A further issue that will stop parents going back to work is that plenty will have kids in more than one year, say Y4 and Y6.
Y6 goes back, parent still at home to look after Y4.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
[quote="rob@rar"]
LaForet wrote:
... The government has ruled that out (for English schools). When pupils return to school is has to be on a full time basis, not part-time. The government has also said class sizes no larger than 15. The government has also said it wants all primary school children to have a least a month of schooling before the summer holiday. That means, typically, all primary school year groups return for the final week of June and then three weeks of July. Broadly speaking it gives the country four weeks to double the number of classrooms and associated facilities such as toilets, kitchens, dining facilities, enough entrances and exits to ensure socially distanced drop-offs and collections, all within walking distance of the school. And for no extra money. And within enough teachers and other adults available to teach, or not, all these new half-size classes.
My colleague has a primary school aged child who is due to return to school in June. They have been advised that, except for the children of key workers, the children will only do 2 full days. Apparenlty the classes will be split in two so groups of 15 then sub-split it to smaller 'work' groups. The remaining day being used to 'deep clean' the school again.
I have no idea what other schools are doing, but this one does not seem to be expecting to re-start on a full time basis - which does seem sensible in view of the space and facilities generally available.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Homey wrote:
I have no idea what other schools are doing, but this one does not seem to be expecting to re-start on a full time basis - which does seem sensible in view of the space and facilities generally available.
It is sensible, but it's not following what the government has advised for English schools. I think that schools will do the best they can, and quite rightly are in the best place to determine what is and isn't possible, even if the government is requesting the impossible.
Granddaughter No3 (yr6) has been invited back to school from 2nd June. Daughter has been told that it will be in small segregated groups, and they will not being be doing the normal curriculum, just the same stuff they have been given to do at home (presumably so those who choose not go back don't get left behind.) She has also been warned that each group will not necessarily have a teacher - some will just be supervised by teaching assistants. Also causes logistical issues as kid brother in Yr4 is not going back, nor elder sisters in Yr10 and Yr8. Husband is an Army reservist who has been called up to help with testing until mid-July so not at home, and daughter also has to work! If the return to school was for education reasons, rather than childcare surely Yr10 should be first back? That granddaughter is the one getting stressed about missing important work.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
RobinS wrote:
If the return to school was for education reasons, rather than childcare surely Yr10 should be first back? That granddaughter is the one getting stressed about missing important work.
think that's a good point. The government has said it wants Yr10 and Y12 to return, but only for "some face to face time" with their teachers before the summer holiday. I think getting primary schools back is a political imperative for the government, rather than a policy which flows from the science advice. It falls in to the category of "something must be done", IMO.
Are parents content for one of their children to go back to school, but others not? I would have had to deal with all kinds of ructions from my three in that scenario!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
rob@rar wrote:
RobinS wrote:
If the return to school was for education reasons, rather than childcare surely Yr10 should be first back? That granddaughter is the one getting stressed about missing important work.
think that's a good point. The government has said it wants Yr10 and Y12 to return, but only for "some face to face time" with their teachers before the summer holiday. I think getting primary schools back is a political imperative for the government, rather than a policy which flows from the science advice. It falls in to the category of "something must be done", IMO.
One of our schools has (correctly IMO) interpreted face time with teachers as including Zoom lessons.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Don't you have plenty of other threads to discuss politics and feed the trolls?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
CaravanSkier wrote:
Are parents content for one of their children to go back to school, but others not? I would have had to deal with all kinds of ructions from my three in that scenario!
Have no choice. My eldest being year 9 is not welcome back at school, but I am not going to turn down the invite for my year 5 to go back along with other SEN children to allow them to try and help them make up some of where she has fallen behind at not having her 16hrs / 20hrs support that the school is being funded via an EHCP. Two hours figures given as the school did try and get an increase at the last review but given they “postponed” (their term but when you don’t then do at all, I call that “cancelled”) parents evening I was never told how they got on
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
To go back to the thread title - I almost never book that far ahead. But I certainly hope I'll ski in the 20/21 season...who knows, perhaps I'll take the chance to go further afield.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Nothing has changed my view thus far. If I ski in 20/21 it will be booked at the last minute and only if the Covid circumstances at the time allow a reasonable assumption that we won't end up in a situation such being locked down in resort for part of the week or, worse still, even longer. Nor will I be able to afford to quarantine for 2 weeks on return, so if that's still happening it's a no go regardless.
The other thing I won't do is pay 'ski holiday' money to go to a regime of restricted skiing, no R&R and fixed mealtimes with basic menus. 'Butlins on snow' is not for me, unless it's at Butlins prices, which it won't be.
The first thing that might change that for next season is if the virus really does become a lesser threat, either through more successful treatment or the (unlikely) vaccine. I'm not sure about the arguments that it will simply die out but if it is mutating to be less deadly then a combination of these might literally make the risk of infection sufficiently manageable to book a bit earlier.
Look on the bright side, for once we probably won't have to book on a wing and a (snow) prayer?
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@robboj, Same here. Got cheap flights, beyond that nothing yet until August/Sept. Lots of extremely well qualified scientists explaining on a series of Unherd interviews how we (including EU Countries) got it completely wrong and over-reacted to an infection which has already run its course. Fingers crossed, no sign at all of 'second wave' anywhere so far which is quietly encouraging. Things should be much clearer by July/August.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
'over-reacted to an infection'
Seriously? An infection that in four months caused 36,792 unexpected deaths? An 'over-reaction'?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Perspective needed. That is around 6% of our usual annual deaths and many would have died of something else by December. Not nice to hear but needs to be said when you are dealing with 100s of billions of pounds which would not have been spent on other equally deadly illnesses and the potential for millions of redundancies and their social impact. TB? Flu? Cancer? Malaria? Shall we throw that sort of money at them as well? You are of course free to disagree worth my opinion but it is worth trying to be informed about both sides of the argument before pulling the trigger.Watch the videos and then come back and comment.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
"over-reaction"? "Perspective"? Try telling the families of the victims "right, they were just going to die anyway".
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@Scooter in Seattle, That's probably true in a lot of cases.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Scooter in Seattle,
Fair enough that is your opinion. But You are therefore being completely inconsistent if you don’t demand the same actions next winter to prevent approximately the same number of flu deaths. Or spend the same amount to prevent cancer. Or NICe should spend the same amount on other diseases. My point is why treat COViD as differently to all the other infections and diseases we suffer from?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Quote:
My point is why treat COViD as differently to all the other infections and diseases we suffer from?
Because 1) There is currently no vaccine for Covid
2) The hospital system would have been overwhelmed without a relatively short period of lockdown
3) All other diseases mostly have some mechanism for controlling then
Interesting Fact
Quote:
with all the advances of medical science we have only managed to actually eradicate one disease - smallpox
2. That’s the point. It was not about the number of deaths per se but the politics about these deaths happening in a short amount of time. Politics v public health v economics.
1. No vaccine or guaranteed treatment for all those other infections I mentioned. So again, why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost?
3. Many scientists equally qualified going on record to say that covid is an infection focussed on a very small proportion of the population and so a sledgehammer lockdown on everyone was a disproportionate response.
Again, as before; watch the Unherd interviews first and then respond. Not the usual narrative but science development works by not always following the crowd.
4. The cost is hugely disproportionate to what we have ever spent on any other disease either recently or historically. This is a virus where 90% infected don’t even know they’ve had it.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 25-05-20 20:25; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
snowhound wrote:
2. That’s the point. It was not about the number of deaths per se but the politics about these deaths happening in a short amount of time. Politics v public health v economics.
1. No vaccine or guaranteed treatment for all those other infections I mentioned. So again, why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost? As skiers shall we shut down again next winter when annual flu hits? I don’t remember last year the tri daily BBC news reports about people dieing from the usual winter illnesses.
3. Many scientists equally qualified going on record to say that covid is an infection focussed on a very small proportion of the population and so a sledgehammer lockdown on everyone was a disproportionate response.
Again, as before; watch the Unherd interviews first and then respond. Not the usual narrative but science development works by not always following the crowd.
4. The cost is hugely disproportionate to what we have ever spent on any other disease either recently or historically. This is a virus where 90% infected don’t even know they’ve had it.
2. That’s the point. It was not about the number of deaths per se but the politics about these deaths happening in a short amount of time. Politics v public health v economics.
1. No vaccine or guaranteed treatment for all those other infections I mentioned. So again, why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost?
3. Many scientists equally qualified going on record to say that covid is an infection focussed on a very small proportion of the population and so a sledgehammer lockdown on everyone was a disproportionate response.
Again, as before; watch the Unherd interviews first and then respond. Not the usual narrative but science development works by not always following the crowd.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
'why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost?'
Because not acting would have overwhelmed the NHS and caused even worse economic impact and social dislocation. We never had a choice of letting a few extra elderly people die a little earlier than otherwise versus jobs and the economy, as you posit. The choice was only between acting as we did or not acting at all. With the latter having a worse outcome.
You can theorise that doing nothing would have been a better strategy, but you can never prove it. Just because the strategy chosen has turned out to be costly does not mean the alternative would have been better.
After all it is free
After all it is free
LaForet wrote:
'why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost?'
Because not acting would have overwhelmed the NHS and caused even worse economic impact and social dislocation. We never had a choice of letting a few extra elderly people die a little earlier than otherwise versus jobs and the economy, as you posit. The choice was only between acting as we did or not acting at all. With the latter having a worse outcome.
You can theorise that doing nothing would have been a better strategy, but you can never prove it. Just because the strategy chosen has turned out to be costly does not mean the alternative would have been better.
Concise and to the point
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Grinning wrote:
LaForet wrote:
'why treat Covid differently to them at such massive cost?'
Because not acting would have overwhelmed the NHS and caused even worse economic impact and social dislocation. We never had a choice of letting a few extra elderly people die a little earlier than otherwise versus jobs and the economy, as you posit. The choice was only between acting as we did or not acting at all. With the latter having a worse outcome.
You can theorise that doing nothing would have been a better strategy, but you can never prove it. Just because the strategy chosen has turned out to be costly does not mean the alternative would have been better.
Concise and to the point
+1
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
This is the third time in 40 years we’ve had this sort of viral infection from the SE. 1968 flu (70,000 deaths) swine flu, SARS 1, mers etc, but the first time we have reacted like this. Are we going to run up WW2 levels of debt every time this happens again? We locked down for the NHs and for the last month they’ve had more empty beds than ever. We’ve mission crept from save the nhs to save all covid lives at any cost.
I’m not saying we should have done nothing, just do something smarter than an indiscriminate and economically destructive lockdown against the vast majority of people at very little risk.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@snowhound, this number of deaths were despite reacting like this. And they're still rising, and there may be a second peak.
Had countries around the world not locked down, the number of deaths would have dwarfed the current numbers.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@denfinella,
I didn’t say take no action, just something more intelligence than a 100% lockdown on everyone most of whom did not need it. I’ll refer back to an earlier post re. Cost.
Take 250,000 deaths. Cost £500’billion. That’s £2 million per death. NICE usually calculate medical intervention on £30,000 per quality year saved. Average age of death 80. Say another 5 years on average (Which given co morbidities is generous) means we are saving covid lives at 10x the cost of everyone else the NHS treats. Lots of people won’t like the idea of putting cost to lives but we do it every day and when we are dealing with hundreds of billions of debt, millions of lost jobs and tens of thousands of other untreated deaths, it needs to be said.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Did NZ act faster and more aggressively than the UK or less?
Who is going to come out worse off financially? We know who is winning on every other measure.
Thinking of countries which had a more relaxed approach have they done better or worse? It is not over by a long way.
UK messed up by waiting way too long to lock down in my opinion I suspect history will end up agreeing.
Everyone I know in London has friends in their 40/50s who have died. Here in BC where lockdown was early I don't know anyone who has had it! And lockdown is ending soon
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@motdoc, is it really clear who is “winning” other measures?
Sad to say but from what I am reading there are other factors that are leading to a fatal outcome? Age isn’t the only one - stage 2 diabetes seems to be a case in something like 1/4 of deaths, high BMI appears to be another. Articles from doctors in Japan talked about CV fitness when you get it also being a big factor on the ultimate outcome.... certainly with my underlying asthma it is the difference between me needing to use my reliever and not needing to use.
We are also very early really in the analytical side of things - knowing how air pollution impacts my asthma and hay fever - I wouldn’t be surprise if this also proves to have a link in the long run.
How can you just point to a countries measures without looking at those underlying differences? To say who is “winning”?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
denfinella wrote:
Had countries around the world not locked down, the number of deaths would have dwarfed the current numbers.
Maybe not. You can see Prof Neil Ferguson in this interview http://youtube.com/v/6cYjjEB3Ev8 published on 25 April predict that daily deaths in Sweden will continue to rise. This didn’t age well as deaths actually peaked in Sweden a week earlier than that and have been in decline since.
Had Ferguson been advising the Swedish government for sure we would have been in lockdown like the U.K. Thankfully we have Anders Tegnell. Despite what you may say about deaths in Sweden, the strategy was the same as most others to 1. flatten the curve, and 2. Shield the vulnerable. Number 1 was achieved - hospitalisations and ICU places are down nearly 50% on the peak and were always comfortably less than capacity. Number 2 was not as Sweden failed in that like almost every other country.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I've not been watching the "UnHerd" videos as they appear to me to be pushing a particular biased viewpoint, choosing those experts who push the line which they want to follow (everybody has slighly differing viewpoints so it's very easy to bias facts in one or another direction)
I prefer the Dr John Campell daily updates, which are very factual; un-biased; non-judgemental; non-political.
He provides criticism when it's due, but his research does provide a clear factual view of the worldwide pandemic, and the progress of its resolution
I think this has gone a bit off-topic! Plenty of CV19 threads elsewhere
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@denfinella, how do you know? Neither Sweden, Taiwan, South Korea nor Japan had strict quarantines and have had very low comparative numbers of deaths. Belgium, France and Italy had enormously strict quarantines yet did badly.
The differences in the way deaths were recorded also makes serious comparison very difficult or impossible.
I'll add to my earlier predictions in various threads: in six months' time finding anyone that admits to supporting the "lockdown" will be as difficult as finding anyone who admits to believing that Iraq had WMDs.
The differences in the way deaths were recorded also makes serious comparison very difficult or impossible.
This is the main problem with comparisons. We will only have an idea of the scale in other Countries when stats are available to compare the number of death to the previous average. Even then, some Countries will manipulate the stats.
It is much easier to track and trace in Countries with small populations, especially if they are very dispersed, and there are relatively few early cases. Some Countries have the infrastructure already in place to do this and test, mainly those who experienced SARS.
In the cases of UK, France, Italy and Spain, there were far too many early cases, very widely dispersed. The facility to test such large numbers was simply not available.
The Government has had a lot of criticism over the number of number of tests that could be carried out. We have the facilities that we need under normal circumstances. Converting other facilities takes time and money.
Can you imagine the public outcry of "wasting money" if the Government had announced in January, that it was putting aside a couple of Billion a month to set up and run testing facilities for an, as yet unknown virus?
Add another 5 billion for extra PPe, "just in case" it was needed?
@snowhound, . How would you choose who else to put into quarantine? How would you police it? What would you do to those that broke quarantine?
Try thinking outside the box, instead of in your own world.
Left unchecked, the people you would allow to continue about their "normal" lives, would have spread it very quickly. If 10% of the workforce went off sick at the same time. (A very conservative estimate. More than this in some sectors had time off in the early stages due to "contact with people with symptoms")
Very restricted Public Transport. ( a large % of train/bus drivers are over 50)
Most businesses would find it hard to continue to operate, and many would close. The knock-on effect up the supply chain would create more closures.
There would be no government support , as is now the case.
Any estimate on the economic effect?
It is not just those who "would have died soon anyway". This virus could easily have killed many more. Most of those potential victims are still shielding.
Over 15% of the UK population is over 70. (just short of 10 million). The vast majority of these would likely have needed Hospitalisation and ventilation over a period of just a few months. How and where would we do this?
Most would not have survived. How would you deal with an additional 2-3 million bodies/month?
Any estimate on the cost to the NHS?
Add those with diabetes, another 4 million, other "underlying conditions", total unknown.
what would have been the economic cost of dealing with that?
I would remind you that it is the pension funds of many of these people that own the shares of major Companies. Helping keep you employed.
If half of them own their own houses, and they all came on the market together, what would it do to the Property market?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@brianatab, I wouldn’t put people into quarantine. I would let people make their own decision based on their own risk profile-that’s we let people do in other aspects of life whilst it runs its course. And protect those that need it properly. And regarding economic costs of non lockdown, that could well pale into insignificance once we look at final bill for lockdown-not just in trillions of hard money, but deaths due to poverty and other illnesses, job losses, education. In the end, we are all free to disagree with each other and we can all come back in six months time and compare notes then. The point I was making was that we had responded to covid completely differently and at far greater cost to every other infection or medical condition we have encountered in history, even those which have killed far more people than covid has/will.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@brianatab, Private Eye is quoting death rates for the 75-90 age group as being 0.44% of those who were infected. I can't remember the figure but what's the chance of just dying of anything when you reach that age, per year?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@justabod, instead of Private Eye, you could go to a scientific journal...
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
