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
Agreed the kids themselves it’s unlikely to be a major risk for.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.
Fairly small elephant to be fair though.. minute chances of catching it from a child (if any at all?).That is the huge elephant in the room
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.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.
Fairly small elephant to be fair though.. minute chances of catching it from a child (if any at all?).
It might help if they had 15 pupils to a room and a teacher pupil ratio of 1:15 like private schools.What would the teachers on here suggest the government should do to enable children to continue with their education?
Surely you are not serious?
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!).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 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.
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.
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."
until we have more evidence,
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.
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.
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?