ert
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,606
- Location
- Oxfordshire
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- diabetes
fasting
Support staff are also admin, gardeners, kitchen staff, boarding staff, medical, and cleaners.
Support staff are also admin, gardeners, kitchen staff, boarding staff, medical, and cleaners.You have just over 2 students to each member of staff? That must be an expensive school.
We stream in every subject, so they change groups each lesson, for 7 x year groups. The only safe way of opening is online.Rather than children all moving around the corridors why don't they stay in their classroom and the teachers move?
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.
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.'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.
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.Sorry to ask as you have probably mentioned it before but were you on the shielding list originally?
You have beaten me to it. I was about to post a similar article: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."
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?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.
Where are you getting the information that led to this assumption? Interested because there’s a range of studies available.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.
You are right in believing face coverings protect against Covid-19. Here is a summary of the studies: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.
"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.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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
You missed my Lancet post, then.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?