|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 20, 2020 23:40:40 GMT
It's my understanding that statistic came from several sources basically considering how closely students are seated in schools and on school buses, while queuing for activities, etc. It also considered the percentage of students with existing health issues. It was deemed that, while more than 2% would get the virus, probably closer to 10%, only 2% were at a high enough risk for the virus to be fatal.
Obviously, the parents of those 2% thought that was far too great a threat to allow their children to return to school.
The problem came when POTUS and DeVos said it was imperative for schools to reopen, and who cared about a measly 2%. Their push to reopen the country before the elections took precedent over everything, including the lives of 2% of the children. That didn't even include the teachers, administrators, cafeteria and janitorial staff, bus drivers, or anyone else involved in datmy to day education.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 21, 2020 7:03:50 GMT
I know figures are constantly changing as we learn more, but I don't remember it ever being reported that the risk to kids was that high here. Aside from those with health conditions, kids have mainly been seen as a problem because of them being super spreaders.
The GCSE results (the exams you take at 16) came out yesterday. They'd had time to abandon their algorithm and revert to teachers' predictions, so the results are the best ever, 10% up on last year! Some kids will deserve the grades, but no doubt this year's results will be tainted by people feeling they've been artificially inflated.
At least these exams are usually just a stepping stone to the next stage of education or training, so they can prove themselves in whatever they go on to do. As long as you've done reasonably well in the core subjects, no one really cares about your GCSE results once you have A levels or whatever you do next.
Increasing competition for university places, and potentially affecting who is eligible for certain courses at a much higher level of education, has been a lot more problematic with the A level results.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 21, 2020 21:02:12 GMT
I know it can't be done for any hands-on education, but have many of your universities gone with remote classes? Those allow a lot more students to attend than can fit in a classroom, and seem to fit a lot more schedules than having to attend on campus, at a certain time. People can live at home, work, and still take the courses. We now have whole universities that are remote. How well they rate against the on-campus schools, I have no idea, but I know enough about a lot of the ones that have both on-campus and remote to know they are giving the remote students the same level of education as the on-campus students.
As you said, you can't do remote with medical and other sciences that require to you be hands-on in a lab, under an instructors supervision. I just wondered of the UK higher education system was going that way as much as the US higher education system is.
As for the 2% number, it was first mentioned at least 2 months ago, maybe longer, and I'm only able to report my recollections of how they arrived at the 2% figure. I just remember the CDC was involved in promoting that number, but I don't remember the details.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 22, 2020 6:32:12 GMT
We do have online options for degrees but they tend to be used more by older people who are already working or have families etc and need the flexibility. Younger folk tend to want the full university experience with all the social stuff.
Many universities are moving lectures online in the short term, because of the pandemic, so perhaps some changes will come about from how that works out.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 22, 2020 23:39:04 GMT
Because so many universities had remote learning before the pandemic, it made it very easy for them to continue all students remotely. They had the equipment and software in place, and the experience to simply open the remote learning to all students. It worked out really well. The lower grades didn't do anything remotely, so suffered having to provide remote learning in a week, once the schools closed for the pandemic. They had barely gotten most of the bugs worked out of their processes, when the school year ended, and have spent the summer making sure they had all the bugs out of the process.
On the news, tonight, there was a segment about the safety of school buses, and the fact that many parents were refusing to send their children back to school without a whole lot more guarantees about how their safety would be managed. School buses were a large part of that, because there's a driver, but no monitor to make sure the students stay socially distanced. That's been the major issue parents have expressed, how the processes the school districts are using to make it safe for students to return to school, will be overseen so the schools can guarantee the parents their children will be safe. So far, no guarantees, and I'm not sure how the schools would do that without hiring a whole lot of people to act as classroom, hallway, bathroom, and bus monitors. The school districts don't have that money in their budgets, since many are having to hire teachers at the last minutes, to replace the ones who quite because of the virus. Apparently that's not going well, either.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 23, 2020 7:23:53 GMT
I feel quite comfortable with my kids going back to school next month. I don't think it'll be perfect in terms of managing social distancing despite the major changes they've made to how the school day runs (different year groups shouldn't overlap at all now for instance), but there are many adults totally failing on that, whether at work or in their personal lives.
This virus is here to stay and the costs of us all shutting down are proving high, both economically/ financially and in terms of mental health too. If any of us had serious health conditions, I would of course be asking more questions, and think provision should be made for those who are very vulnerable to carry on shielding as things start up again. Given you can't control how well other people you may be around are adhering to the guidelines, I can understand that some people don't want to take any risk, and there should be an element of choice while the pandemic is still a significant issue in our lives.
|
|
|
Post by bazookagoof on Aug 23, 2020 17:56:18 GMT
I know there's no guarantee against the trumpvirus, but it seems that wearing a mask, washing your hands and maintaining a safe distance really does make a difference. If my daughter makes it through the next few months without an incident, that will strengthen my point. (assuming she herself follows the rules.)
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 24, 2020 6:55:10 GMT
We're getting a few more stats thrown at us as the government tries to reassure people that it's safe for kids to return to school. According to the Office for National Statistics, of the 46,725 covid-19 deaths recorded between March to June, 10 of those were in people aged 19 or under.
Death rates vary substantially by age, ranging from 0.0016% in 0 to 9-year-olds to 7.8% for people aged 80 and above. A neighbour of mine in her 80s needs to visit the emergency dentist (she's not left the house since March) and she's not liking her odds, which I can understand. Although she's been watching the sort of news that gets people worked up, so seems to believe she has something closer to only a 1 in 10 chance of survival if she steps out of the house.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 24, 2020 19:18:34 GMT
I think you're both right. I also think the pandemic has forced an issue we've overlooked for years, how to keep people safe from other peoples germs. As Baz said, wearing a mask, washing hands, and social distancing, are proven to help, not stop it, but help. That means anyone with a cold, the flu or COVID-19 should wear a mask. Yes, there are other viruses transmitted through our breath, and obviously anyone with those should also wear a mask, wash hands, and maintain social distancing.
That said, how to our societies, globally, implement those restrictions. So many idiot Americans are railing against having to wear masks, not because they don't think the masks work, but because they don't want anyone telling them what to do. It isn't the same as being told to wear a coat when it's cold. We've all gone outside when it's freezing, and not gotten sick. This is basically taking steps everyone can easily take, even the poorest of people can simply pull up a t-shirt to cover their mouths, and most charitable organizations are dispensing masks to anyone who needs one. We can all wash our hands, and we can all give each other some decent space.
How we manage that on any form of mass transit still needs to be determined, as mass transit is about getting the most money for moving the most people as often as possible. Airlines have removed the semi-comfortable seating in favor of cramming people into business class seating. But even first class doesn't give passengers much breathing distance, just more comfortable seating. Buses and trains are about capacity, so having to seat people in every other seat means less capacity and less money. Not many can afford to run under those restrictions. So there's a lot to be worked out with mass transit.
Schools are working on how to keep students safe, while still providing the same level of education. That education obviously included sports teams, drama clubs, etc. which are all suspended for the rest of 2020, at least in the US. Most college football has been canceled for the 20/21 season, as have other sports. Obviously anything that gets large numbers of people seated in the stands has been canceled. School busing is still an issue.
Once we figure out how to do all of these things safely, we should be able to apply all of that knowledge to any airborn virus transmission, and stop the endless rounds of flue, lurgy, and everything else we all bring home from work or school, and keep passing around to each other. It may be as simple as wearing a mask and washing our hands. Wouldn't that be a kicker, if we could have prevented all of these things so easily, all along.
As an older person, I'm with your 80 year old friend, and we're going to wear masks in public, period. If we get food from a restaurant, we'll get take out. We will ride on group transits, as long as masks are required. It's really been up to us to keep ourselves healthy, anyway. The pandemic just shoved that responsibility in our faces. I really hope we set some new requirements, as a global society, though I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 25, 2020 7:30:33 GMT
I think if we manage to eliminate certain viruses, others will just come along and take their place - they've been around longer than us and are much cleverer at adapting. I don't think we'll ever win.
Another consideration is that living in a more sterile environment has its costs - it'll save some people, sure, but if our immune systems don't get such a good workout as we grow up (most of which we're totally unaware of), in the long run we'll be less resilient and more likely to get wiped out by something like this inevitably coming along.
Humans are social animals (well, most are!) - I think modern life has already had an impact on our happiness, and the way we're dealing with this virus in terms of distancing ourselves from others is making a lot of people isolated and unhappy. There are pros and cons to everything, and I reckon we're a long way from an effective answer to it all, especially as you say, with the fact there are ever increasing numbers of us.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 26, 2020 1:34:48 GMT
I think we're a long way from living in a sterile environment. I also think this pandemic has forced us to find ways to protect ourselves and those around us. If we continue the practice, the illnesses won't stop, but the spread can be greatly reduced. We can't protect ourselves from everything, all the time, so our immune systems should stay strong.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 26, 2020 6:48:23 GMT
The kids growing up on farms will be okay! There's been an increase in the use of antibacterials, hand sanitisers and bleach etc over recent years, something already thought to be one part of the puzzle in why allergies and auto-immune conditions are both thriving in countries like ours. That's only increased this year. Of course there's an acute need for caution at the moment, but I don't know how the stats pan out long term in terms of the risks avoided versus the risks added.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 26, 2020 18:13:50 GMT
I am extremely allergic to the hand sanitizer. I can't breathe around the stuff, and it's freaking everywhere, now! I'll be really glad when that phase passes.
You mention kids on farms. I've lived in rural areas most of my life, and live in one, now. They're not convenient to shopping and other going-out things, but they are generally far from pollution, and because we have more personal space in rural areas, we're not constantly transmitting every illness back and forth. Obviously, that didn't matter when daughter was in school, and hubby was at work. They brought home everything, but even then, I often managed to avoid what they had. I've also always slept with the window open, no matter how cold, so I had all night in a well-aired room. I think that matters, and I'm seeing it suggested by health professionals more and more often, over the last few years. Basically, air the sickness out of the house, clean the air, instead of using all the disinfectants. I still use vinegar and water instead of all the fancy disinfectants, and it's food grade.
I'd just like to see the continued wearing of masks in schools, offices, public transit, etc. My parents used to travel a lot, and my father came home sick, every time. My mother said it was from all the people coughing, sneezing, etc., on the plane, on the way home. If nothing else, he should have worn a mask, as she often didn't get the illness.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 27, 2020 7:07:47 GMT
Older houses often had decent airflow with all the draughts - modern houses can be almost airtight!
The farm thing is also to do with all the microbes you're exposed to being around earth and animals rather than sanitised surfaces. Even having pets as a kid helps, giving your immune system a bit more training as you grow up.
You have to put hand sanitiser on as you go into many shops at the moment. I never use it normally, and by the end of a shopping trip my hands feel really tight and sore. Some of them do really honk too.
With all this awareness of touching and potentially spreading germs, I wonder how it will affect everyone's behaviour in the long run, or if people will just be glad when they can ditch all these extra measures.
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 27, 2020 20:47:09 GMT
I understand what you're saying, and agree but think we'll find as balance between getting the microbes, and stopping the spread of viral and bacterial illnesses. Hand sanitizers HAVE to go, once the pandemic ends. Perhaps urban schools should have animal visitation programs. They should definitely have outdoor time, especially in parks and other grassy places.
We'll never recreate rural conditions in urban areas, but we can definitely create situations that expose those students to the good microbes, in fun or interesting ways.
Meanwhile, we continue to wear masks, to thoroughly wash our hands when needed, to maintain social distancing, and to do as many things as possible remotely, when we're ill.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 28, 2020 6:34:55 GMT
Maybe this whole thing will make people a bit more hygienic when unwell. If anyone coughs or sneezes while out and about at the moment you can see everyone shrink back - as the cougher you must feel the pressure to keep your potential germs to yourself! (I know not everyone with a cough has a lurgy, so do feel for people who just can't avoid coughing!)
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 28, 2020 12:43:40 GMT
That's my point. We don't need superbug-preventing hygiene. We need snti-superbug spreading hygiene, and now we know how to do that.
Took Peanut put for icecream yesterday, and she proudly wore her mask without even being asked. She and her friends have some great masks, and can't wait for school to start so they can model their masks. Great way to stop the spread of all the annual superbugs.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 29, 2020 6:47:25 GMT
Glad you had a good trip out with Peanut!
I think I posted it a few months back, but I remember this plea, written by a teacher at the start of the pandemic. It gave me a chuckle, and hopefully won't come to be true for teachers now a lot of schools have to/ are choosing to make them compulsory!
|
|
|
Post by 3piggles on Aug 30, 2020 2:33:44 GMT
Yes, you posted it, and I thought it was right on the mark. I still think it is for some people, and obviously not every childs parents can afford cool theme masks for them to be proud to wear, which is too bad. If anything, I wish people would donate cool masks the kids could wear, so the school could give them out to those who needed them.
Now that yours will be headed back to school, do you think the schools will allow all this stuff, and do you think the kids will do it? I can see the older kids doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Aug 30, 2020 6:17:16 GMT
Kids can make entertainment out of anything! But it looks like schools are set to come down hard on any intentional flouting of safety, so I doubt they'll get away with twanging masks etc.
I'm hoping face masks don't become too much of a fashion accessory thing in schools - I know some kids will enjoy making a statement of it, but I hope those who don't want to or can't join in with having stylish ones are left to their own devices. If that does become an issue and the kids will be wearing them long term, I'd rather see schools insisting on a plain one to match their uniform, or even making their own uniform-matching ones, rather than people donating fancy ones.
|
|