|
Post by maxplonk on May 15, 2020 10:14:20 GMT
Regarding kids returning to school, it's one of the most stupid actions of this government. They could possibly get away with bringing year 6 pupils back but asking teachers to deal with reception class and year 1 is complete lunacy. My lass is an assistant schoolteacher who deals with reception and year 1. For those who don't know anything about these two year groups, they're basicially a nursery class (reception) and a playing class (year 1). Many kids in reception class are just a step up from babies. Some are still in nappies and teachers have to deal with that situation. Also in those classes are kids with special needs, which are both physical and mental. My lass has one child to deal with who is diabetic and needs constant monitoring including administrating insulin when required. For many of these nippers, English is their second language and communication can be difficult. These are the realities. And some bright spark thinks they're able to deal with social distancing? What planet are they on? It's impossible. A reception class is little more than children familiarising themsleves with their peers and the overwhelming majority of their time is spent socially interacting by play. Year 1 is just a step up when they still do many of the things a reception class does but with a bit of ABC's and 1 2 3s. But they're still incapable of social distancing. As an example of what it will be like, if you've got or have had a kid aged 4/5, then try sitting them in a corner of your house for 6 hours and tell them they're to keep away from everyone else in the house. The kids are most unlikely to be affected by the virus, but they come from homes which could be rife with it. Those kids are the perfect carriers. Any adult in their classes are bound to pick up the virus when the kids bring it in. They'll also be spreading it amongst their classmates, who will then take it home, infecting adults there. As I said, it's complete lunacy and any head teacher of a school has every right to reject government advice on the grounds that they have a duty to protect their workforce. Given that fact, it opens a can of worms which could lead to law suits against local authorities for placing their employees in a situation where social distancing is impossible. Any employer in a 'normal' workplace wouldn't get away with breaking the social distancing rules, so why should schools be any different? And before anyone pipes up and says hospitals have to do it, their situation is entirely different. This opening of schools is not a necessity, it's a social experiment dreamed up by lunatics in white collars who have little idea of the consequences of their actions. OS. this government? The rest of europe are managing it so are they all bad aswell? Talked to many Europeans have you?
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 15, 2020 10:17:20 GMT
Kids are at virtually zero risk from the virus too. I'm not sure there has even been one reported death of a child of primary school age has there? (could be wrong on that). The virus has however killed over 1% of the country's entire population of over 90 year olds. We need to open back up in a way that respects the spread of risk across age brackets. 25% of deaths have been in people with diabetes. In these obese times many parents of young children will be in that category. Kids may not be high risk themselves (though there has become increasing instances of a form of toxic shock syndrome amongst children) but they can quite easily become superspreaders as young children are extremely tactile individuals. Certainly. These are the kinds of risk that everyone will have to try their best to mitigate in the long term. And people should exercise more so that we can reduce the total NHS expenditure on diabetes from 11%.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 15, 2020 10:17:24 GMT
Regarding kids returning to school, it's one of the most stupid actions of this government. They could possibly get away with bringing year 6 pupils back but asking teachers to deal with reception class and year 1 is complete lunacy. My lass is an assistant schoolteacher who deals with reception and year 1. For those who don't know anything about these two year groups, they're basicially a nursery class (reception) and a playing class (year 1). Many kids in reception class are just a step up from babies. Some are still in nappies and teachers have to deal with that situation. Also in those classes are kids with special needs, which are both physical and mental. My lass has one child to deal with who is diabetic and needs constant monitoring including administrating insulin when required. For many of these nippers, English is their second language and communication can be difficult. These are the realities. And some bright spark thinks they're able to deal with social distancing? What planet are they on? It's impossible. A reception class is little more than children familiarising themsleves with their peers and the overwhelming majority of their time is spent socially interacting by play. Year 1 is just a step up when they still do many of the things a reception class does but with a bit of ABC's and 1 2 3s. But they're still incapable of social distancing. As an example of what it will be like, if you've got or have had a kid aged 4/5, then try sitting them in a corner of your house for 6 hours and tell them they're to keep away from everyone else in the house. The kids are most unlikely to be affected by the virus, but they come from homes which could be rife with it. Those kids are the perfect carriers. Any adult in their classes are bound to pick up the virus when the kids bring it in. They'll also be spreading it amongst their classmates, who will then take it home, infecting adults there. As I said, it's complete lunacy and any head teacher of a school has every right to reject government advice on the grounds that they have a duty to protect their workforce. Given that fact, it opens a can of worms which could lead to law suits against local authorities for placing their employees in a situation where social distancing is impossible. Any employer in a 'normal' workplace wouldn't get away with breaking the social distancing rules, so why should schools be any different? And before anyone pipes up and says hospitals have to do it, their situation is entirely different. This opening of schools is not a necessity, it's a social experiment dreamed up by lunatics in white collars who have little idea of the consequences of their actions. OS. this government? The rest of europe are managing it so are they all bad aswell? Deal with the issues I've outlined and tell me where I'm wrong. I'm not concerned who is doing it: I'm dealing with the consequences of a social experiment. So no one-liners please. Refute what I've said, logically and lucidly. Over to you. OS.
|
|
|
Post by chad on May 15, 2020 10:17:35 GMT
If you read the Daily Mail you're a twat and that's that. If it’s ok with you I’ll read what the fuck I like Or would you prefer we lived in a communist state where you can only read what the party want you to
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 15, 2020 10:18:00 GMT
Without a doubt breaking the law is a crime. Spoken like someone who would truly appreciate living in a society where the populous is tightly controlled... Indeed ID cards to control illegal immigration is the way to go don't you think..........
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 15, 2020 10:18:19 GMT
Regarding kids returning to school, it's one of the most stupid actions of this government. They could possibly get away with bringing year 6 pupils back but asking teachers to deal with reception class and year 1 is complete lunacy. My lass is an assistant schoolteacher who deals with reception and year 1. For those who don't know anything about these two year groups, they're basicially a nursery class (reception) and a playing class (year 1). Many kids in reception class are just a step up from babies. Some are still in nappies and teachers have to deal with that situation. Also in those classes are kids with special needs, which are both physical and mental. My lass has one child to deal with who is diabetic and needs constant monitoring including administrating insulin when required. For many of these nippers, English is their second language and communication can be difficult. These are the realities. And some bright spark thinks they're able to deal with social distancing? What planet are they on? It's impossible. A reception class is little more than children familiarising themsleves with their peers and the overwhelming majority of their time is spent socially interacting by play. Year 1 is just a step up when they still do many of the things a reception class does but with a bit of ABC's and 1 2 3s. But they're still incapable of social distancing. As an example of what it will be like, if you've got or have had a kid aged 4/5, then try sitting them in a corner of your house for 6 hours and tell them they're to keep away from everyone else in the house. The kids are most unlikely to be affected by the virus, but they come from homes which could be rife with it. Those kids are the perfect carriers. Any adult in their classes are bound to pick up the virus when the kids bring it in. They'll also be spreading it amongst their classmates, who will then take it home, infecting adults there. As I said, it's complete lunacy and any head teacher of a school has every right to reject government advice on the grounds that they have a duty to protect their workforce. Given that fact, it opens a can of worms which could lead to law suits against local authorities for placing their employees in a situation where social distancing is impossible. Any employer in a 'normal' workplace wouldn't get away with breaking the social distancing rules, so why should schools be any different? And before anyone pipes up and says hospitals have to do it, their situation is entirely different. This opening of schools is not a necessity, it's a social experiment dreamed up by lunatics in white collars who have little idea of the consequences of their actions. OS. this government? The rest of europe are managing it so are they all bad aswell? The rest of Europe aren't. Those countries in Europe who controlled it early with shutdown and extensive test and trace are. The UK is alone in countries with 20k plus deaths to be attempting it.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 15, 2020 10:18:42 GMT
If you read the Daily Mail you're a twat and that's that. If it’s ok with you I’ll read what the fuck I like Or would you prefer we lived in a communist state where you can only read what the party want you to I stand by my initial statement M'lud!
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 15, 2020 10:19:52 GMT
25% of deaths have been in people with diabetes. In these obese times many parents of young children will be in that category. Kids may not be high risk themselves (though there has become increasing instances of a form of toxic shock syndrome amongst children) but they can quite easily become superspreaders as young children are extremely tactile individuals. Certainly. These are the kinds of risk that everyone will have to try their best to mitigate in the long term. And people should exercise more so that we can reduce the total NHS expenditure on diabetes from 11%. Absolutely - public health in the UK is shocking - but that's a 20 year project not something that's going to be sorted in the next 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on May 15, 2020 10:25:11 GMT
For many of these nippers, English is their second language and communication can be difficult. DEPORT THE INFANT SCUM! (am I doing this right?) Get them picking fruit!
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on May 15, 2020 10:27:24 GMT
OS would your stance be that we maintain the status quo for longer, until something changes, whether that be information on the virus or a vaccine or improved testing?
I don't know but I would hope in the cases you outline where children have high needs and could maybe therefore deemed high risk they should stay at home. Really that should be extended to anyone that doesn't feel comfortable with it; teachers, parents, children.
Your point re social distancing is completely correct, at that age they're at best unruly. I appreciate that they're not learning much academically but there is evidence that the early ages are the most important for there overall development and in certain situations the children would be better off at school.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 15, 2020 10:29:59 GMT
Regarding kids returning to school, it's one of the most stupid actions of this government. They could possibly get away with bringing year 6 pupils back but asking teachers to deal with reception class and year 1 is complete lunacy. My lass is an assistant schoolteacher who deals with reception and year 1. For those who don't know anything about these two year groups, they're basicially a nursery class (reception) and a playing class (year 1). Many kids in reception class are just a step up from babies. Some are still in nappies and teachers have to deal with that situation. Also in those classes are kids with special needs, which are both physical and mental. My lass has one child to deal with who is diabetic and needs constant monitoring including administrating insulin when required. For many of these nippers, English is their second language and communication can be difficult. These are the realities. And some bright spark thinks they're able to deal with social distancing? What planet are they on? It's impossible. A reception class is little more than children familiarising themsleves with their peers and the overwhelming majority of their time is spent socially interacting by play. Year 1 is just a step up when they still do many of the things a reception class does but with a bit of ABC's and 1 2 3s. But they're still incapable of social distancing. As an example of what it will be like, if you've got or have had a kid aged 4/5, then try sitting them in a corner of your house for 6 hours and tell them they're to keep away from everyone else in the house. The kids are most unlikely to be affected by the virus, but they come from homes which could be rife with it. Those kids are the perfect carriers. Any adult in their classes are bound to pick up the virus when the kids bring it in. They'll also be spreading it amongst their classmates, who will then take it home, infecting adults there. As I said, it's complete lunacy and any head teacher of a school has every right to reject government advice on the grounds that they have a duty to protect their workforce. Given that fact, it opens a can of worms which could lead to law suits against local authorities for placing their employees in a situation where social distancing is impossible. Any employer in a 'normal' workplace wouldn't get away with breaking the social distancing rules, so why should schools be any different? And before anyone pipes up and says hospitals have to do it, their situation is entirely different. This opening of schools is not a necessity, it's a social experiment dreamed up by lunatics in white collars who have little idea of the consequences of their actions. OS. I'm almost certain that kids who are still wearing nappies are not allowed to go to school in reception class and realistically, how many 4 year olds are still wearing nappies? The case of the diabetic child is irrelevant. He/she wouldn't be allowed back to school due to being in the vulnerable category. The danger is less for the kids and more the broader chance of spreading through to adults but I'd happily have my youngest in school and then isolate from everyone else in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 15, 2020 10:30:00 GMT
Certainly. These are the kinds of risk that everyone will have to try their best to mitigate in the long term. And people should exercise more so that we can reduce the total NHS expenditure on diabetes from 11%. Absolutely - public health in the UK is shocking - but that's a 20 year project not something that's going to be sorted in the next 3 months. Unfortunately I don't think this coronavirus is something that can be sorted in 3 months either. We can reduce short term risk to as near 0 as possible but only in a way that the cure is as painful as the disease.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 15, 2020 10:30:02 GMT
The more important question to that is how many deaths would there normally have been for them 2 months on average because I was expecting the % of Covid deaths to be higher than 27%.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 15, 2020 10:33:51 GMT
Spoken like someone who would truly appreciate living in a society where the populous is tightly controlled... Indeed ID cards to control illegal immigration is the way to go don't you think.......... You want to prosecute people for admitting minor digressions from years ago? I have no particular view on Gove or cocaine, I know very little about either but where would you draw the line on this historic prosecution? I mistakenly shoplifted a pasty from a service station 20 odd years ago, I've documented it somewhere on here, should I start packing a toothbrush and shampoo?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 15, 2020 10:34:25 GMT
I find the psychology of coming out of lock down fascinating.
The best analogy I can come up with is its like your first few steps coming back from a lengthy absence with a sporting injury. Baby steps...then growing confidence.
I went up to London on the train for the first time since early March yesterday, nervously in the morning, then on the way home and they suddenly switch platforms for the train (chasing the ball!) and suddenly all bets are off, it's dog eat dog and no one cares who tramples over who in the battle not to miss the blasted thing.
It has made me think just how quickly normality could resume. 8 weeks of lock down won't ultimately blow away the memory of years and years of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on May 15, 2020 10:34:30 GMT
I was considering this morning a strange parallel to the lockdown in behavioural attitudes. In 1974 we had the consequences of the oil/energy crisis and the three day week. Electricity generation was reduced and there was a rationing system for consumption, with businesses restricted to their hours of opening and use of electricity.
At the time I had just started working for a National, High Street retail chain, with a branch in Stafford. There were for a time periods when there would be controlled power cuts, which might for example have affected one side of the street for 6 hours, then an adjacent area for the next 6 hours and so on. Eventually a situation developed when voluntary control was encouraged, and although the power might be on, we had to restrict usage and take several lights out of action to save power. It was interesting how this restriction was modified and distorted. For example there was a rota system for power use and on certain days we had to exercise voluntary, rather than enforced, power controls. At first we were allowed to keep one light on over the till, for security reasons, while the staff bustled around with hand held camping lights. Because of safety concerns shops then started to "modify" controls, such as using a light behind the window backs and then one on the stairs and so on. After a point the power reduction strategy was barely noticeable because of the modifications that had been "justified".
The lockdown is much the same. Don't Drive, Stay at home, shops and cafe's closed etc. But gradually and imperceptibly the lockdown frayed at the edges. You could drive a reasonable distance for exercise, "if the exercise lasted longer than the drive". You could walk or cycle for a reasonable amount of time if you were not out for too long. You could shop for essentials if you could find a store that was open. Cafe's could provide "take away services" if they had sensible controls on distancing. Now almost anything goes and you can drive anywhere to take your exercise, and you can exercise several times a day. Where is the control and deterence? I saw a chip shop yesterday that was open for "take away" services, as if it had ever been anything else.
Clearly, whatever the crisis, or restriction, people will bend the rules and kick against the restraints. The control measures start to fray at the edges as people find a way around them, or a loophole in the advice wording.
People start to talk about the "new normal" but what we should be concerned about is the "New Lockdown" (Amended, watered down, ineffective, create your own rules type lockdown.)
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 15, 2020 10:35:19 GMT
Absolutely - public health in the UK is shocking - but that's a 20 year project not something that's going to be sorted in the next 3 months. Unfortunately I don't think this coronavirus is something that can be sorted in 3 months either. We can reduce short term risk to as near 0 as possible but only in a way that the cure is as painful as the disease. Again I agree - to a point - however I think that we don't yet have sufficient control through test and trace. We were slow to lock down and we've been quick to open up without adequate controls in place - sadly I believe that will mean that we end up paying twice. I really hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 15, 2020 10:36:10 GMT
I find the psychology of coming out of lock down fascinating. The best analogy I can come up with is its like your first few steps coming back from a lengthy absence with a sporting injury. Baby steps...then growing confidence. I went up to London on the train for the first time since early March yesterday, nervously in the morning, then on the way home and they suddenly switch platforms for the train (chasing the ball!) all bets are off, it's dog eat dog and no one cares who tramples over who in the battle not to miss the blasted thing. It has made me think just how quickly normality could resume. 8 weeks of lock down won't ultimately blow away the memory of years and years of freedom. It will if it gives rise to a second peak.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 10:36:26 GMT
The more important question to that is how many deaths would there normally have been for them 2 months on average because I was expecting the % of Covid deaths to be higher than 27%. This goes back to the 28th December but you can see the trajectory for the 2 months in question.....
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 15, 2020 10:37:51 GMT
I find the psychology of coming out of lock down fascinating. The best analogy I can come up with is its like your first few steps coming back from a lengthy absence with a sporting injury. Baby steps...then growing confidence. I went up to London on the train for the first time since early March yesterday, nervously in the morning, then on the way home and they suddenly switch platforms for the train (chasing the ball!) all bets are off, it's dog eat dog and no one cares who tramples over who in the battle not to miss the blasted thing. It has made me think just how quickly normality could resume. 8 weeks of lock down won't ultimately blow away the memory of years and years of freedom. It will if it gives rise to a second peak. A second peak must be inevitable I would imagine. Nothing goes down in a linear fashion from top to bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 15, 2020 10:41:09 GMT
It will if it gives rise to a second peak. A second peak must be inevitable I would imagine. Nothing goes down in a linear fashion from top to bottom. My fucking pension is at the moment!!!
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on May 15, 2020 10:43:01 GMT
A second peak must be inevitable I would imagine.
Nothing goes down in a linear fashion from top to bottom.
Except Sunderland.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on May 15, 2020 10:44:37 GMT
It will if it gives rise to a second peak. A second peak must be inevitable I would imagine. Nothing goes down in a linear fashion from top to bottom. Unless more of us have had it and we are closer to herd immunity than we suspect. Hopefully they'll start dishing out the antibody tests the ICU doctors and nurses and we can start to get a picture of what's going on. Obviously not a good base against the rest of the population but will still be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 15, 2020 10:50:01 GMT
Unfortunately I don't think this coronavirus is something that can be sorted in 3 months either. We can reduce short term risk to as near 0 as possible but only in a way that the cure is as painful as the disease. Again I agree - to a point - however I think that we don't yet have sufficient control through test and trace. We were slow to lock down and we've been quick to open up without adequate controls in place - sadly I believe that will mean that we end up paying twice. I really hope I'm wrong. I suspect every country will be paying twice or more. I don't think it's escapable.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 15, 2020 10:52:32 GMT
A second peak must be inevitable I would imagine. Nothing goes down in a linear fashion from top to bottom. Unless more of us have had it and we are closer to herd immunity than we suspect. Hopefully they'll start dishing out the antibody tests the ICU doctors and nurses and we can start to get a picture of what's going on. Obviously not a good base against the rest of the population but will still be interesting. The worrying stat on this front came out of the Madrid antibody study where they found only 10% of the worst hit area of Spain tested positive for antibodies for covid.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 15, 2020 10:55:54 GMT
Indeed ID cards to control illegal immigration is the way to go don't you think.......... You want to prosecute people for admitting minor digressions from years ago? I have no particular view on Gove or cocaine, I know very little about either but where would you draw the line on this historic prosecution? I mistakenly shoplifted a pasty from a service station 20 odd years ago, I've documented it somewhere on here, should I start packing a toothbrush and shampoo? Would you class living, working using the Health Service etc. illegally in another country a minor discretion ?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 15, 2020 10:57:49 GMT
I was considering this morning a strange parallel to the lockdown in behavioural attitudes. In 1974 we had the consequences of the oil/energy crisis and the three day week. Electricity generation was reduced and there was a rationing system for consumption, with businesses restricted to their hours of opening and use of electricity. At the time I had just started working for a National, High Street retail chain, with a branch in Stafford. There were for a time periods when there would be controlled power cuts, which might for example have affected one side of the street for 6 hours, then an adjacent area for the next 6 hours and so on. Eventually a situation developed when voluntary control was encouraged, and although the power might be on, we had to restrict usage and take several lights out of action to save power. It was interesting how this restriction was modified and distorted. For example there was a rota system for power use and on certain days we had to exercise voluntary, rather than enforced, power controls. At first we were allowed to keep one light on over the till, for security reasons, while the staff bustled around with hand held camping lights. Because of safety concerns shops then started to "modify" controls, such as using a light behind the window backs and then one on the stairs and so on. After a point the power reduction strategy was barely noticeable because of the modifications that had been "justified". The lockdown is much the same. Don't Drive, Stay at home, shops and cafe's closed etc. But gradually and imperceptibly the lockdown frayed at the edges. You could drive a reasonable distance for exercise, "if the exercise lasted longer than the drive". You could walk or cycle for a reasonable amount of time if you were not out for too long. You could shop for essentials if you could find a store that was open. Cafe's could provide "take away services" if they had sensible controls on distancing. Now almost anything goes and you can drive anywhere to take your exercise, and you can exercise several times a day. Where is the control and deterence? I saw a chip shop yesterday that was open for "take away" services, as if it had ever been anything else. Clearly, whatever the crisis, or restriction, people will bend the rules and kick against the restraints. The control measures start to fray at the edges as people find a way around them, or a loophole in the advice wording. People start to talk about the "new normal" but what we should be concerned about is the "New Lockdown" (Amended, watered down, ineffective, create your own rules type lockdown.) I was talking to my sister earlier about some of the parallels between this and the early days of the HIV virus. Nobody knew the extent of how it could be transmitted at the time, turned out you pretty much had to have penetrative sex but there was a period where we didn't know that. My view/memory may be somewhat influenced by me visiting Haiti and living in Portsmouth, both of which were considered 'hotspots' at the time.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 15, 2020 10:59:31 GMT
You want to prosecute people for admitting minor digressions from years ago? I have no particular view on Gove or cocaine, I know very little about either but where would you draw the line on this historic prosecution? I mistakenly shoplifted a pasty from a service station 20 odd years ago, I've documented it somewhere on here, should I start packing a toothbrush and shampoo? Would you class living, working using the Health Service etc. illegally in another country a minor discretion ? I haven't time to think about that, I'm too busy worrying what else your historic offence police are going to be chasing me for.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 15, 2020 11:04:01 GMT
Germany gone into recession
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on May 15, 2020 11:06:41 GMT
If you read the Daily Mail you're a twat and that's that. If it’s ok with you I’ll read what the fuck I like Or would you prefer we lived in a communist state where you can only read what the party want you to You're quite right, we live in a democracy and not a totalitarian ( insert 'communist' here, if you're a Daily Mail or Sun reader ) state, thankfully.
|
|