Why is the UK the only country not closing schools?

Scroll to see replies

A reason why they won't close schools is because it would damage the economy further:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/mar/13/coronavirus-school-closures-uk-gdp-ministers-warned

It’s inevitable, schools will close; they’re a breeding place for germs. Many things are going to damage the economy (e.g. Apple closing every single store worldwide), but hey if everyone’s wiped out they’ll be no such thing as an economy :biggrin:

Reply 81

dpm

Original post by ByEeek

Just for context, there are 80,000 primary aged kids in schools in Manchester. That is not Greater Manchester. Just Manchester. And you say it would have no impact?

So if you are happy to keep primary schools open, what advantage is there in closing secondary schools?

As for history, just exactly how can we learn from history given that this is a new virus impacting on a modern globalised world?

Please don't misrepresent. I was quite clear in what I said re. school closures. Whilst my preference would be for complete closure (and this will happen before the end of next week) - if needs must then the children of key workers would have a place in school. Small groups and separation.
You do realize that this isn't some netflix series that your watching, don't you?

Reply 82

MrMusician95

Original post by satsun

Coronavirus: NI 'school closures will last for at least 16 weeks' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51881805

This is why schools haven't been closed yet. 16 weeks is a lot of time for parents to go without income or children to be bored at home!

Reply 83

dpm

Original post by ByEeek

This isn't 1918. And it is a completely different virus.

We are clearly on very different wavelengths here.
If you can't grasp that the significance of the 1918 Pandemic is that it was an erm ... Pandemic, regardless of the specific virus, then I really wouldn't bother.

Reply 84

Anonymousamie

Do conveyor belts run on electricity

Reply 85

satsun

Original post by MrMusician95

This is why schools haven't been closed yet. 16 weeks is a lot of time for parents to go without income or children to be bored at home!

Yes, true. However, if you look at photos of Friday’s ‘rush-hour’, trains and buses are empty, I think parents - who can - will be working at home for a significant time. I think schools should now be developing ‘distance learning’ measures and put these into place ASAP. I also believe GCSEs and A-Levels should be postponed to a later date to make sure those disadvantaged have a fair shot.

Reply 86

username4528716

Original post by David Getling

Have you thought out the consequences of closing schools? For younger kids their parents will then have to take time off work to look after them. What is the knock on effect of this likely to be? How many are providing essential services? Can they afford not to work, and if the government has to pay them then where is all the money going to come from?

What people tend to forget is that if you go headless chicken and wreck the economy then there won't be money available to finance health, social services, and many other essential services. So this might ultimately cause far more harm than coronavirus ever will.

Then, I think of all the students who have been working really hard towards their GCSEs and A-levels. I imagine that the most conscientious ones will be truly devastated if their lessons and exams are cancelled. And what about those students expecting to go to university in September. Should they be left in limbo?

Re your last point - as teachers have told me, it wouldn't actually be a big deal for gcse and a level students. they'd be getting study leave soon anyway. all they have to do is revise. they should reach a compromise. all those students who are capable of going home to revise and read textbooks or do online work should be allowed to work at home. those that rely on FSM, parents cant provide childcare etc can stay in school

Reply 87

David Getling

Original post by Ferrograd

Well a lot of teachers would say that, but what about students who want help from them, and might otherwise come in during study leave for revision classes or individual attention? Being able to ask a teacher something in person can really help.

Reply 88

1st superstar

Original post by Ferrograd

Not all schools get study leave

Reply 89

Anonymousamie

I can’t remember what country it was, but I think Johnson should enforce the system whereby students who are able and happy to work from hope do so, but those who are really unable to due to lack of childcare or who cannot work without guidance can continue school freely, as it won’t be as large a mass gathering, but it also won’t jeopardise students’ success.

Reply 90

dpm

Original post by 1st superstar

Not all schools get study leave

What the hell difference does that make?

Reply 91

username1799249

Original post by dpm

Of course. But those at the most risk are the elderly or those with underlying conditions. I dont know why shutting down schools helps matters. When we reopen, the virus will still be there.

The bottom line is that most of us are going to get it. They key is trying to achieve this in a controlled manner so as not to overwhelm the NHS. Closing schools simply causes mass inconvenience without necessarily stopping much as we will simply find large groups of kids hanging out on the streets as is happening in Spain.

Reply 92

username1799249

Original post by dpm

We are not living in 1918. We are living in 2020. In 1918 almost no one travelled and everything we consumed was local.

We now live in a global economy and all extensively travel.

Reply 93

dpm

Original post by ByEeek

All the information you need as to why the proactive shutting of schools etc is a good idea is readily available on reputable websites.
I don't disagree that the NHS will be overwhelmed, this is, in part is inevitable due to the lack of meaningful investment for many years. However, by shutting schools now there is a greater chance of "flattening the curve" and reducing the peak ... as I said, all the info you need is there if you dig a little.
There is a reason that history is taught in schools and beyond - it can actually inform us of previous errors and successes.
I certainly think that many people will unfortunately be infected .. and if by most you mean anything over 50% then this may well be correct .. but, there is a huge difference between 50%, 60%, 70% etc if there is indeed a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.8% and say 2.4%.
It really is very simple, and many other countries have understood this .. there are obvious steps that can be taken to lessen or slow the spread - and one of those is to close schools - it really, really isn't that complicated.
My intention is not to be argumentative or petty, and I respect that others will have differing opinions - but, at such times I'm afraid that the lack of appropriate action by a government when it matters is not acceptable - albeit, not that surprising.
The bottom line is, if schools need to close for 2 weeks, a month, 2 months then so be it; if it saves lives then it is the correct call. If long term closures are needed then thinking outside the box is needed .. choices don't have to be binary - unless of course, there is a lack of will or ability to think in another way.

Reply 94

dpm

Original post by ByEeek

We are not living in 1918. We are living in 2020. In 1918 almost no one travelled and everything we consumed was local.

We now live in a global economy and all extensively travel.

you may or may not be aware that there was rather a lot of travel in 1918 ... for fairly obvious reasons .. hence why the word pandemic was used....

Reply 95

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

I feel the need to point out that closing schools would not have prevented any of the deaths in the U.K. so far.

Reply 96

dpm

Original post by nexttime

Hmm, debatable. There are some pretty awfully behaved kids out there, who would be willing to leave the house, invited their friends over etc. It won't just be one day, remember - it'll be weeks on end.

Its also the fact that so many senior frontline healthcare staff fall into this group. Having children aged 1-14 is the exact situation faced by a huge proportion of experienced band 5 ward nurses, senior sisters and ward managers, registrar doctors and younger consultant doctors. Those are basically the groups you really want there in a crisis, basically - much more useful than younger but also older staff.

You'd have groups like grandparents to help, but problems are 1) unlikely to be able to help for long periods - many will still be working themselves 2) NHS forces its staff to move cities a lot so a lot of doctors in particular live nowhere near their childhood homes.

My experience is admittedly going to be on the extreme end, but in my group of 20 healthcare staff I work with, 18 have children aged 6 months - 8 years-ish. At a guess, maybe 5 have wives who don't work who take care of childcare. The rest just don't know what will happen.

I honestly think you'd be looking at losing about 20% of staff, something like that.

That suggestion has not formed part of any plan I am aware of. Wouldn't seem very economical.

Such a group would be higher risk of exposure to coronavirus than a 'normal' nursery population, of course.

re. "Such a group would be higher risk of exposure to coronavirus than a 'normal' nursery population, of course."

Their individual risk would be less than if placed in the whole nursery population so long as they remain in groupings that do not alter the frequency of students in one class with a parent in an "at risk job".
Whilst the risk factor due to the work of a parent would remain constant, as would the risk factor of contamination from another child who remains in the same class due to parental work .. the risk factor of contamination from other students would have been removed.

Reply 97

dpm

Original post by slazman

The thing I look at at the moment is that the one group of people who don't seem to be criticising the government's response is actual scientists and epidemiologists.

erm ... think again
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402

Reply 98

username2816962

Because closing schools is not the right thing to do. COVID-19 seems to be rather benign when it comes to children, most deaths involve those over 50 with medical conditions.

Closing schools will achieve two main things.
1. Instil a sense of panic
2. Keep doctors and nurses needlessly busy looking after their children during the day, rather than curing patients.

Most people complaining on here are just angry at the government because they want time off school. It has nothing to do with them actually being concerned with their health.

Reply 99

slazman

Original post by dpm

erm ... think again
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402

I stand corrected. Still, I dont think any response is without its drawbacks. Suppress the outbreak completely now, itll come back again before vaccines are developed. Allow it to run unchecked and many people will suffer the consequences. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not the one in the hot seat.