Schools closed until February? (part 3)

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to close schools.

You just need to be realistic about the scale of the spread associated with it and isolate the vulnerable that are associated with it.

Kids are not affected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

I wish people would stop going on about kids not being affected. Some are and some are going home to houses with vunerable siblings or parents and also children are not the only ones in schools. THey can be asymptomatic like the class where the teacher got whole class tested and 7 children found to be positive.

We get it. Kids do not for the most part get gravely ill but they can pass it on.

I am starting to think people say stuff like that for a reaction, because no one after all the studies could still be dumb enough to think kids are not affected, well you got one

JP100

Today's number of cases has meant the national 14-day incidence rate has exceeded 300 per 100,000 of the population for the very first time.

8k71ps

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to close schools.

You just need to be realistic about the scale of the spread associated with it and isolate the vulnerable that are associated with it.

Kids are not effected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

The problem with isolating the vulnerable in this current system is that the department have absolutely refused to properly decide who is a high or low risk case purely off the basis of needing teaching staff and children in schools. also the contact tracing system is an absolute requirement if we're to actually protect anyone from the viruses path and so far it is a catastrophic failure.


Schools are part of the community and it's practically inevitable that as it spreads in schools it'll spread to most other elements of society unless you ban the elderly and the sick from leaving their house for any reason or something.


You don't need to shutdown the schools for a particularly long time, only enough to get test & trace back on it's feet and to adopt a hybrid model in schools.

jimmytwotimes 2013

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Kids are not effected by this illness to the extent that they all need to be locked up.

This is true.

Maybe there's a halfway house somewhere between herding them around on full buses (still happening), packing them into small classrooms and locking them away in a tower.

lawrencesummers

khalessi wrote: »

I wish people would stop going on about kids not being affected. Some are and some are going home to houses with vunerable siblings or parents and also children are not the only ones in schools. THey can be asymptomatic like the class where the teacher got whole class tested and 7 children found to be positive.

We get it. Kids do not for the most part get gravely ill but they can pass it on.

I am starting to think people say stuff like that for a reaction, because no one after all the studies could still be dumb enough to think kids are not affected, well you got one

You don’t need to stop all the kids going to school because some have vulnerable people at home.

You need to take the teachers that have pre existing conditions and are high risk out of it.

You need to take kids that are high risk out of it.

If granny lives in the house either she makes other arrangements or you keep your kids home.

The average house with healthy kids and adults can continue with school, and that’s the majority of the country.

lawrencesummers

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

This is true.

Maybe there's a halfway house somewhere between herding them around on full buses (still happening), packing them into small classrooms and locking them away in a tower.

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

eagle eye

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

People need to take personal responsibility.

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You don’t need to stop all the kids going to school because some have vulnerable people at home.

You need to take the teachers that have pre existing conditions and are high risk out of it.

You need to take kids that are high risk out of it.

If granny lives in the house either she makes other arrangements or you keep your kids home.

The average house with healthy kids and adults can continue with school, and that’s the majority of the country.

First off Medmark won't sign teachers off as very high risk to wfh, in fact teachers who have multiple ailments such as cancer and kidney transplant and considered very high risk were down graded to high risk and considered suitable to work. So there are not enough teachers to cover kids at home.

Secondly, moving granny is ridiculous suggestion what about getting vunerable dad or mum or sibling to move out just as stupid a suggestion. IF grandparents are living with family or vice versa, it is a long term arrangement and they have nowhere else to go and why should they. Where do you think they should go -nursing homes? Maybe they should move into schools as they are so safe.

Thirdly Tusla have said they will not tolerate kids at home, though I see earlier today someone posted that they managed to get round that.

irishblessing

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

You're on quite the roll. I don't see where anyone justified closing the schools based on mortality rate.

The current system needs to be upgraded to a hybrid remote learning system because there are at risk students, teachers and families ( I highly doubt the majority of the country is just fine) who need that option, classes and schools are already closing and therefore need this platform, people will continue to need to quarantine and become ill, we need to stop the spread into families and workplaces, we need to reduce class sizes, and we need to protect the health service.

The mortality of kids doesn't come anywhere into this consideration. But perhaps long term damage does, and I recently read, to even asymptomatic children.

khalessi

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.
If you justify closing schools on the mortality rate then schools wouldn’t ever open again in the winter because the flu has a far higher mortality rate.

Life goes on

Correction some lives go on

As pointed out before, kids get it and most are not affected, some are, but they can and do pass on to those who are vunerable such as family friends, and staff in schools.

8k71ps

lawrencesummers wrote: »

People need to take personal responsibility.

"it's our public responsibility if we do well, it's your personal responsibility if we fail".

Thats me

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The mortality rate for kids is tiny.

They tends to not survive if thing turns to be hard. Every 1 of 9 5-14 yrs old patients requires ICU admission if hospitalised. For comparison for 15-24 yrs age group it is ~ 1 of 20, for 25-34 yrs age group - 1 of 15. You can check this out on p.8 of this document.

BTW, at which level of mortality ratio you would start worrying about your own child?

eagle eye

lawrencesummers wrote:

People need to take personal responsibility.

She was asking if it was safe to send her kids to school.
She was taking personal responsibility by looking for answers.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

School will only say that they are implementing the guidelines as supplied by the dept. The dept will say they don't run schools on a day to day basis and the govt will respond that it is a departmental issue.

In reality no one can guarantee anyone's safety. All we in schools can do it to try and mitigate the risk. Schools aren't and never will be a sterile environment.

What answer do you think you should get?

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately this is not possible anywhere else and as such a child attending school could very well bring the virus home with them.

...Ghost...

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

School will only say that they are implementing the guidelines as supplied by the dept. The dept will say they don't run schools on a day to day basis and the govt will respond that it is a departmental issue.

In reality no one can guarantee anyone's safety. All we in schools can do it to try and mitigate the risk. Schools aren't and never will be a sterile environment.

What answer do you think you should get?

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately thin is not possible anywhere else.

Someone suggested we take the class out instead

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

The safest place for a very high risk person is in theory their home where everyone and everything can in theory be controlled. Unfortunately this is not possible anywhere else and as such a child attending school could very well bring the virus home with them.

I expected them to tell her that in her situation that she should not send her child to school. Sounds like common sense to me.

lawrencesummers

khalessi wrote: »

First off Medmark won't sign teachers off as very high risk to wfh, in fact teachers who have multiple ailments such as cancer and kidney transplant and considered very high risk were down graded to high risk and considered suitable to work. So there are not enough teachers to cover kids at home.

Secondly, moving granny is ridiculous suggestion what about getting vunerable dad or mum or sibling to move out just as stupid a suggestion. IF grandparents are living with family or vice versa, it is a long term arrangement and they have nowhere else to go and why should they. Where do you think they should go -nursing homes? Maybe they should move into schools as they are so safe.

Thirdly Tusla have said they will not tolerate kids at home, though I see earlier today someone posted that they managed to get round that.

If I’m a teacher and I’m high risk then I’m going out on whatever leave I need in the current situation, unpaid if necessary.

If granny can’t move out then I wouldn’t be sending the kids to school.

Tulsa can go and get fawked for themselves. They won’t get in the door of my house.

People need to do what’s right for themselves and their own family, which may well be at odds with the current advice.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

She was asking if it was safe to send her kids to school.
She was taking personal responsibility by looking for answers.

The answer to that question needs to come from within. I know what I would do.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

I expected them to tell her that in her situation that she should not send her child to school. Sounds like common sense to me.

That has to be a family decision.

Please be aware that according to the guidelines as dictated by the department that these children are not entitled to any support in any way.

Just this week a school in Kerry was ordered to stop facilitating the provision of such support.

eagle eye

lawrencesummers wrote:

The answer to that question needs to come from within. I know what I would do.

I don't care what you'd do. She has a right to get an answer from somewhere.

lawrencesummers

Thats me wrote: »

They tends to not survive if thing turns to be hard. Every 1 of 9 5-14 yrs old patients requires ICU admission if hospitalised. For comparison for 15-24 yrs age group it is ~ 1 of 20, for 25-34 yrs age group - 1 of 15. You can check this out on p.8 of this document.

BTW, at which level of mortality ratio you would start worrying about your own child?

Firstly those figures are only for positive cases.
The figures are much lower when you take the unknown of asymptomatic cases into it.

One study had the mortality rate at .0009 when widespread testing was included which had high levels of asymptomatic cases associated.
The mortality rate for flu was just over 4% for that same age group.

So you decide what mortality rate your happy to close schools at? Because if it’s good enough for 4% then it’s good enough for .0009%

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care what you'd do. She has a right to get an answer from somewhere.

Someone else should be responsible for telling her that it’s safe? And what are the ramifications for that person being wrong?

lawrencesummers

khalessi wrote: »

Correction some lives go on


As pointed out before, kids get it and most are not affected, some are, but they can and do pass on to those who are vunerable such as family friends, and staff in schools.

And as I pointed out before those vulnerable people should be isolated.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care what you'd do. She has a right to get an answer from somewhere.

Actually I don't think she does. She may feel she does but as always stated, no one can guarantee children's safety in school, mitigate yes. No one will guarantee that a child won't acquire Covid in school.

That lady has a decision to make.

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

That has to be a family decision.

Please be aware that according to the guidelines as dictated by the department that these children are not entitled to any support in any way.

This is more horrific decision making by the clowns in the government, HSE and department of education.

wirelessdude01 wrote:

Just this week a school in Kerry was ordered to stop facilitating the provision of such support.

Unbelievable. How is our country so bad?

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

Actually I don't think she does. She may feel she does but as always stated, no one can guarantee children's safety in school, mitigate yes. No one will guarantee that a child won't acquire Covid in school.

That lady has a decision to make.

She should be assisted by those in charge. There should be provisions in place for people like that.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

She should be assisted by those in charge. There should be provisions in place for people like that.

But as it stands there isn't so once again the lady in question has a choice to make.

Question, are the children currently attending school?

Thats me

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Firstly those figures are only for positive cases.
The figures are much lower when you take the unknown of asymptomatic cases into it.

You completely missing a point. Of course this is positive cases only, and not simply positive case - and this was highlighed in bold - it is cases when the children were admitted to hospital.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

One study had the mortality rate at .0009 when widespread testing was included which had high levels of asymptomatic cases associated.
The mortality rate for flu was just over 4% for that same age group.

You are missing a point again. In the document which i have referred - number of deaths in this age group is zero. You think if child didn't die - all is fine? ICU means severe damage to the body, probably unrecoverable.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So you decide what mortality rate your happy to close schools at? Because if it’s good enough for 4% then it’s good enough for .0009%

I strongly believe schools should be closed at Level 5. But not because of mortality rate. Just because going to L5 having schools open is a nonsense.

appledrop

eagle eye wrote: »

It's amazing that a very high risk parent gets no response from anybody as regards whether it's safe for her to send her kids to school.
She contacted the school, the department of education and the government.

Tusla have FAQ on their website + unless its the child that's very high risk according to them child must attend school. Doesnt matter to them if family member is very high risk.

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

But as it stands there isn't so once again the lady in question has a choice to make.

I'm saying there should be provisions in place. You seem to want to brush over that.

wirelessdude01 wrote:

Question, are the children currently attending school?

No, she's homeschooling them.

eagle eye

appledrop wrote:

Tusla have FAQ on their website + unless its the child that's very high risk according to them child must attend school. Doesnt matter to them if family member is very high risk.

Andvm this is why I'm saying we clowns in government, the department of education and the HSE.

jrosen

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care what you'd do. She has a right to get an answer from somewhere.

No way has she a right to that answer. Could you imagine? the school tell her its safe and her child catches covid, or they tell her its not and she's looking for her child to have on line support/home learning when the teacher is on site teaching already.
its a loose loose for the school.

eagle eye

jrosen wrote:

No way has she a right to that answer. Could you imagine? the school tell her its safe and her child catches covid, or they tell her its not and she's looking for her child to have on line support/home learning when the teacher is on site teaching already. its a loose loose for the school.

We have to protect all our citizens.

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm saying there should be provisions in place. You seem to want to brush over that.

Not brushing over anything.

I'm stating the facts in relation to what information you yourself have typed.

You don't like the answer but it is the correct answer as we currently sit here.

The facts are available on the Tusla and Department of education websites.

In reality they don't care about those children as in their eyes they carry no risk. In their eyes it is a parent issue. In their eyes the children should be in school.

lawrencesummers

Thats me wrote: »

You completely missing a point. Of course this is positive cases only, and not simply positive case - and this was highlighed in bold - it is cases when the children were admitted to hospital.




You are missing a point again. In the document which i have referred - number of deaths in this age group is zero. You think if child didn't die - all is fine? ICU means severe damage to the body, probably unrecoverable.



I strongly believe schools should be closed at Level 5. But not because of mortality rate. Just because going to L5 having schools open is a nonsense.

Closing the schools for an illness that doesn’t kill anyone (it does, but only a tiny amount) is the only nonsense I can see, when you are never closing the schools for any of the illnesses that do actually results in deaths.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

We have to protect all our citizens.

Our citizens also have to protect themselves.

eagle eye

lawrencesummers wrote:

Closing the schools for an illness that doesn’t kill anyone (it does, but only a tiny amount) is the only nonsense I can see, when you are never closing the schools for any of the illnesses that do actually results in deaths.

What about those, many asymptomatics, who suffer from long covid? Roughly about the same amount as deaths.
Should our government be responsible for those people?

eagle eye

lawrencesummers wrote:

Our citizens also have to protect themselves.

Our government are responsible for protecting all citizens.

eagle eye

wirelessdude01 wrote:

Not brushing over anything.

You are staying fact s that I already know. I'm discussing the mismanagement of the situation.

Boggles

NPHET looking fair nervous when asked about schools lately.

Stick to the script, read out the "data".

joe40

Thats me wrote: »

You completely missing a point. Of course this is positive cases only, and not simply positive case - and this was highlighed in bold - it is cases when the children were admitted to hospital.




You are missing a point again. In the document which i have referred - number of deaths in this age group is zero. You think if child didn't die - all is fine? ICU means severe damage to the body, probably unrecoverable.



I strongly believe schools should be closed at Level 5. But not because of mortality rate. Just because going to L5 having schools open is a nonsense.

That would mean closing schools for 6 weeks. Then in the new year close them again. That is not sustainable.
Plenty of European countries have incidence higher than ours and schools are still open.
Of course there is a risk, but it is small.
Education, in a school setting, is essential for vast majority of our kids. Online/hybrid teaching may work for short term fixes but not in the longer term. We can't depend on a vaccine so long term situation has to be planned for.
Robust contact tracing is required with localised closures if needed. More transparency as well. Schools are risky so govt needs to be honest.

Maybe more could be for vulnerable children/families but I feel the overall education system should be kept functioning.

irishblessing

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Closing the schools for an illness that doesn’t kill anyone (it does, but only a tiny amount) is the only nonsense I can see, when you are never closing the schools for any of the illnesses that do actually results in deaths.

None of those other illnesses overwhelm health systems.

khalessi

irishblessing wrote: »

None of those other illnesses overwhelm health systems.

Stop talking sense

wirelessdude01

eagle eye wrote: »

You are staying fact s that I already know. I'm discussing the mismanagement of the situation.

As it currently stands there is no mismanagement according to what is outlined by the various bodies with responsibility.

We may not agree with it. Get her to write to all the local TDs and see what response they get.

Actually it is totally wrong that there is no provision to.provide support for cases like the above. Teachers are appalled at it but we can't do anything which is a pity.

You want mismanagement, teachers who prior to Covid were considered very high risk have been unilaterally changed to high risk and told to go back to work. I only know of one who has successfully been changed back and that was after 9 weeks of a battle.

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

What about those, many asymptomatics, who suffer from long covid? Roughly about the same amount as deaths.
Should our government be responsible for those people?

If it is roughly the same number as deaths then it’s minuscule, which if you want to advocate for a closure at that level the don’t be a hypocrite and advocate for a closure during the flu season.

lawrencesummers

irishblessing wrote: »

None of those other illnesses overwhelm health systems.

Your definition of overwhelmed and mine must be at odds because the annual event as described in this piece is the definition of overwhelmed.


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/number-of-patients-on-trolleys-reaches-an-all-time-high-of-656-1.3342978

lawrencesummers

eagle eye wrote: »

Our government are responsible for protecting all citizens.

So where does personal responsibility come into anything?

irishblessing

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your definition of overwhelmed and mine must be at odds because the annual event as described in this piece is the definition of overwhelmed.


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/number-of-patients-on-trolleys-reaches-an-all-time-high-of-656-1.3342978

1. I can't read that article, its paywalled. Maybe quote it further and then explain your point?

2. I'll go with the fact that countries all around the world are grappling with this virus have either already had their health systems overwhelmed at one point, and/or are struggling to prevent it from happening. Health care workers all over the world have been getting sick, dying, and living with exhaustion. Give over.
.
I am not interested in *lawrencesummers on boards* definition of overwhelmed.
:rolleyes:

lawrencesummers

irishblessing wrote: »

1. I can't read that article, its paywalled. Maybe quote it further and then explain your point?

2. I'll go with the fact that countries all around the world are grappling with this virus have either already had their health systems overwhelmed at one point, and/or are struggling to prevent it from happening. Health care workers all over the world have been getting sick, dying, and living with exhaustion. Give over.
.
I am not interested in *lawrencesummers on boards* definition of overwhelmed.
:rolleyes:

When over 600 people are on trolleys the health system is overwhelmed.
It’s an annual occurrence during January because of flu.