SHOULD. SCHOOLS START RE-OPENING ON 1 JUNE?

I recently wrote about the issues involved in partially re-opening schools, as hoped on 1 June.

Yes it would be good to get some kids back to school.  For their sakes, their parents, and their employers.  Makes a lot of sense.

But only if done safely.  For the kids.  But also for the adults.  Teachers, other staff and parents.

Sir Patrick Vallance at the press conference on 22 May indicated that it would inevitably put upward pressure on R.  It was already 0.7 - 1.0 when last announced back on 15 May.   Yet we know how important it is to keep R below 1.0, and preferably below 0.5.

I've now had chance to review the guidance for schools published recently by the government.  This was published on 12 May, with an update expected shortly.

My earlier posting highlighted that adult to adult transmission is actually a bigger concern than child to child or child to adult, as children seem to have a natural immunity .  They rarely catch COVID-19 nor pass it on  The concern about adults applies to individual adults and for the R.

Reviewing the 12 May version in the context of adult to adult transmission, it is clear the guidance is aimed promarily at chilren.  Obviously important but could do with more emphasis on the key adult to adult transmission issues in future versions of the guidance, as set out in the conclusion below.

What I found for adult to adult transmission was:

"The safety of children and staff is our utmost priority."  No mention here of parents, suppliers, or other adult visitors


"Wearing a face covering or face mask in schools or other education settings is not recommended....not require staff, children and learners to wear face coverings."   But that is inadequate.


"The majority of staff in education settings will not require PPE beyond what they would normally need for their work, even if they are not always able to maintain a distance of 2 metres from others. PPE is only needed in a very small number of cases including:..." 

In the section "Shielded and clinically vulnerable adults"
  • "Staff in this position [shielding] are advised not to attend work" 
  • But what about those at 'medium' risk, such as many older members of staff? Presumably this group: "If clinically vulnerable (but not clinically extremely vulnerable) individuals cannot work from home, they should be offered the safest available on-site roles"
  • "Stagger break times (including lunch), so that all children are not moving around the school at the same time" and "stagger the use of staff rooms and offices to limit occupancy".  But how effective can this be?

In respect of parents:
  • "Stagger drop-off and collection times"
  • "Parents’ drop-off and pick-up protocols that minimise adult to adult contact"
  • "Make clear to parents that they cannot gather at entrance gates or doors, or enter the site (unless they have a pre-arranged appointment, which should be conducted safely)"

A variety of communication recommendations including "Tell parents that if their child needs to be accompanied to the education or childcare setting, only one parent should attend"

"Ensure that all adults and children" follow the standard hygiene advice

There are then the two situations everyone hopes never happen, but will do so.  Stories are already coming from foreign schools which have gone back:
  • "What happens if someone becomes unwell at an educational or childcare setting?"... "PPE should be worn by staff caring for the child while they await collection if a distance of 2 metres cannot be maintained (such as for a very young child or a child with complex needs)."
  • "What happens if there is a confirmed case of coronavirus in a setting?"... "When a child, young person or staff member develops symptoms compatible with coronavirus, they should be sent home and advised to self-isolate for 7 days. Their fellow household members should self-isolate for 14 days.".  But no intention to close the school.  Is that wise?  What about PPE?


IN CONCLUSION.

The guidance appears to address each one of the key issues I highlighted in my earlier posting.  To some extent. However:
  • The next version  of the guidance could do with putting greater emphasis on adult-to-adult transmission and safety of all staff and visitors, not just teachers
  • Safety needs further attention in staff rooms and other situations where adults cannot avoid coming together less than 2 metres apart. 
  • Further consideration  needs to be made for PPE (to protect staff) and face coverings (to protect each other).  Additional advice needed for parents.  This applies to normal school, when there are suspected cases of COVID-19, and when confirmed cases
  • The government need to heed their own advice in deciding whether schools can take the full reception,  year 1 and year 6 year groups on 1 June, next Monday.  That is for schools nationally, and the flexibility for local authorities and individual schools  to delay opening.  That applies to both state schools and those day schools in the private sector who are planning to follow state schools.  Boarding schools such as Eton College have already announced waiting longer.  
It's not just parents who need to be happy about sending their children back to school.  Rush schools too fast, R will go up too high, and a second lockdown would be needed.  That would be foolish.






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

R, R, WHERE R'T THOU R? (Updated 29 May)

Image
R has gone AWOL.  The king of the COVID metrics is missing, presumed dead.  Yet so important.  That's what I wrote early on 28 May.  I then found something that made me fall off my chair.  I'm now returning to the topic late morning on 29 May: R is so important as an indicator of how well this coronavirus is being kept under control, and a key part of assessing whether lockdown restrictions can be eased or indeed need to be tightened .  But R is only useful if reflecting the transmission rate now.  The problem is that it isn't.  I am shocked! RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF R On 15 May, Sir Patrick Vallance, joint chair of SAGE, tweeted this: We'll go to that web page in a moment.  But before that.... Sir Patrick has tweeted nothing about R since 15 May (as at 10 pm on 29 May).  Nor has Professor Chris Whitty , the other joint chair, presumably as his brief is medical matters.    . So I looked at all the slides...
Read more

THE MONDAY AFTER THE NIGHT BEFORE

Image
On Sunday evening 10 May, PM Johnson broadcast a pre-recorded message that set out some sensible overall concepts. But his talk has been widely slated for a lack of clarity, and that consensus hadn't been developed with either the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, nor with Labour and other political parties. Frankly it looked like a Year 12 school project that had gone horribly wrong. Could it get any worse?  Hold my beer! Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, did a round of media interviews on Monday morning that confused people even more.  And resulted in some of the things he said having to be corrected. Later in the day, a round of briefing papers were released to Parliament, and PM Johnson appeared in the Commons to answer questions.  Again not good. This is Keir Starmer, Labour leader, trying to make sense of the documents in the Commons this afternoon The story so far is set out in this damning article "Motor misfires ...
Read more