-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Jb85
- Start date
Alsty
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Fury 325
Imperial College London have found that the new strain of the virus has a significant transmission advantage of between 0.4 and 0.7.
It doesn't sound much, but it means that during the November lockdown conditions the R rate of the old strain was 0.9 and would reduce by 30% over two to three weeks, whereas the new strain would triple.
And here's a famous scene from five years ago taken again...
It doesn't sound much, but it means that during the November lockdown conditions the R rate of the old strain was 0.9 and would reduce by 30% over two to three weeks, whereas the new strain would triple.
And here's a famous scene from five years ago taken again...
Dave
TS Founding Member
You seem to have this idea that a month of online learning is going to be a big problem. The government don’t want schools open because of the risk to education, they want them open as they provide childcare for workers.
Actually I’m not being selfish for once on this, I have a 14 year old daughter and online or at school really doesn’t make much difference for her except the lack of sports, but she doesn’t attend a state school.
However what about all of the families that don’t have computers or have the ability to set them up? What about those that don’t have a stable home life? They are being forgotten and seriously left behind as they basically haven't had any teaching for nearly a year.
It’s also a fantasy to believe that teenagers are not mixing because they are not at school, groups of them are everywhere every time I drive anywhere, at least at school there is some control to it.
Craig
TS Administrator
Schools have a complete lack of support. Teachers know that there's extra work required if switches to online learning are required, and to an extent that's manageable with sufficient support and notice. Most also agree that kids should be in school where possible, despite what the press say.
But, when you start announcing changes late on an evening just as holidays have started, or at the end of a school week - how are they supposed to manage that extra workload without completely burning out? Away from teaching, they should not have to be getting involved with arranging mass testing, that should never have been attempted to be offloaded onto them in the first place.
On the subject of laptops and devices for those who don't have them, the government should be ensuring these are available without schools having to constantly beg and chase to get hold of them, and have them in sufficient quantities. It's great some additional support has been announced for this last week, but the results of that are yet to be physically seen.
Much like all key workers, there's an element of risk in teaching at present. That's not impossible to eliminate, but everything should be done to minimise it. Whether that's closing them in higher areas for a period of time, reducing attendance days, or having mass testing which is arranged and managed for them. The fact schools are having to fork out for obscene amounts of PPE and cleaning products under already tight budgets without further support is also ridiculous.
Online learning is a very poor substitute for physical teaching, and vulnerable kids still need to be supported, and can still attend school as well as those who have parents who are key workers. As I've said before, the game has changed with schools as they've now been identified as a source of the spread. Is a month of that not better than months of constant multiple self-isolation periods for whole year groups while we try and get what is ultimately the worst wave of this virus yet under control? It seems insane to me that we're yet to see the outcome of Christmas bubbles, yet we're still putting kids back in schools in just 3 days time to potentially make a situation far far worse.
But, when you start announcing changes late on an evening just as holidays have started, or at the end of a school week - how are they supposed to manage that extra workload without completely burning out? Away from teaching, they should not have to be getting involved with arranging mass testing, that should never have been attempted to be offloaded onto them in the first place.
On the subject of laptops and devices for those who don't have them, the government should be ensuring these are available without schools having to constantly beg and chase to get hold of them, and have them in sufficient quantities. It's great some additional support has been announced for this last week, but the results of that are yet to be physically seen.
Much like all key workers, there's an element of risk in teaching at present. That's not impossible to eliminate, but everything should be done to minimise it. Whether that's closing them in higher areas for a period of time, reducing attendance days, or having mass testing which is arranged and managed for them. The fact schools are having to fork out for obscene amounts of PPE and cleaning products under already tight budgets without further support is also ridiculous.
Online learning is a very poor substitute for physical teaching, and vulnerable kids still need to be supported, and can still attend school as well as those who have parents who are key workers. As I've said before, the game has changed with schools as they've now been identified as a source of the spread. Is a month of that not better than months of constant multiple self-isolation periods for whole year groups while we try and get what is ultimately the worst wave of this virus yet under control? It seems insane to me that we're yet to see the outcome of Christmas bubbles, yet we're still putting kids back in schools in just 3 days time to potentially make a situation far far worse.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Exactly, access to online learning for those without would have been a better use of money than suing councils over school closures.
No one wants schools closed long term, not only is it a learning issue it’s also important for kids to be able to socialise with their school friends but as Craig points out we are probably now seeing the same infection levels as the first wave (hard to say seen as we apparently “didn’t need to test” people in April) and the Xmas effect will only start to be seen from today, yet we seem to be driving on with school reopening just to avoid a government embarrassment.
No one wants schools closed long term, not only is it a learning issue it’s also important for kids to be able to socialise with their school friends but as Craig points out we are probably now seeing the same infection levels as the first wave (hard to say seen as we apparently “didn’t need to test” people in April) and the Xmas effect will only start to be seen from today, yet we seem to be driving on with school reopening just to avoid a government embarrassment.
Craig
TS Administrator
Today's stats have been released, and out of the 284,345 people tested on the 29th December, so far 58,113 have tested positive. That's beating the previous daily record on the 21st December by 15,592, and there's likely still a few days of backlog to come through. That's even with a lower than usual daily number of people being tested, and as lateral flow testing has stopped in most areas where it's been rolled out until after the holidays.
Whilst the UK total figure of 53,285 sounds lower than yesterday on the face of it, that excludes Wales and Northern Ireland. So in a day or two we will likely easily be heading toward 60k cases a day. England's announced cases today alone was over 50k, where last week was just over 31k.
The idea of restrictions is to try and reduce positive cases, or at the very least maintain the status quo, that is clearly not the case at present. Over the next day or so (possibly already) we will see the results of one change that will negatively affect that status quo - Christmas Bubble restrictions. Yes, we have had the tier changes to try and address those case rises, but to then throw in schools opening into the mix to do the exact opposite seems crazy right now.
It’s all well and good all of this support you suggest but it isn’t happening and to be quite frank no government could make it happen that quickly, 45,000 laptops don’t drop out of the sky and set themselves up, then what about internet connections?
I also wouldn’t trust any figures over this period, everything has a two week lag, we aren’t even seeing the drop from schools closing yet or London going into tier 3 let alone tier 4.
Numbers will amazingly start to drop next week and all of a sudden the lockdown (which is what we are effectively in right now) will be assumed to of worked.
I also wouldn’t trust any figures over this period, everything has a two week lag, we aren’t even seeing the drop from schools closing yet or London going into tier 3 let alone tier 4.
Numbers will amazingly start to drop next week and all of a sudden the lockdown (which is what we are effectively in right now) will be assumed to of worked.
Craig
TS Administrator
No they won't drop out of the sky, but they've also have had plenty of time to arrange something in the space of 9 months since we had our first lockdown. There's plenty of mobile options to give connectivity directly to tablets or even some laptops, then MiFi points can also be used as a last resort. These are not impossible solutions, they're completely achievable. Even away from the equipment side of things, there is still a significant number of students who can be taught remotely if necessary.
As for not trusting figures, the 58k figure from 29th December is the date the specimen was taken. That's 58,000 individuals getting a test on the 29th and testing positive for Coronavirus. That figure will rise, not fall in the coming day or two as further tests come in. Even before additional test results come in, that is a daily record.
We have not yet seen the complete result of schools closing, but the 29th is still two weeks after most schools have closed, we should at least be seeing a levelling off, but that's been nowhere near the case so far. So why are we throwing more potential issues into the mix before seeing a change?
No no no that isn’t sensible at all, where do you think all of this money the government spends comes from? do you not think we have enough of our liberties taken away already?
Most people are fed up with all of the restrictions, that’s why they are being more loosely followed than in April, it’s unrealistic to expect people to be locked up for a year.
My position on schools is also quite clear, they should be open and made as COVID secure as possible, again if you don’t want to risk catching it avoid school children.
The biggest problem still and always has been is a lot of old people and some of those most at risk won’t isolate, even during lockdowns, I see it a hundred times every day, grey rinse in supermarkets, going around to see their grandkids etc. etc.
They have to take some responsibility for this, if they don’t go out they won’t catch it, won’t end up in hospital and won’t end up dead.
The rest of us can then carry on (sensibly of course) until this at risk group is vaccinated.
This is a sensible approach but it won’t go down well with the old Tory supporters so won’t happen.
Jb85
TS Member
Disagree entirely.
From my experience it’s the younger generation causing the bigger issues
30 odd people congregating in our local park
Parties in the media for New Years
we’re all in the fight and all responsible
the only way to stop it is to reduce contact - and children / teenagers are currently the only ones in close contact
Dave
TS Founding Member
The elderly are in supermarkets because they can’t use online shopping facilities or they can’t get a slot. They are also often part of childcare bubbles these days as it’s too expensive for most parents to pay for care services or the care services only cover the 9-5 working week when that’s not the working reality for most (NHS hours for instance are more often 12hr shifts including nights and weekends, show me the nursery offering care support at 11pm). Alternatively they may be being cared for by their younger family, as again getting a care home place is not as easy as you think as adult social care has been decimated over the last decade.
Not everyone who is vulnerable can stay away from school age kids, I feel you may assume the small family household is the norm, when the reality is for a lot of the population households are multigenerational.
Sure you get the odd vulnerable person who doesn’t follow the rules but that’s just a law of averages.
Craig
TS Administrator
Yup, it's all very well saying "stay away from school kids". That's just not possible for parents, and it's those parents who then go and work in essential retail. They then go and spread it to co-workers. Meanwhile those parents and co-workers also care for elderly relatives. Oh and not forgetting that mum split up with dad, so the childcare responsibilities are split so there's another household affected too...
And that's not hypothetical, that's physically happened to my own colleagues and relatives in recent weeks. At the moment I'd much rather have the stronger restrictions for a shorter time than drag this out even further with a decision, then a half arsed u turn in terms of London schools, then an almost inevitable further u turn.
As I've already mentioned, yes it affects kids, but they're already being affected massively from multiple isolation periods in secondary schools anyway. At least 2 or 3 times in some cases between October and Christmas the same year groups were being sent home, and that's likely to happen again. That can hardly be justified as better than just keeping everyone home en masse for a shorter period? A blanket closure period offers certainty, and allows teaching to be rolled out consistently rather than constantly clamouring to switch to online learning at the last minute every time a few positive cases come in.
I don't agree schools should be closed til February half term, the place for kids is ultimately in school rather than remotely as much as possible. However I do feel that letting them return on Monday/Tuesday without any sort of mass testing in place for all year groups and a consideration for further changes is an idiotic thing to even be considering at the moment.
And that's not hypothetical, that's physically happened to my own colleagues and relatives in recent weeks. At the moment I'd much rather have the stronger restrictions for a shorter time than drag this out even further with a decision, then a half arsed u turn in terms of London schools, then an almost inevitable further u turn.
As I've already mentioned, yes it affects kids, but they're already being affected massively from multiple isolation periods in secondary schools anyway. At least 2 or 3 times in some cases between October and Christmas the same year groups were being sent home, and that's likely to happen again. That can hardly be justified as better than just keeping everyone home en masse for a shorter period? A blanket closure period offers certainty, and allows teaching to be rolled out consistently rather than constantly clamouring to switch to online learning at the last minute every time a few positive cases come in.
I don't agree schools should be closed til February half term, the place for kids is ultimately in school rather than remotely as much as possible. However I do feel that letting them return on Monday/Tuesday without any sort of mass testing in place for all year groups and a consideration for further changes is an idiotic thing to even be considering at the moment.
Jb85
TS Member
Feb half term is hypothetical....but your correct - it should be in place until mass testing is rolled out.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Not an unreasonable post in February, at the time not much was known and we had seen similar before. There was a lot of hysterical chat around February involving the virus killing the young (like Spanish Flu) and bodies piling up. My personal opinion at the beginning of the year was cautious optimism due to the similar SARS coronavirus not going anywhere, but very few people said it was impossible that this would become something bigger. Indeed I knew we would likely see a global pandemic due to invasion of more and more natural areas, I just made the assumption the most likely candidate would be a flu variant, not something that mostly causes colds.
The most important (and sadly lacking at the moment ) skill for any person is the ability to change their opinion when presented with new evidence. It’s this inability in most people that makes them misunderstand science.
Hindsight is 20:20
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
It’s worth noting that the government are making schools more COVID-secure in the new year; I’m not 100% sure about primary schools, but I know secondary schools are effectively becoming miniature testing centres in the new year in order to facilitate mass testing. This should definitely help keep schools open while having a minimal impact on the R number and lowering general disruption within schools, because the lateral flow tests give a result within just 15 minutes. This would negate the need for self-isolation if the test came back negative.
As one of the young people you are all blaming for the rise in case numbers, I’d like to say that I am trying to follow the rules to the best of my ability, and I sincerely apologise if what I’m doing isn’t enough. I wear a mask pretty much all of the time when I’m outside the house, I haven’t been gathering in really large groups (although I never really did that pre-COVID, so it hasn’t made an awful lot of difference to me in that regard), I try my best to distance from other year group bubbles when at school (although at times this is easier said than done, so I just keep my mask on), and I sanitise my hands frequently. To be honest, my personal transmission chain is probably very limited outside of school, as other than going to school and the odd walk, I haven’t really been leaving the house that much lately. But as I say, I apologise to you all if that’s not good enough.
In terms of school closures, I’d personally much prefer that schools stayed open, as someone who tried to study for my A Levels during the first lockdown. As much as it might seem like remote learning shouldn’t be that different in theory, I personally found it a lot, lot harder during the first lockdown; teaching yourself material is surprisingly difficult, and I still feel like the areas I covered myself during lockdown are areas I struggle with somewhat because I never had any face-to-face teaching. Admittedly, the school probably has greater distance learning provision now than they did during the first lockdown, but my point still stands. I’m not sure whether I could personally make distance learning effective for myself for another extended period like I did in March, especially as I have exams in the summer. The government also conducted studies that concluded that the risk to children’s wellbeing from schools being closed is greater than the risk of the virus.
As I say, I apologise if anything I say is wrong; you all probably have better, more informed judgement than me.
As one of the young people you are all blaming for the rise in case numbers, I’d like to say that I am trying to follow the rules to the best of my ability, and I sincerely apologise if what I’m doing isn’t enough. I wear a mask pretty much all of the time when I’m outside the house, I haven’t been gathering in really large groups (although I never really did that pre-COVID, so it hasn’t made an awful lot of difference to me in that regard), I try my best to distance from other year group bubbles when at school (although at times this is easier said than done, so I just keep my mask on), and I sanitise my hands frequently. To be honest, my personal transmission chain is probably very limited outside of school, as other than going to school and the odd walk, I haven’t really been leaving the house that much lately. But as I say, I apologise to you all if that’s not good enough.
In terms of school closures, I’d personally much prefer that schools stayed open, as someone who tried to study for my A Levels during the first lockdown. As much as it might seem like remote learning shouldn’t be that different in theory, I personally found it a lot, lot harder during the first lockdown; teaching yourself material is surprisingly difficult, and I still feel like the areas I covered myself during lockdown are areas I struggle with somewhat because I never had any face-to-face teaching. Admittedly, the school probably has greater distance learning provision now than they did during the first lockdown, but my point still stands. I’m not sure whether I could personally make distance learning effective for myself for another extended period like I did in March, especially as I have exams in the summer. The government also conducted studies that concluded that the risk to children’s wellbeing from schools being closed is greater than the risk of the virus.
As I say, I apologise if anything I say is wrong; you all probably have better, more informed judgement than me.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Lateral flow tests have value but are not really a solution for schools. Their main value is in catching asymptomatic carriers of the virus as those people will never get a test and be identified. However the lat flow tests are not perfect and won’t overall stop an outbreak in a school once it’s taken hold.
I think there is an interesting debate around vaccinating school age kids sooner rather than later. I suspect however that won’t happen until more than a couple of million adults have been vaccinated and confidence grows in the rare event safety profile of the vaccine (rare event safety of any drug is always assessed after a drug is approved for anyone worried about safety approval).