Go to first unread
Back
to top
Boris Johnson says he hopes to reopen schools from 8 March
Watch
Announcements
Report
#2
I've heard that too on BBC news! If it's still unsafe for us to return by March, I'm guessing they will push the date back again. Nothing seems to be clear right now unfortunately 
.
.
2
reply
Report
#3
BoJo says a lot of things tbh, and 100% of the time he ends up saying something else and something else entirely ends up happening. Whenever he speaks now I just here 'blah blah blah' and hope for the best. Even BoJo seems confused by the stuff coming out of his mouth lol, so best to ignore it and hope for the best. I reckon the guy is just winging it really, the whole PM role.
3
reply
Report
#4
No damn way! Certainly not until at least May. We can’t just wait till things get a little bit better then reopen until there’s a 3rd wave then a 4th wave! Covid cases need to be as minimal as possible for at least 2 months before schools fully reopen. We are no where near minimal!
The man is playing with people’s lives. Over 100,000 dead. This is worse than the first outbreak. If schools reopen in March then parents and teachers should refuse outright. Lives are at stake!
The man is playing with people’s lives. Over 100,000 dead. This is worse than the first outbreak. If schools reopen in March then parents and teachers should refuse outright. Lives are at stake!
2
reply
Report
#5
According to the ONS 90% of Covid deaths occur in 70+ and 99% in 50+ so there's a fair case to make once the second jab has been completed.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
0
reply
(Original post by sparklinglights)
I've heard that too on BBC news! If it's still unsafe for us to return by March, I'm guessing they will push the date back again. Nothing seems to be clear right now unfortunately.
I've heard that too on BBC news! If it's still unsafe for us to return by March, I'm guessing they will push the date back again. Nothing seems to be clear right now unfortunately
.
1
reply
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
BoJo says a lot of things tbh, and 100% of the time he ends up saying something else and something else entirely ends up happening. Whenever he speaks now I just here 'blah blah blah' and hope for the best. Even BoJo seems confused by the stuff coming out of his mouth lol, so best to ignore it and hope for the best. I reckon the guy is just winging it really, the whole PM role.
BoJo says a lot of things tbh, and 100% of the time he ends up saying something else and something else entirely ends up happening. Whenever he speaks now I just here 'blah blah blah' and hope for the best. Even BoJo seems confused by the stuff coming out of his mouth lol, so best to ignore it and hope for the best. I reckon the guy is just winging it really, the whole PM role.
0
reply
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
No damn way! Certainly not until at least May. We can’t just wait till things get a little bit better then reopen until there’s a 3rd wave then a 4th wave! Covid cases need to be as minimal as possible for at least 2 months before schools fully reopen. We are no where near minimal!
The man is playing with people’s lives. Over 100,000 dead. This is worse than the first outbreak. If schools reopen in March then parents and teachers should refuse outright. Lives are at stake!
No damn way! Certainly not until at least May. We can’t just wait till things get a little bit better then reopen until there’s a 3rd wave then a 4th wave! Covid cases need to be as minimal as possible for at least 2 months before schools fully reopen. We are no where near minimal!
The man is playing with people’s lives. Over 100,000 dead. This is worse than the first outbreak. If schools reopen in March then parents and teachers should refuse outright. Lives are at stake!
0
reply
(Original post by Rakas21)
According to the ONS 90% of Covid deaths occur in 70+ and 99% in 50+ so there's a fair case to make once the second jab has been completed.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
According to the ONS 90% of Covid deaths occur in 70+ and 99% in 50+ so there's a fair case to make once the second jab has been completed.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by kittyfifi123456)
i thought that they were at risk... have you seen the deaths???
i thought that they were at risk... have you seen the deaths???
There is almost no risk to the majority of children, parents and teachers when it comes to deaths.
0
reply
(Original post by Rakas21)
Those are still primarily people over 50, the ONS publishes weekly data and there has been no substantial change in proportion by age. Only the amplitude of total deaths is higher which reflects nominal growth.
There is almost no risk to the majority of children, parents and teachers when it comes to deaths.
Those are still primarily people over 50, the ONS publishes weekly data and there has been no substantial change in proportion by age. Only the amplitude of total deaths is higher which reflects nominal growth.
There is almost no risk to the majority of children, parents and teachers when it comes to deaths.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
Those are still primarily people over 50, the ONS publishes weekly data and there has been no substantial change in proportion by age. Only the amplitude of total deaths is higher which reflects nominal growth.
There is almost no risk to the majority of children, parents and teachers when it comes to deaths.
Those are still primarily people over 50, the ONS publishes weekly data and there has been no substantial change in proportion by age. Only the amplitude of total deaths is higher which reflects nominal growth.
There is almost no risk to the majority of children, parents and teachers when it comes to deaths.
So why are we being told to work from the couch and WHSmiths can't open....?
1
reply
Report
#13
Better just to ignore him at this point everything he says he either uturns on or is a lie. I used to think May was an incompetent leader, she has nothing on this fat sack of port. His desire to seem churchillian only seems to have gone so far as his monumental defeat in the post war election (in terms of incompetence that is)
2
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
According to the ONS 90% of Covid deaths occur in 70+ and 99% in 50+ so there's a fair case to make once the second jab has been completed.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
According to the ONS 90% of Covid deaths occur in 70+ and 99% in 50+ so there's a fair case to make once the second jab has been completed.
That said, I support schools returning now. Other restrictions should maintain our downward path at a slower pace. Children are at almost no risk.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Children are at no risk, but staff are, and until that changes there is no way schools school return.
Children are at no risk, but staff are, and until that changes there is no way schools school return.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Staff are at no more risk than the rest of the adult population, put the 50+ on furlough in schools and send everybody else back.
Staff are at no more risk than the rest of the adult population, put the 50+ on furlough in schools and send everybody else back.
Children carry it, of all ages. And they then pass it on to staff, who could be more adversely affected. It’s absolutely fallacy that school staff are not more affected than anyone else. If you’ve got a class full of five year olds, try as you might they will not socially distance. It is impossible. Even at secondary level not every single child will be following the rules. You’re way off.
1
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Completely incorrect. As someone with a close insight into schools in lockdown, I can tell you you’re way off.
Children carry it, of all ages. And they then pass it on to staff, who could be more adversely affected. It’s absolutely fallacy that school staff are not more affected than anyone else. If you’ve got a class full of five year olds, try as you might they will not socially distance. It is impossible. Even at secondary level not every single child will be following the rules. You’re way off.
Completely incorrect. As someone with a close insight into schools in lockdown, I can tell you you’re way off.
Children carry it, of all ages. And they then pass it on to staff, who could be more adversely affected. It’s absolutely fallacy that school staff are not more affected than anyone else. If you’ve got a class full of five year olds, try as you might they will not socially distance. It is impossible. Even at secondary level not every single child will be following the rules. You’re way off.
1
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Rakas21)
Could being the operative word. There have been studies (Newsnight has been debating schools the last 2 weeks) and they've failed to find any statistical evidence that teachers are more severely impacted by Covid than their non-teacher peers. Though yes, they are more likely to actually get it (but then we don't keep youngish teachers off everytime Influenza is spreading - note that I'm only making the comparison for 50<).
Could being the operative word. There have been studies (Newsnight has been debating schools the last 2 weeks) and they've failed to find any statistical evidence that teachers are more severely impacted by Covid than their non-teacher peers. Though yes, they are more likely to actually get it (but then we don't keep youngish teachers off everytime Influenza is spreading - note that I'm only making the comparison for 50<).
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against schools going back, but in terms of teacher safety, of which I have a vested interest I’d rather schools stay shut for a couple more weeks which is the easiest option. Open them all summer, by all means, but for the sake of a few weeks which in the grand scheme now won’t make a penny of difference, I’d go for that. The truth is, all schools should be now held back a year, that would completely alleviate pressure on teachers as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against schools going back, but in terms of teacher safety, of which I have a vested interest I’d rather schools stay shut for a couple more weeks which is the easiest option. Open them all summer, by all means, but for the sake of a few weeks which in the grand scheme now won’t make a penny of difference, I’d go for that. The truth is, all schools should be now held back a year, that would completely alleviate pressure on teachers as well.
For the teachers we are talking about there's a 1 in a few hundred chance of death, a 1 in a few hundred chance of needing hospital care. For the rest of our 50< teachers it's two weeks off ill (not nice but not worth destroying education).
My problem here is not that we have Covid measures but that we are destroying at least two school years of education (last year too) despite that fact that we can furlough the 50+ teachers that are actually at statistical risk. Getting Covid is not nice but it's something the rest of teachers will have to grin and bear with for the good of wider society.
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
But what is the risk.
For the teachers we are talking about there's a 1 in a few hundred chance of death, a 1 in a few hundred chance of needing hospital care. For the rest of our 50< teachers it's two weeks off ill (not nice but not worth destroying education).
My problem here is not that we have Covid measures but that we are destroying at least two school years of education (last year too) despite that fact that we can furlough the 50+ teachers that are actually at statistical risk. Getting Covid is not nice but it's something the rest of teachers will have to grin and bear with for the good of wider society.
But what is the risk.
For the teachers we are talking about there's a 1 in a few hundred chance of death, a 1 in a few hundred chance of needing hospital care. For the rest of our 50< teachers it's two weeks off ill (not nice but not worth destroying education).
My problem here is not that we have Covid measures but that we are destroying at least two school years of education (last year too) despite that fact that we can furlough the 50+ teachers that are actually at statistical risk. Getting Covid is not nice but it's something the rest of teachers will have to grin and bear with for the good of wider society.
Secondly, through media manipulation teachers have been consistently lambasted throughout this pandemic as lazy, workshy, and not willing to fight for the cause, or that their unions are causing the issues within schools. I can tell you first hand that is absolutely not the truth. 60 hour weeks have not been uncommon, and PPE has been non existent.
Lastly, a two parter, having covid is ‘not nice’ is a complete understatement. But then let’s say we take your idea and just isolate all the over 50s in schools. What about if a school has an aged staff overall, so as a result it becomes unviable to keep the school open for safety reasons.
In short, a few weeks while they get vaccinated isn’t going to make a difference, and your view that covid is simply ‘not nice’ is a bit of an insult to teaching staff.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
