Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Thats me

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Goes to show how bad the levels are - we need a level 6 if that’s true, yet 4 was never used.

There still a chance nubers will drop past Christmas. Last weeks people were intensively visiting public places, than they were intensively testing for Covid before meeting vulnerable family members. After 4 calm days of Cristmas numbers can decline a lot.

Thats me

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

What I do see happening st some stage is 4th/5th6th class kids being told they have to wear a mask.

This is unlikely.

wirelessdude01

Thats me wrote: »

This is unlikely.

Maybe so but it should be considered. As already said when you have children in those classes questioning why they are expected to wear them then we have a problem. Shows the levels of anxiety they have.

Thats me

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Maybe so but it should be considered. As already said when you have children in those classes questioning why they are expected to wear them then we have a problem. Shows the levels of anxiety they have.

They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them.

wirelessdude01

Thats me wrote: »

They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them.

I've already stated that more and more kids in my school are wearing them all day. They are the ones questioning why they all aren't expected to wear them.

khalessi

Thats me wrote: »

They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them.

In 4th 5th and 6th lung volume is not far off an adult.

Sounds like it could be a total ****show going back in January and saw on Twitter principals got letter yesterday re cleaning regiemes for schools and the money allowed per student has been decreased, that's going to help:rolleyes:

wirelessdude01

khalessi wrote: »

In 4th 5th and 6th lung volume is not far off an adult.

Sounds like it could be a total ****show going back in January and saw on Twitter principals got letter yesterday re cleaning regiemes for schools and the money allowed per student has been decreased, that's going to help:rolleyes:

40% decrease in the Covid cleaning budget. There goes the money that pays for our second cleaner.

khalessi

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

40% decrease in the Covid cleaning budget. There goes the money that pays for our second cleaner.

And facing into another rise in numbers, along with two new mutant strains

wirelessdude01

khalessi wrote: »

And facing into another rise in numbers, along with two new mutant strains

But sure as we already know we'll just plod along.

JimmyVik

khalessi wrote: »

And facing into another rise in numbers, along with two new mutant strains

3


But sure whos counting. Mutations have been ongoing since the start. Now one made the news there is hysteria about them
Story of the pandemic really.

Thats me

khalessi wrote: »

In 4th 5th and 6th lung volume is not far off an adult.

Went to check in the Internet, found tidal volumes calculated as 6-8 ml per kilo of body mass. Probably it can deviate in children, but i was unable to find this info (giving up after few hundreds pages offering paid access to publications).

Thats me

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

I've already stated that more and more kids in my school are wearing them all day. They are the ones questioning why they all aren't expected to wear them.

And what you answering to these who asking?

wirelessdude01

Thats me wrote: »

And what you answering to these who asking?

That it's above my pay grade, I'm but a humble, peasant, public servant.

Thats me

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

That it's above my pay grade, I'm but a humble, peasant, public servant.

HSE should adopt your approach answering uncomfortable questions.

wirelessdude01

Thats me wrote: »

HSE should adopt your approach answering uncomfortable questions.

Well maybe if the HSE and/or public health had a consistent and transparent approach to schools, there wouldn't be any need for "uncomfortable questions" to be answered. That's all 99% want.

You look the cabinet literally losing their collective sh1t yesterday and claim to be following the public health gudelines. They certainly aren't the same ones applied to schools.

khalessi

You would wonder when they are predicting numbers of over 1000 when schools reopen why they would reduce the cleaning budget by 40%, seems a little bit like disjointed thinking. But sure not to worry safest places on earth schools.

Stateofyou

Thats me wrote: »

They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them.

My 2 primary kids have been wearing them all year, no problem. A few others have as well. Curious where you got that information from as I haven't ever seen it said anywhere...

Thats me

Stateofyou wrote: »

My 2 primary kids have been wearing them all year, no problem. A few others have as well. Curious where you got that information from as I haven't ever seen it said anywhere...

Thats me wrote: »

In the mask thread we have very roughly calculated impact from masks. On adult person having 0.5 litesr tidal volume. Smaller pupil having much lesser volumes (somewhat 250ml for youngest of them), therefore they should have overdose of CO2. I think this is a reason why masks are not recommended to them.

In relation to tidal volumes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_volume - but they providing Tv formula as 7 ml/kg which is for young adult. Children has different profile, but I was unable to find particular references.

khalessi

Thats me wrote: »

In the mask thread we have very roughly calculated impact from masks. On adult person having 0.5 litesr tidal volume. Smaller pupil having much lesser volumes (somewhat 250ml for youngest of them), therefore they should have overdose of CO2. I think this is a reason why masks are not recommended to them.

That is not why masks are not recommended. In fact the WHO has recommended masks for 6 years plus since August.

Unless it has an air tight seal there is no way you could overdose on CO2, wearing a mask. The issue was compliance and theyd be at them all the time. My experience of this is the kids are no worse than the adults and in some cases better at wearing them.

Thats me

khalessi wrote: »

That is not why masks are not recommended. In fact the WHO has recommended masks for 6 years plus since August.

Conditionally. Children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults.

khalessi wrote: »

Unless it has an air tight seal there is no way you could overdose on CO2, wearing a mask. The issue was compliance and theyd be at them all the time. My experience of this is the kids are no worse than the adults and in some cases better at wearing them.

Of course my rough calculation can be completely wrong. Constructive argument could be consisting in pointing the error instead of stating "no way" based on nothing at all.

khalessi

Thats me wrote: »

Conditionally. Children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults.




Of course my rough calculation can be completely wrong. Constructive argument could be consisting in pointing the error instead of stating "no way" based on nothing at all.

I am presuming that the WHO did their research or do you think they would recomment killer masks for kids that overdose them on CO2:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thats me

khalessi wrote: »

I am presuming that the WHO did their research or do you think they would recomment killer masks for kids that overdose them on CO2:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Which particular research you do refer?

khalessi

Thats me wrote: »

Which particular research you do refer?

You have a word with the WHO they are the people recommending masks or do you know better. Have a lovely Christmas.

Stateofyou

Thats me wrote: »

Conditionally. Children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults.

The conditions in which they should be worn has nothing to do with your statement before of "They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them."

You still haven't shown where you got this information. It seems to be totally incorrect; maybe you should consider editing that from the thread to avoid spreading misinformation.

Thats me

Stateofyou wrote: »

The conditions in which they should be worn has nothing to do with your statement before of "They simply have smaller lung volumes, masks seem to be not healthy for them."

I agree, khalessi's comment had not too much relation to what i said. I just provided correction.

Stateofyou wrote: »

You still haven't shown where you got this information.

Which information you mean? I have provided a link to the calculation done and supporting information related to tidal volumes calculation. If you want to discuss it then please be more specific.

Stateofyou wrote: »

It seems to be totally incorrect;

May be, why not. I can be mistaken too.

Stateofyou wrote: »

maybe you should consider editing that from the thread to avoid spreading misinformation.

Consider editing what? Everything i said is my honest opinion. I see no reason to edit anything.

Stateofyou

Thats me wrote: »

I agree, khalessi's comment had not too much relation to what i said. I just provided correction.

Which information you mean? I have provided a link to the calculation done and supporting information related to tidal volumes calculation. If you want to discuss it then please be more specific.

May be, why not. I can be mistaken too.

Consider editing what? Everything i said is my honest opinion. I see no reason to edit anything.

Unfortunately there's nothing but word salad here. You should be able to easily point out where you got that information from. You provided nothing in fact, and in relation to the link you posted, you stated: "I was unable to find particular references."

I have read a good bit on children and masks and yet I have never seen anywhere, what you claimed. When asked where you got your info from, you can only say you can't find the references. In light of that, you should consider editing out false information. We may be looking at older primary students wearing masks in the new year and the last thing we need here is fear mongering and fake news.

Beasty

Thats me

Drop it or I'll threadban you

Everyone else - please ignore their unfounded claims

Thanks

Stateofyou

Thats me wrote: »

I agree, khalessi's comment had not too much relation to what i said. I just provided correction.

Your correction was also incorrect, and Khalessi's comment was not. Your correction needs correction, lol.

Khalessi stated that the WHO has recommended masks for 6years plus since August (in certain conditions).

You said, "Conditionally. Children aged 12 and over would wear a mask under the same conditions as adults."

The WHO advice is actually this:"WHO and UNICEF advise that the decision to use masks for children aged 6-11 should be based on the following factors..." Not 12. Khalessi was correct.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

Edit: Just saw Beasty's post after I posted the above; consider it ignored.

Thats me

Stateofyou wrote: »

Edit: Just saw Beasty's post after I posted the above; consider it ignored.

No worries, i do refrain from having discussions with trolls like you anyway.

Beasty

Thats me wrote: »

No worries, i do refrain from having discussions with trolls like you anyway.

Threadbanned