
From South Korea: 'the index case was aged 10–19 years (43 [19%] of 231)'.
In summary: 'The French and Korean studies suggest that this might occur during adolescence, which could have major implications when schools, colleges, and universities return fully, as they must do soon.'
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30249-2/fulltext
It's equivalent to finding a few share prices that have dropped went the FTSE 100 has an upward trend. So no, as a teacher your comments are not reassuring.

I agree with this. I don't think we will know much about whether/how/to what extent children will catch it or pass it on until they are all back in school together along with all that entails, ie parents back at work, on the tubes, on the buses, in queues etc. Interestingly I have just read about a study that more children are being diagnosed with type 1 during this period (on this site) so the full consequences of this particular virus are nowhere near known. x

 

[KK123]

There seems to be a suggestion by some that the government's only interest is the economy, as if it doesn't really matter. They should note that without the economy functioning properly there won't be taxes to pay for pensions, benefits, the NHS, public servants including teachers and much more.

That's ok, there won't be many of them reaching pension age if they don't get the protection that is required right now.

 

[bulkbiker]

every single study is a very strong claim. Can we see the references, please? Every single one of them

and it really is pointless quoting studies that focus on bacterial infection rates in hospital settings when this thread is discussing viral infection rates outside hospital settings.

It would also really help if you stayed on topic and didn’t use generalisations and inappropriate research to support your argument.

If people can't be bothered with reading the actual studies but are happy to consume the mainstream news summaries then what can I do?

There are no studies on the effectiveness of granny's old knickers over your face anywhere, especially against a microscopic virus - I challenge you to find one.

There are many examples of what I claim..

However as I have no wish to incur further censure I'll leave the thread. But it's odd how many other people assuming that masks are "effective" are accepted at face value don't you think?

 

[Brunneria]

If people can't be bothered with reading the actual studies but are happy to consume the mainstream news summaries then what can I do?

There are no studies on the effectiveness of granny's old knickers over your face anywhere, especially against a microscopic virus - I challenge you to find one.

There are many examples of what I claim..
View attachment 43562

However as I have no wish to incur further censure I'll leave the thread. But it's odd how many other people assuming that masks are "effective" are accepted at face value don't you think?

Constructive debate is always useful, so if and when you do find references showing the things you claim, then I am sure they will be just as relevant as the link @ert posted in #794 above, which I, for one, read with great interest.

 

[ert]

If people can't be bothered with reading the actual studies but are happy to consume the mainstream news summaries then what can I do?

You missed my Lancet post, then.
Findings
Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients).