Schools closed until February? (part 3)

8k71ps

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

What is not necessarily true? It's completely clear that schools being closed for mid term could not possibly have impacted yesterday's swab results, it is far far too early to tell

It's not necessarily true that schools don't have an impact if less teachers and students are being tested over the mid term than they would be normally. This could be due to for instance psychological factors or something similar. It is a possibility but like we can just wait till the end of the week of if that's true

8k71ps

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, makes perfect sense when you think about it. Second-level students are better able to follow protocols and avoid spreading the disease, even if they are more likely to be infectious.

Four year olds are more like the ASTI - they don’t understand what needs to be done.

On a serious note, great news that the positivity rate is one-third that in the community, it shows that schools are not contributing to the spread of COVID in any meaningful way, and therefore should remain open.

Thanks Norma, I didn't consider that one

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

If we follow the positivity rate in a the general testing which is currently just under 6% you are looking at 2 out of 30.

However since positivity rate is less than 3% in schools that means there is good chance only three quarters of one child would be positive. Testing 30 out of 30 would also mean those who are less of a close contact and less likely to be infected would be tested then I suspect positivity rate would be even less for schools. So maybe one half of child would test positive.

This is fun. In any case the more you test less the positivity rate would be (if we take it that the reproduction no. is 1).

I love how you quote what the rate in schools are like it's a fact from trusted, uncontested, unproblematic data.

Or the more you test, the more cases you find- like we saw happen when the teacher insisted to the HSE that the class needed to be tested as close contacts against the HSE's resistance but when they relented- found 7 more cases.

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, makes perfect sense when you think about it. Second-level students are better able to follow protocols and avoid spreading the disease, even if they are more likely to be infectious.

Four year olds are more like the ASTI - they don’t understand what needs to be done.

On a serious note, great news that the positivity rate is one-third that in the community, it shows that schools are not contributing to the spread of COVID in any meaningful way, and therefore should remain open.

I don't think that's why secondary students are let home first. Because we know, and I know that you know, children aged 10 and older are just as capable of contracting and spreading covid. Other studies have shown younger children have as much and even more of the virus found in their samples than adults. I have read many articles now at this stage in which the experts say that we need more studies have have put doubts on earlier studies concluding children aren't big contributors to spread. This is because they are more likely to be asymptomatic and so were very often never tested or suspected of being the source.

I think secondary students are let home because they don't need minders and can better handle remote learning by themselves.

I posted a personal story regarding children and testing earlier in the thread about my cousin and his family having it. The young kids even had symptoms first but it was dismissed as colds and they were never tested.

wirelessdude01

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, makes perfect sense when you think about it. Second-level students are better able to follow protocols and avoid spreading the disease, even if they are more likely to be infectious.

Four year olds are more like the ASTI - they don’t understand what needs to be done.

On a serious note, great news that the positivity rate is one-third that in the community, it shows that schools are not contributing to the spread of COVID in any meaningful way, and therefore should remain open.

Great to see someone who hasn't a clue making themselves the authority on everything.

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

I love how you quote what the rate in schools are like it's a fact from trusted, uncontested, unproblematic data.

Or the more you test, the more cases you find- like we saw happen when the teacher insisted to the HSE that the class needed to be tested as close contacts against the HSE's resistance but when they relented- found 7 more cases.

Nonsense like this is why we need teachers and not parents to teach maths. It's pretty obvious that more people you test the more cases you find but that still means that positivity rate will go down if the rate of infection in society is staying the same. Positivity rate is very simple concept yet it completely baffles some.

And btw positivity rate is a fact. It doesn't tell you the percentage of kids in school infected (it would be most likely lower percentage) it just tells you how many of the tests performed are coming back positive. That's a fact, it does estimate anything it just tells you how many among performed tests return positive for Corona.

wirelessdude01

8k71ps wrote: »

Yes they were [url] https://www.ucd.ie/newsandopinion/news/2020/april/10/hsedoublescovid-19testingcapacitythroughucdnvrlto10000followinggmiagreement/ [/url]

Well they definitely aren't now. It was Cillian De Gascun himself who said they only do about 600 now.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

Nonsense like this is why we need teachers and not parents to teach maths. It's pretty obvious that more people you test the more cases you find but that still means that positivity rate will go down if the rate of infection in society is staying the same. Positivity rate is very simple concept yet it completely baffles some.

Where did I demonstrate a lack of ability to do maths?

You are just getting your personal attacks in as per usual. Which is usually the first sign of someone not having anything else to fall back on.

The current positivity rate comes from a woeful lack of testing and tracing and from a problematic system that finally broke down and was unable to cope.

irishblessing

8k71ps wrote: »

Yes they were [url] https://www.ucd.ie/newsandopinion/news/2020/april/10/hsedoublescovid-19testingcapacitythroughucdnvrlto10000followinggmiagreement/ [/url]

In fairness that article only refers to what they would be capable of doing, not the confirmed number of tests they completed. Unless I missed it...

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

Where did I demonstrate a lack of ability to do maths?

You are just getting your personal attacks in as per usual. Which is usually the first sign of someone not having anything else to fall back on.

The current positivity rate comes from a woeful lack of testing and tracing and from a problematic system that finally broke down and was unable to cope.

I amended my previous post but I will repeat myself again:
positivity rate = number of positive tests returned/number of total tests.

If you test everyone in the country the positivity rate will be low, if you test only those who display severe symptoms the positivity rate will be high. However in absolute numbers you will find more Corona cases if you test the whole population than just those who display symptoms.

wirelessdude01

As it stands the official stats from NPHET makes it sound like we work in a of extreme healthiness. Those of us on the ground suspect, think and know otherwise.

Principals don't generally tend to give in to hyperbole much but when you have some willing to go on the news to call out Michael Martin over his BS talking then people really need to start listening.

These clips are freely available on the various virgin media news platforms.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

I amended my previous post but I will repeat myself again:
positivity rate = number of positive tests returned/number of total tests.

If you test everyone in the country yhe positivity rate will be low, of you test only those who display severe symptoms the positivity rate will be high. However in absolute numbers you will find more Corona cases if you test the whole population than just those who display symptoms.

Yeah, you edited your post after I quoted you and posted it. Unless you're correcting an error you should just post another reply to me at that stage.

Anyway, you first stated the positivity rate in school as fact like it's not sourced from a problematic system and in particular when dealing with the schools. It's now been revealed to the public that it failed. Data is contested by another source compiling verified data on schools, and in light of a completely disingenuous claim and play on semantics that the HSE have done "mass testing." Please.

I think if you test everyone in the schools more comprehensively, if the definition of close contact wasn't deliberately played with in order to not test as many students/pods/classes and have more teachers quarantined (which they obviously want to avoid with the shortage), then you would find many more positive, especially asymptomatic cases. Which would increase the positivity rate. If the total numbers of tests done in the education sector are far lower than they should be, the positivity rate would be lower and painting a false picture. Or am I missing something here.

meeeeh

I think it's probable that positivity rate in some schools is much higher than in others but it doesn't change what national average is for schools.

HerrKuehn

irishblessing wrote: »

Anyway, you first stated the positivity rate in school as fact like it's not sourced from a problematic system and in particular when dealing with the schools. It's now been revealed to the public that it failed. Data is contested by another source compiling verified data on schools, and in light of a completely disingenuous claim and play on semantics that the HSE have done "mass testing." Please.

Out of interest, what is this other source of data?

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

Or am I missing something here.

You are. Maybe someone else can explain what positivity rate actually is because I can't explain anymore clearly. (I guess that makes me a bad teacher and another argument to keep kids in schools).

irishblessing

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Out of interest, what is this other source of data?

The verified and collated data published by the people who run the "Alerting parents of outbreaks in schools Ireland." fb page. It's been quoted in the media now and government have been asked to explain the discrepancy, the last time I read an article on it the journalist said there had been no response.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

You are. Maybe someone else can explain what positivity rate actually is because I can't explain anymore clearly. (I guess that makes me a bad teacher and another argument to keep kids in schools).

You said it should be left to teachers, not parents to do maths. So out maths me then.

Do break this statement you made down for me so, and how a lack of cohesive definitions of close contacts, a lack of proper testing & tracing, and a collapsed system doesn't effect average positivity rate in schools:

I think it's probable that positivity rate in some schools is much higher than in others but it doesn't change what national average is for schools.

wirelessdude01

irishblessing wrote: »

The verified and collated data published by the people who run the "Alerting parents of outbreaks in schools Ireland." fb page. It's been quoted in the media now and government have been asked to explain the discrepancy, the last time I read an article on it the journalist said there had been no response.

I've seen both Virgin Media and RTE use data from it.

Fergal Bowers pretty much intimated on one broadcast that he believed their data moreso than the official figures.

HerrKuehn

irishblessing wrote: »

The verified and collated data published by the people who run the "Alerting parents of outbreaks in schools Ireland." fb page. It's been quoted in the media now and government have been asked to explain the discrepancy, the last time I read an article on it the journalist said there had been no response.

So its data from a facebook page. Who verifies it?

8k71ps

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Well they definitely aren't now. It was Cillian De Gascun himself who said they only do about 600 now.

I believe that's not telling the full story, as far as I'm aware it's much higher but unfortunately I can't give a source since it's somebody I know. 10,000 to 600 is extremely unlikely, I'd say he could be referring to the total average since it was barely operational for covid over the summer.

8k71ps

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So its data from a facebook page. Who verifies it?

The staff of the page. They do require actual proof though, there are hundreds of cases they reject due to a lack of evidence. I would certainly say by how it's reported there are many many more reported cases than the page reports rather than the other way around.

Also if they were just adding the cases willy nilly the government would have certainly said so to remove attention from it. So far all their stats have done to my knowledge is to add to the confusion, especially since every single education system in all of western Europe and most of the world are reporting cases much higher than ours alongside most international studies.

Blondini

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So its data from a facebook page. Who verifies it?

Biggest public conspiracy ever.

Over 116,000 lizard people got together and forged nearly 600 letters.

Better call Jim Corr!

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

You said it should be left to teachers, not parents to do maths. So out maths me then.

Do break this statement you made down for me so, and how a lack of cohesive definitions of close contacts, a lack of proper testing & tracing, and a collapsed system doesn't effect average positivity rate in schools:

Please please please read this first before you continue to post about positivity rate:

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/covid-19-testing-understanding-the-percent-positive.html

khalessi

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So its data from a facebook page. Who verifies it?

It is not a question of who but how.

The how is verified letters or texts from HSE and verified texts or letters from the schools to the parents. So far I am aware of a number of schools whch have had cases but have not been mentioned.

So I reckon the number on FB is under the actual number of schools with cases.

meeeeh

8k71ps wrote: »

The staff of the page. They do require actual proof though, there are hundreds of cases they reject due to a lack of evidence. I would certainly say by how it's reported there are many many more reported cases than the page reports rather than the other way around.

Also if they were just adding the cases willy nilly the government would have certainly said so to remove attention from it. So far all their stats have done to my knowledge is to add to the confusion, especially since every single education system in all of western Europe and most of the world are reporting cases much higher than ours alongside most international studies.

Are they counting all the negative tests returned among school children?

irishblessing

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So its data from a facebook page. Who verifies it?

I can pick up on your dismissiveness in saying "data from a fb page." You do know NASA, National Geographic, Uni's, WHO, CDC etc etc have social media pages and publish their data links on them?

Anyway, I already told you verifies it:
"published by the people who run the "Alerting parents of outbreaks in schools Ireland." fb page."

Parents, teachers, principals all contribute to that page. Letters and electronic messages sent by the HSE and/or the school are published by the admins. No one else is allowed to make posts. Many of the alerts have a couple different sources (HSE letter and school text alert for example) and most have comments from parents discussing the messages they received. I haven't seen any comments saying that never happened in their school and it's a fake. I honestly can't believe some government mole, MelbourneMan is a prime candidate, hasn't set about sending in a faked notice to undermine their efforts. I'm probably giving him ideas! :pac:

HSE knew they were on to them because the letters sent started to drastically reduce and were making more calls. Letters sent by some principals said not to put up on social media as per HSE instructions but obviously some people sent them anyway. Imagine how many more cases are not even published or public knowledge.

wirelessdude01

8k71ps wrote: »

I believe that's not telling the full story, as far as I'm aware it's much higher but unfortunately I can't give a source since it's somebody I know. 10,000 to 600 is extremely unlikely, I'd say he could be referring to the total average since it was barely operational for covid over the summer.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/national-lab-unable-process-coronavirus-tests-next-two-weekends-1095313

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

Are they counting all the negative tests returned among school children?

They are counting the actual positive cases which are much more than the actual number of positive cases released by HSE.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

It is not a question of who but how.

The how is verified letters or texts from HSE and verified texts or letters from the schools to the parents. So far I am aware of a number of schools whch have had cases but have not been mentioned.

So I reckon the number on FB is under the actual number of schools with cases.

Again what has that to do with positivity rate?

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

Please please please read this first before you continue to post about positivity rate:

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/covid-19-testing-understanding-the-percent-positive.html

meeeh, I understand how it's calculated. Stop trying to turn it into a misunderstanding of maths which it isn't and actually answer my questions which calls into question the validity of the data used in the maths. You're always so disingenuous in effort to be right at any cost it's ridiculous.

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

meeeh, I understand how it's calculated. Stop trying to turn it into a misunderstanding of maths which it isn't and actually answer my questions which calls into question the validity of the data used in the maths. You're always so disingenuous in effort to be right at any cost it's ridiculous.

What data? The test is either positive or it's not. Are you saying they are recording positive tests as negative?

8k71ps

meeeeh wrote: »

Please please please read this first before you continue to post about positivity rate:

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/covid-19-testing-understanding-the-percent-positive.html

All of the things they listed could lead to both decreases case numbers and increased positivity via lop-sided and parochial application of testing. It's not just a question of "the more tested the less the positivity rate". If you listen to any experience on the ground you'd know that the stats are effectively duds and we have to look to other countries to see if it transmits in schools higher than the general population (hint: it does)

HerrKuehn

Blondini wrote: »

Biggest public conspiracy ever.

Over 116,000 lizard people got together and forged nearly 600 letters.

Better call Jim Corr!

Oh you are back? Going to behave yourself this time?

I think it was a fair enough question to ask. Facebook is not generally regarded as a reliable source of information. I have no idea who is verifying it, I can't say whether it is correct or not. I suppose for it to be correct, the official numbers would have to be incorrect? We know who are verifying the official numbers.

One thing I find about this thread, just in general is a lot of hyperbole and confirmation bias. Anything which promotes what someone wants to believe is regarded as gold standard evidence, anything which doesn't is disregarded.

irishblessing

meeeeh wrote: »

What data? The test is either positive or it's not. Are you saying they are recording positive tests as negative?

OMG. You couldn't be more disingenuous if you tried. I already explicitly listed the problems with the testing and tracing system. You can't be taken seriously. If I'm going to be accused of being bad at maths then you need some help with reading comprehension.

meeeeh

8k71ps wrote: »

All of the things they listed could lead to both decreases case numbers and increased positivity via lop-sided and parochial application of testing. It's not just a question of "the more tested the less the positivity rate". If you listen to any experience on the ground you'd know that the stats are effectively duds and we have to look to other countries to see if it transmits in schools higher than the general population (hint: it does)

OK this is lizard people type stuff.

wirelessdude01

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/mouthwash-inactivate-covid-study/2020/10/22/1735cdd4-13c5-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html

We are missing a trick, mouthwash coupled with the auld hand sanitiser and we'll be outta this in jiffy!!

8k71ps

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Oh you are back? Going to behave yourself this time?

I think it was a fair enough question to ask. Facebook is not generally regarded as a reliable source of information. I have no idea who is verifying it, I can't say whether it is correct or not. I suppose for it to be correct, the official numbers would have to be incorrect? We know who are verifying the official numbers.

One thing I find about this thread, just in general is a lot of hyperbole and confirmation bias. Anything which promotes what someone wants to believe is regarded as gold standard evidence, anything which doesn't is disregarded.

If you want the "gold standard of evidence" Irish statistics, and especially HSE statistics tend to not be in that group. Really any evidence about effective covid policy due to the amount of variables. You can, however, look at the statistics of virtually every country on the planet to see at the very least the positivity rate they're quoting is comparable East Asian countries, ie hilariously low.

It is also a question of common sense. If the viral loads in children are similar , and the infectivity seems to increase to adult levels pretty quickly after puberty, then sticking 25 or more students in an unventilated room is bound to cause mass cases

8k71ps

meeeeh wrote: »

OK this is lizard people type stuff.

Please explain how any of this is lizard type stuff. I'm not claiming there is a mass conspiracy, I'm claiming gross incompetency. Are you claiming that it is unlike the HSE or this government to not properly investigate something and then backtrack later?
It is demonstrably true to say that selective and irregular testing and in schools both leads to a low number of cases and a low positivity rate, can you please explain otherwise?

irishblessing

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Oh you are back? Going to behave yourself this time?

I think it was a fair enough question to ask. Facebook is not generally regarded as a reliable source of information. I have no idea who is verifying it, I can't say whether it is correct or not. I suppose for it to be correct, the official numbers would have to be incorrect? We know who are verifying the official numbers.

One thing I find about this thread, just in general is a lot of hyperbole and confirmation bias. Anything which promotes what someone wants to believe is regarded as gold standard evidence, anything which doesn't is disregarded.

Then why haven't the government answered to the discrepancies and easily proven that a huge amount of reports are faked? They haven't because they can't.

On the one hand you have a huge discrepancy of cases that the government can't/won't answer to.

On the other hand, you have the changing and inconsistent definition of close contacts in the school, and a failure of the testing and tracing system. How are those not huge issues.

Whatever about the positivity rates aside, the point is that the contact and testing and tracing system in the schools (and wider community) have not been adequate, have failed, and it leaves us all at huge risk for this virus to be caught by our children and brought into our homes. Schools are not controlled environments, they are too small and overcrowded often lacking ventilation, ppe and any ability to social distance and one whole sector (the primary) aren't wearing masks. There is no blended remote learning plan that protects those more at risk and allows education to continue at some level of equity and which would reduce class sizes. We're all worse off because of it. That's the main point at the end of the day.

meeeeh

8k71ps wrote: »

If you want the "gold standard of evidence" Irish statistics, and especially HSE statistics tend to not be in that group. Really any evidence about effective covid policy due to the amount of variables. You can, however, look at the statistics of virtually every country on the planet to see at the very least the positivity rate they're quoting is comparable East Asian countries, ie hilariously low.

It is also a question of common sense. If the viral loads in children are similar , and the infectivity seems to increase to adult levels pretty quickly after puberty, then sticking 25 or more students in an unventilated room is bound to cause mass cases

Please read the link on positivity rate I posted. I'm talking about A and you are talking about Z.

meeeeh

8k71ps wrote: »

Please explain how any of this is lizard type stuff. I'm not claiming there is a mass conspiracy, I'm claiming gross incompetency. Are you claiming that it is unlike the HSE or this government to not properly investigate something and then backtrack later?
It is demonstrably true to say that selective and irregular testing and in schools both leads to a low number of cases and a low positivity rate, can you please explain otherwise?

Selective testing leads to high positivity rate not low.

khalessi

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Oh you are back? Going to behave yourself this time?

I think it was a fair enough question to ask. Facebook is not generally regarded as a reliable source of information. I have no idea who is verifying it, I can't say whether it is correct or not. I suppose for it to be correct, the official numbers would have to be incorrect? We know who are verifying the official numbers.

One thing I find about this thread, just in general is a lot of hyperbole and confirmation bias. Anything which promotes what someone wants to believe is regarded as gold standard evidence, anything which doesn't is disregarded.

NOw you are getting it.

Firstly, the people with offical numbers are lying.

Secondly, The hyperbole on this is people not agreeing with your or a certain couple of others opinions.

What is regarded as gold standard evidence (numbers by HSE) has been seen to be incorrect by those on the floor. I dont care if the the positivity gets lower the more they test. What I care about is honesty and transparency.

The fact the HSE only wanted a pod in a classroom tested after a positive case and the teacher insisted on whole class, and lo and behold 7 more asymptomatic positive cases will tell you that the protocol the HSE is using is incorrect.

Best practice would be to test the whole class and if that results in less positivity rate - great!! At least it is honest. But the HSE is not carrying out best practice.

So people resort to FB where the letters have to be verified before publishing. Martina the head admin, has stated that she has plenty of schools with positive cases and cant publish them as not verified. SHe has also been the subject of 2 reports in the paper where I am sure good journalists would check her sources before publishing as she has offered them up for scrutiny.

meeeeh

irishblessing wrote: »

meeeh, I understand how it's calculated. Stop trying to turn it into a misunderstanding of maths which it isn't and actually answer my questions which calls into question the validity of the data used in the maths. You're always so disingenuous in effort to be right at any cost it's ridiculous.

What validity. You are going on about contact tracing but if they would test too few positivity rate would be high. So unless you have proof they are counting positives as negatives then I don't know what are you on about.

8k71ps

meeeeh wrote: »

Selective testing leads to high positivity rate not low.

If you read what I said you'd know that in the case where they test either many contacts or few contacts than it wouldn't, which is again what most teachers seem to be claiming, alongside everything else which you're ignoring.

wirelessdude01

All this arguing about positivity rate. None of us in the education sector give a hoot about it. Up or down we don't care.

What we want is a properly defined close contact that is stuck to for testing purposes. Not one that seems to be fluid and open to interpretation by the public health person that takes the school case.

In primary once a positive case has been in school within their infectious period then that whole class should be tested and all associated staff. No ifs and buts.

I know I'd be happy with that.

It would lead to more trust from us in the system that is meant to be be keeping schools open.

MelbourneMan

irishblessing wrote: »

Thank god it's me, ha ha :pac:



You can't answer direct questions and you conveniently ignore criticisms. You're not an authority on anything and provide no proof of anything yet you think you've got some kind of special importance or legitimacy here. You don't.

Hello. I am sorry you have that impression. I try to answer any questions as fully as possible. My main goal, and that of those trying to help the general communication and understanding of the crisis, is to simplify as far as possible, while providing factually correct answers.
I observe that there is a lot of poor quality information here, which leads to circular discussions, and the citing of poor quality references, or ones beyond the training of some drawing conclusions from them to make a point. I some cases, less is more, and à streamlined answer to some of the questions being posed or discussed here, is, I think, more helpful to all.

8k71ps

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

All this arguing about positivity rate. None of us in the education sector give a hoot about it. Up or down we don't care.

What we want is a defined close contact that is stuck to for testing purposes.

In primary once a positive case has been in school within their infectious period then that whole class should be tested and all associated staff. No ifs and buts.

I know I'd be happy with that.

It would lead to more trust from us in the system that is meant to be be keeping schools open.

Would you not be a wee bit concerned if the positivity rate in schools was massively higher than what is reported and higher than the population at large. That is literally impossible at current PCR capacity without innaccurate antigen test that would lead to practically the same situation they're probably in.

Trust is impossible because at the current level of community transmission they should be closed, and if they aren't it'll likely extend lockdown to much much further out than it otherwise would be.

wirelessdude01

8k71ps wrote: »

Would you not be a wee bit concerned if the positivity rate in schools was massively higher than what is reported and higher than the population at large. That is literally impossible at current PCR capacity without innaccurate antigen test that would lead to practically the same situation they're probably in.

If the positivity rate was that much higher then it would lead to other issues and I think keeping schools open would slide down thr last of priorities.

As it stands we in the education sector don't have much if any faith in the system that is meant to be keeping us open.

JimmyVik

The thing im worried about is that if/when schools close, as they are starting to in the rest of Europe, we have nothing in place for remote learning.
Totally wasted the window that schools, kids and parents had to get trained up and prepared for remote learning.
Now it will be back to the hodge podge suck it and see methods for everyone.
That is just not going to work.
Seriously, what harm could have come from just prerparing for the eventuality that schools be closed.
What a monumental waste of time, just because some politicians and medical people wanted to not have to swallow their words.

wirelessdude01

JimmyVik wrote: »

The thing im worried about is that if/when schools close, as they are starting to in the rest of Europe, we have nothing in place for remote learning.
Totally wasted the window that schools, kids and parents had to get trained up and prepared for remote learning.
Now it will be back to the hodge podge suck it and see methods for everyone.
That is just not going to work.
Seriously, what harm could have come from just prerparing for the eventuality that schools be closed.
What a monumental waste of time, just because some politicians and medical people wanted to not have to swallow their words.

Think most schools have been working away on something. Now again it won't please everyone. Not the schools fault. We wanted some form of central framework but the govt didn't want this.

Str8outtaWuhan

if a nurse or a doctor has the covid tracker app and they receive notification they are a close contact do they isolate for 14 days or do they have to contact their hospital manager who asks PH to determine if they are to disregard the notification? Heard one of the journo's asking the weird red headed woman on briefing about teachers and the app, couldn't believe the app was context specific?