Coronavirus UK: Only 10% parents happy to send kids back to school

Most parents do not want their children to return to school as soon as the coronavirus lockdown is ended, with some happy to wait as long as 18 months, a survey has today revealed.

Just one in ten parents said they would happily send their children back to school as soon as the lockdown ends, results from the survey suggests.

A quarter of parents said the would feel comfortable with a September return date if it was confirmed now, while 7 per cent favoured July, according to data from the survey by charity Parentkind.

One in ten parents said they would only be happy to send their children back when staff and pupils had been vaccinated against Covid-19 - even if this took up to 18 months.

The figures come as union bosses today warned that teachers in fear of catching coronavirus are being asked to come back to schools, including for face-to-face meetings, to prepare for the return of students.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296605/Teachers-risk-catching-coronavirus-asked-return-schools-prepare-reopening.html

Kids under a certain age simply don't understand social distancing, as you can see right now at any grocery store. Daily deaths from C-19 would have to drop below 100 before I'd be ready to very cautiously re-open the schools.

As I said below, people are not willing to treat their kids (or themselves) as guinea-pigs. Let's let everyone else go, and we'll see who comes back!

The lockdown be damned; its opening up that won't work.

Original Quill wrote:As I said below, people are not willing to treat their kids (or themselves) as guinea-pigs.  Let's let everyone else go, and we'll see who comes back!

The lockdown be damned; its opening up that won't work.

Quill, I’m not really a worry-wart parent, but I’m not comfortable sending a huge piece of my heart back into the world.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As I said below, people are not willing to treat their kids (or themselves) as guinea-pigs.  Let's let everyone else go, and we'll see who comes back!

The lockdown be damned; its opening up that won't work.

Quill, I’m not really a worry-wart parent, but I’m not comfortable sending a huge piece of my heart back into the world.

You don't have to be a helicopter parent to warn a child not to go too close to the cliff, or not to eat the Tide packet. Likewise, in a pandemic it is not unreasonable to insist a child take precautions. Among those precautions is not to go back to school until you have proof that it is all right.

And so, if your children must stay home, then someone must be there to take care of them. So you are motivated, twice, to not go back to work. First, to take care of the kids. Second, because you too do not want to become infected. When one piece of the support web fails, it all fails.

I know that your situation is better off, but how many are in that ^ position? People who think that the economy will open up in a week, or a month, are delusional.

Totally agree with you Quill. Ben will still be here if I have to go back to work, but only until end of June when his six month visa runs out.

Agreed, Quill. You shouldn't be overprotective of your kids, except for when it comes to their health.

Surely the government will keep them safe.

Maddog wrote:Surely the government will keep them safe.

Can you explain your point?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Surely the government will keep them safe.

Can you explain your point?

Who runs most of your schools?

If you look at death rate in UK so far... 45 year old and under account for only about 350 deaths... Most of whom had underlying health issues ..

And what happens if this has not gone away in a year? Two years?  3 years etc? Considering this virus is continually mutating. The chances of a working vaccine in the near future is slim to say the last and could take years to develop. We cannot put our lives on continual hold. As money simple does not grow on trees.

What is needed is to introduce methods that make it a safer environment for children at school and people going to back to work. At present only two years are possible going back in June. That is manageable numbers for a school. They could also hold classes outside and make it thus more manageable to teach. Where it is enclosed spaces where there is an issue. Hence the summer should be taken advantage of to help get as many kids back to school as possible. Which will release up more people being able o go to work.

The reality is though people have to understand that at some point, we have to carry on with our lives. I have gone back to work even though I am exempt from doing so for the 12 week period, because I am not going to put my life on hold indefinitely.

Like Tommy says, its children who are least likely to be effected by this and hence why teachers should wear masks and gloves for the foreseeable future

Best to have most people exposed to it before it has a chance to mutate...


Then herd immunity will mean it dues out completely.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As I said below, people are not willing to treat their kids (or themselves) as guinea-pigs.  Let's let everyone else go, and we'll see who comes back!

The lockdown be damned; its opening up that won't work.

Quill, I’m not really a worry-wart parent, but I’m not comfortable sending a huge piece of my heart back into the world.

This /\.

If I still had youngsters I just would not send them back to school in the present climate.
I have a feeling that many other parents who will shortly be facing this dilemma, especially if they can work from home themselves, will think along the same lines.

Tommy Monk wrote:Best to have most people exposed to it before it has a chance to mutate...


Then herd immunity will mean it dues out completely.

That's the cold and logical way of looking at it.

Unfortunately to gain herd immunity the elderly, vulnerable and sick will be the foot soldiers....as long as people are OK with this (that'll be the younger, fitter, more heartless ones in society) this may work.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Quill, I’m not really a worry-wart parent, but I’m not comfortable sending a huge piece of my heart back into the world.

This /\.

If I still had youngsters I just would not send them back to school in the present climate.
I have a feeling that many other parents who will shortly be facing this dilemma, especially if they can work from home themselves, will think along the same lines.

And yet we have staff returning as they are unable to concentrate at home, due to the kids constantly distracting them. In fact some parents will split the time they can get out of the house and into segregated spaces at work. So they are able to work in peace.

Its not as clear cut as you think Syl

Again as Tommy says children at least likely to be effected and what are people going to do in a years time if we still face the same problem? How about 5 years? At some point we have to return to some form of normality. Whether that be based on protective measures or that we have this virus under control.

Many European countries has seen their kids go back to school or has  set dates for this.

At the end of the day, so far only two year groups might possible return to schools. I fail to see how this could not be managed.

What is required is people to maintain distance, cleanliness and more importantly provide masks/gloves for everyone when in confined spaces. This will vastly decrease the risk of the virus spreading

Nothing concerning the social effects of this virus is clear cut, everyone, if they have followed the guide lines has had to make huge sacrifices and change their lifestyles.

I have family and friends who are home schooling, some are also working from home...no one said it was easy.

When classes of young children are expected to stay 2 metres apart from each other for up to 7 hours, I would say that's an impossibility. A teacher maintaining that distance from her pupils is also impossible.

I know children of key workers have been in school, but the classes are much diminished so far easier to handle. When full classes return that will be vastly different.

The best and proven way so far to decrease the virus from spreading is to stay home.
The figures of daily new infection and death are still too high to change the guidelines imo.

Germany for eg relaxed the lockdown rules and the infection rate is once more increasing.

Not its not am impossibility to maintain distance for a child and we are not even talking about full classes as again it would only be two years coming back to school.

Again we are talking about a group that is the least effected by this virus

So by your method and this virus is still around in 10 years, which it is likely to be, you think we should thus continue to stay at home?

Flue is here year on year with no cure and it kills around up to 25, 000 per year. Of course this is far worse this virus, but we cannot maintain a stay at home policy indefinitely. Its simple not sustainable. What we have to control is the levels of people infected who need critical care. Based on the number of critical beds we have.

How do you think this will benefit children in the long term with education Syl? Like I say, you cannot work on a principle of staying home indefinitely

Plus many parents cannot work from home and we have to provide a way where many can return to work

The best way to decrease a virus, is to create a vaccine or provide medical means to tackle this.

Germany has had a 120 new cases today. Are you suggesting they continue s stay at home method for this miniscule amount of people infected?

My view is that kids over the age of 12 should all be working from home doing their school work. They do not require supervision and its down to them to do the work.

Then younger kids could be spread out over many schools including secondary. Where they are at an age of needing first hand teaching. This would allow secondary schools to be used  and to have much smaller classes an thus a return for all primary school kid's to return to school..

An online system of teacher support should be provided for those in secondary whilst they work from home.

Like I said the stay at home policy can only work and be maintained for a short period of time, as the country will at some point become financially unsustainable.

I mean for crying out loud, during the war people over came their fears and did not allow a war to stop them living their daily lives. Yes they made adjustments to this, but they carried out with a far greater threat which age did not play a factor in the risk.

phil wrote:I mean for crying out loud, during the war people over came their fears and did not allow a war to stop them living their daily lives. Yes they made adjustments to this, but they carried out with a far greater threat which age did not play a factor in the risk.

During the war, people weren't facing a biological death threat amid everyday life activities. There were death threats on the battlefield, but here we are talking about everyday life.

Even on the battlefield, they didn't voluntarily walk into a bullet, as people are being asked to do in this situation.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I mean for crying out loud, during the war people over came their fears and did not allow a war to stop them living their daily lives. Yes they made adjustments to this, but they carried out with a far greater threat which age did not play a factor in the risk.

During the war, people weren't facing a biological death threat amid everyday life activities.  There were death threats on the battlefield, but here we are talking about everyday life.

Even on the battlefield, they didn't voluntarily walk into a bullet, as people are being asked to do in this situation.

Really?

Why were many trained to wear gasmasks then quill and we are talking about civilian's here, not soldiers?

Just because something was not used, does not mean there was not a threat. That gas would be used

Plus the people faced a far worse fear of death where staying at home was unlikely to protect them from bombs failing from the sky.

Even more so when the V1 and V2 were used and targeted the Uk

phil wrote:Why were many trained to wear gasmasks then quill and we are talking about civilian's here, not soldiers?

Chemical warfare on civilians was not nearly as prevalent a threat, during WWII, as this particular virus.

phil wrote:Plus the people faced a far worse fear of death where staying at home was unlikely to protect them from bombs failing from the sky.

A virus does not deal in 'fear'. A virus deals in reality, and most assuredly will come upon you if you continue to ignore it.

Fear has nothing to do with this kind of threat. Prudence does.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Best to have most people exposed to it before it has a chance to mutate...


Then herd immunity will mean it dues out completely.

That's the cold and logical way of looking at it.

Unfortunately to gain herd immunity the elderly, vulnerable and sick will be the foot soldiers....as long as people are OK with this (that'll be the younger, fitter, more heartless ones in society) this may work.

No... The old and vulnerable and sick would not need exposure forbherd immunity... I think it's around 60% of everyone else who needs exposure... Then the virus would quickly due out...


The old/vulnerable/sick couldhave just stayed in for a few weeks while herd immunity level was reached among everyone else...

Thorin wrote:Not its not am impossibility to maintain distance for a child and we are not even talking about full classes as again it would only be two years coming back to school.

Again we are talking about a group that is the least effected by this virus

So by your method and this virus is still around in 10 years, which it is likely to be, you think we should thus continue to stay at home?

Flue is here year on year with no cure and it kills around up to 25, 000 per year. Of course this is far worse this virus, but we cannot maintain a stay at home policy indefinitely. Its simple not sustainable. What we have to control is the levels of people infected who need critical care. Based on the number of critical beds we have.

How do you think this will benefit children in the long term with education Syl? Like I say, you cannot work on a principle of staying home indefinitely

Plus many parents cannot work from home and we have to provide a way where many can return to work

The best way to decrease a virus, is to create a vaccine or provide medical means to tackle this.

Germany has had a 120 new cases today. Are you suggesting they continue s stay at home method for this miniscule amount of people infected?

My view is that kids over the age of 12 should all be working from home doing their school work. They do not require supervision and its down to them to do the work.

Then younger kids could be spread out over many schools including secondary. Where they are at an age of needing first hand teaching. This would allow secondary schools to be used  and to have much smaller classes an thus a return for all primary school kid's to return to school..

An online system of teacher support should be provided for those in secondary whilst they work from home.

Like I said the stay at home policy can only work and be maintained for a short period of time, as the country will at some point become financially unsustainable.

I mean for crying out loud, during the war people over came their fears and did not allow a war to stop them living their daily lives. Yes they made adjustments to this, but they carried out with a far greater threat which age did not play a factor in the risk.

Thor, in Germany the R rate has, since the lockdown was relaxed, gone up to 1.1....which means every person infected will affect more than one other, it may only be 120 new cases today, but you must have seen the charts that explain how that can multiply over the weeks.
Infection rate below ONE, and the lower the better, and the infection rate will eventually diminish, as it has begun to do in the UK....above ONE and it will quickly start spreading again.

The war took millions of lives, just as this deadly has the potential to do. The war lasted 6 years...we have only been dealing with this virus for 3 months. No one is saying lockdowns have to last indefinitely, it should however last as long as it takes to ensure that people are safe from it.

We have vaccines for the flu btw, and scientists have a good idea on which flu strains are going to hit.....so far we have no idea how to treat this new virus, so that's where the difference lies between this new virus and the flu.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's the cold and logical way of looking at it.

Unfortunately to gain herd immunity the elderly, vulnerable and sick will be the foot soldiers....as long as people are OK with this (that'll be the younger, fitter, more heartless ones in society) this may work.

No... The old and vulnerable and sick would not need exposure forbherd immunity... I think it's around 60% of everyone else who needs exposure... Then the virus would quickly due out...


The old/vulnerable/sick couldhave just stayed in for a few weeks while herd immunity level was reached among everyone else...

Many elderly people don't have family, friends, communities to enable them to stay in. For eg, over 70's are being advised to stay in, which is great if they can, many over 70's are fit enough not to expect special care, so they have to sort themselves out re food, medication ect. It's not easy to get home deliveries since this virus hit....they are classed as vulnerable, but they still have to go out.


But concentrating on the less vulnerable, herd immunity means that there will be many deaths. Figures are showing that many under 70's, 60's and even 50's have already fell victim.

Tommy Monk wrote:No... The old and vulnerable and sick would not need exposure forbherd immunity... I think it's around 60% of everyone else who needs exposure... Then the virus would quickly due out...

They once thought they had eradicated the small pox microbe. Then someone in a lab dropped a test tube, and in the following weeks people in the floor below came down with small pox.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:Not its not am impossibility to maintain distance for a child and we are not even talking about full classes as again it would only be two years coming back to school.

Again we are talking about a group that is the least effected by this virus

So by your method and this virus is still around in 10 years, which it is likely to be, you think we should thus continue to stay at home?

Flue is here year on year with no cure and it kills around up to 25, 000 per year. Of course this is far worse this virus, but we cannot maintain a stay at home policy indefinitely. Its simple not sustainable. What we have to control is the levels of people infected who need critical care. Based on the number of critical beds we have.

How do you think this will benefit children in the long term with education Syl? Like I say, you cannot work on a principle of staying home indefinitely

Plus many parents cannot work from home and we have to provide a way where many can return to work

The best way to decrease a virus, is to create a vaccine or provide medical means to tackle this.

Germany has had a 120 new cases today. Are you suggesting they continue s stay at home method for this miniscule amount of people infected?

My view is that kids over the age of 12 should all be working from home doing their school work. They do not require supervision and its down to them to do the work.

Then younger kids could be spread out over many schools including secondary. Where they are at an age of needing first hand teaching. This would allow secondary schools to be used  and to have much smaller classes an thus a return for all primary school kid's to return to school..

An online system of teacher support should be provided for those in secondary whilst they work from home.

Like I said the stay at home policy can only work and be maintained for a short period of time, as the country will at some point become financially unsustainable.

I mean for crying out loud, during the war people over came their fears and did not allow a war to stop them living their daily lives. Yes they made adjustments to this, but they carried out with a far greater threat which age did not play a factor in the risk.

Thor, in Germany the R rate has, since the lockdown was relaxed,  gone up to 1.1....which means every person infected will affect more than one other, it may only be 120 new cases today, but you must have seen the charts that explain how that can multiply over the weeks.
Infection rate below ONE, and the lower the better,  and the infection rate will eventually diminish, as it has begun to do in the UK....above ONE and it will quickly start spreading again.

The war took millions of lives, just as this deadly has the potential to do. The war lasted 6 years...we have only been dealing with this virus for 3 months. No one is saying lockdowns have to last indefinitely, it should however last as long as it takes to ensure that people are safe from it.  

We have vaccines for the flu btw, and scientists have a good idea on which flu strains are going to hit.....so far we have no idea how to treat this new virus, so that's where the difference lies between this new virus and the flu.

I have continually looked at the charts and  studied them. So going off a small increase dopes not then mean shut down all the hatches again. As by doing so, you will make that country unsustainable. Its about monitoring the situation but more importantly. People need to start grasping we cannot locked down anytime there is a slight increase. What needs to be done is to keep the numbers at a sustainable level, The vast majority that have died have been over 70+ and its this group as well as those with vulnerable conditions we should protect. The vast majority have to continue on with life and help provide for them. We have to accept that there will be up and down spikes in contracting this and its about ensuring we keep the numbers to a level that are system can cope with.

We are better placed with more healthy people contracting and over coming this. Which will be the vast majority of people under 60

Yes we have only been dealing with this for 3 months and its likely to go on for years and hence why its not sustainable to continually have a stay at home policy. The point is people faced this threat over years and adjusted their lives to have some normality. That is not going to happen if a country never economically gets off the ground again

No we have best guess flu vaccines, which change every eat because the flu changes. Hence why people continue to lose their lives. At best it reduces the risk, which is what we must concentrate on doing. That requires many of the methods I explain already

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



No... The old and vulnerable and sick would not need exposure forbherd immunity... I think it's around 60% of everyone else who needs exposure... Then the virus would quickly due out...


The old/vulnerable/sick couldhave just stayed in for a few weeks while herd immunity level was reached among everyone else...

Many elderly people don't have family, friends, communities to enable them to stay in. For eg, over 70's are being advised to stay in, which is great if they can, many over 70's are fit enough not to expect special care, so they have to sort themselves out re food, medication ect. It's not easy to get home deliveries since this virus hit....they are classed as vulnerable, but they still have to go out.


But concentrating on the less vulnerable, herd immunity means that there will be many deaths. Figures are showing that many under 70's, 60's and even 50's have already fell victim.

There is over a 750k volunteers for work like this and I know many people who have neighbours this age willing to help

No it does not mean there will be many deaths, when the vast majority in this country were in the higher age bracket for deaths sadly

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/10/coronavirus-risk-young-staggeringly-low-says-uks-top-statistician/

The majority of deaths involving COVID-19 have been among people aged 65 years and over (24,009 out of 27,356), with 43% (10,410) of these occurring in the over-85 age group.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26

Under 45s is around 350 deaths, majority with underlying health issues... If you include those up to 50 too then I think it's 3000 deaths... Again vast majority had underlying health issues too...

Brits went to work under far worse conditions because the survival of the nation wasn't just fought for on the battlefield.


Tally Ho chaps!!

+1 Maddog

Thorin wrote:+1 Maddog

I've posted that pic a lot lately.


Thinking about blowing it up and getting it framed. It's very motivating when I feel like work is hard. I've never climbed over rubble while working, waiting for the next round of sirens to take cover.

Maddog wrote:I've never climbed over rubble while working, waiting for the next round of sirens to take cover.

You are doing it right now.

Maddog wrote:


Brits went to work under far worse conditions because the survival of the nation wasn't just fought for on the battlefield.


Tally Ho chaps!!

I wonder why he was delivering milk instead of fighting for his country?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Under 45s is around 350 deaths, majority with underlying health issues... If you include those up to 50 too then I think it's 3000 deaths... Again vast majority had underlying health issues too...

Have you got any recent links to support those figures Tommy.
Medics and care workers alone have suffered quite a lot of deaths, and presumably many of them are not in the vulnerable groups.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Brits went to work under far worse conditions because the survival of the nation wasn't just fought for on the battlefield.


Tally Ho chaps!!

I wonder why he was delivering milk instead of fighting for his country?

He was doing his bit for the country. Delivering milk

Holy crap on a cracker

That is a picture during the Blltz as well. When the Uk was trying to rebuild its armed forces after the defeat of France

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/conscriptionww2/


@ Tommy

For those who like more detail up to date stats on deaths by age in hospital, gender, ethnicity here. 95% of those who have died have pre existing medical conditions.

https://t.co/HljXwyDNrv?amp=1

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Surely the government will keep them safe.

Can you explain your point?

Who runs most of your schools?

Everyone. The teachers union have a big say. It’s not America dude.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As I said below, people are not willing to treat their kids (or themselves) as guinea-pigs.  Let's let everyone else go, and we'll see who comes back!

The lockdown be damned; its opening up that won't work.

Quill, I’m not really a worry-wart parent, but I’m not comfortable sending a huge piece of my heart back into the world.

This /\.

If I still had youngsters I just would not send them back to school in the present climate.
I have a feeling that many other parents who will shortly be facing this dilemma, especially if they can work from home themselves, will think along the same lines.

Teachers aren’t happy about it either.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

This /\.

If I still had youngsters I just would not send them back to school in the present climate.
I have a feeling that many other parents who will shortly be facing this dilemma, especially if they can work from home themselves, will think along the same lines.

Teachers aren’t happy about it either.

But what is the risk to children?

12 have died under the age of 19 in hospitals from this with 9 having underlining health conditions

I have made points already previously how this can be eased in, but we cannot lock children away indefinitely

They are the least at risk age group here

The C-19 virus is mutating rapidly and may yet acquire the ability to infect, or produce severe symptoms, in younger people. There are already children who have died of it, and here's the scary thing to consider:

Every virus that infects a human cell essentially turns that cell into a factory which then churns out millions of copies of the virus. With the C-19 virus, it replicates so rapidly that mutations are guaranteed. Mutations within every single patient.

Every child who is infected has the potential to incubate a mutation that could more easily infect children and/or create more severe symptoms.

Limiting child-to-child contact is the one sure way to keep this virus from mutating into a child killer.

It's all good and well to treat children, and all people, like numbers and percentages, and to bandy about herd immunity. 

But when you have a small child who has a face, a name, her own bed, her own smile, her own wardrobe, her own toy box, her own social circle, her own mannerisms and inside jokes, her own irreplaceable smile -- then you might understand why eddie and I want to be as careful as can be.

Ben Reilly wrote:The C-19 virus is mutating rapidly and may yet acquire the ability to infect, or produce severe symptoms, in younger people. There are already children who have died of it, and here's the scary thing to consider:

Every virus that infects a human cell essentially turns that cell into a factory which then churns out millions of copies of the virus. With the C-19 virus, it replicates so rapidly that mutations are guaranteed. Mutations within every single patient.

Every child who is infected has the potential to incubate a mutation that could more easily infect children and/or create more severe symptoms.

Limiting child-to-child contact is the one sure way to keep this virus from mutating into a child killer.

It's all good and well to treat children, and all people, like numbers and percentages, and to bandy about herd immunity. 

But when you have a small child who has a face, a name, her own bed, her own smile, her own wardrobe, her own toy box, her own social circle, her own mannerisms and inside jokes, her own irreplaceable smile -- then you might understand why eddie and I want to be as careful as can be.

And yet in numerous countries the answer has been the same

Its very rare for children to die from this and its generally those with underlining health issues. Even with the fact it is known it has mutated many times and again the same factors apply in each country.

It it those it the older age groups and those with underlining health issues most at risk

		Pre existing condition
Age group		Yes	No	Unkown presence of pre-existing condition	Total
Total		20924	1125	0	22049
0 - 19 yrs		8	3	0	11
20 - 39		127	28	0	155
40 - 59		1554	207	0	1761
60 - 79		8066	481	0	8547
80+		11169	406	0	11575
Unknown age		0	0	0	0

Didge, would you send a huge part of your heart into the world knowing that you may be putting them at risk?
Screw the statistics. Even scientists don’t have an angle on this.

I’ll do what I think is right.

She’s eight. She will miss two months of school. I’m fine with that. I homeschool her.

And what I'm saying, Didge, is that we don't know if rare will turn into common if we don't continue to keep kids from one another.

I don't want to do that. I don't want my stepdaughter's education to be impacted. I don't want her to not get to play with her friends.

I also don't want her to die, or to survive it only to incubate a mutation that will kill other children.

In mine and eddie's judgement, it's still too soon. And that's our decision to make, ultimately. Government officials undoubtedly care about the children, but they can't possibly care about OUR child the way WE do.

eddie wrote:Didge, would you send a huge part of your heart into the world knowing that you may be putting them at risk?
Screw the statistics. Even scientists don’t have an angle on this.

I’ll do what I think is right.

She’s eight. She will miss two months of school. I’m fine with that. I homeschool her.

Well I already send my heart, which is at a far higher risk of contracting by going to work Monday to Friday and I value my life, but life has to go.

The point is you feel this is unsafe now, what are you going to do when this continually keep recurring?

Continually lock her away?

This is going to be long term Eddie and we are going to see this hit again no doubt in Autumn and winter.

Hence we have to find ways to bring a new normal into society, which reduces the risk, but means we are able to continue and function as a nation

The fact is there is millions out there that are unable to home-school and if everyone takes your position. What do you think is going to happen? The economy will nose dive and children will suffer far worse in near poverty

You are not looking at the bigger picture especially when the risk is very low for children

Ben Reilly wrote:And what I'm saying, Didge, is that we don't know if rare will turn into common if we don't continue to keep kids from one another.

I don't want to do that. I don't want my stepdaughter's education to be impacted. I don't want her to not get to play with her friends.

I also don't want her to die, or to survive it only to incubate a mutation that will kill other children.

In mine and eddie's judgement, it's still too soon. And that's our decision to make, ultimately. Government officials undoubtedly care about the children, but they can't possibly care about OUR child the way WE do.

And what you are saying is speculation not based off not a shred of the known evidence

Well everyday we place our children at many risks and we help reduce this be alleviated the risk, like wearing seat belts, though this is not a guarantee it will save them in a crash

The point is I get where you are coming from, but you are not looking at this long term. Where this is unlikely to go away and we will continue to see spikes of this reoccur.

What is needed is a change in attitudes with people with rules and start respecting the fact they need to change how they act when outside in public, by implementing safer methods

We need to reduce the risks by safer methods. Not continue to lock up shop every time we have a spike

Everyone cares about their families and to say people would care less is just plain daft

We are all in this together and if everyone takes the selfish approach and only thinks of themselves. In the long term we will face utter ruin and disaster

Didge, I respect your opinion, and perhaps you’re right, but you have to respect mine.

You may feel differently if you had a little freckle-faced, cheeky, weird, cuddly, eight-year-old's life in your hands.

eddie wrote:Didge, I respect your opinion, and perhaps you’re right, but you have to respect mine.

You may feel differently if you had a little freckle-faced, cheeky, weird, cuddly, eight year olds life in your hands.

Of course I understand and respect your position, but as seen I do not think this will be a short term issue but very much long term

If this virus has mutated many times, then its going to be that much harder to create a vaccine

It could literally take years or like with the flu vaccine be partially effective

All I am saying is people are looking at this only in the short term.

If it makes things easier, then start school in Sept, but we could be in this position all over again.

Hence its far more important that we apply better safety measures to create a new type of normal life for people

All the best and goodnight

Perhaps I’m being overly cautious but rather that than have her put at risk.

Night mate. Speak soon.

eddie wrote:Perhaps I’m being overly cautious but rather that than have her put at risk.

Night mate. Speak soon.

I remember the time she was so worried that a snail in the road was going to be crushed that she calmly picked it up, carried it over to a bush, and gently set it down -- and then ran screaming into the house to wash her hands.

She's a really special kid. Too special to take chances with.