Coronavirus

[Fozzy]

Sorry @Chris, I could not disagree more with your first part. If anything, years 10 and 11 are old enough to cope with remote learning, plus it is the older teens that spread the virus more than younger pupils.

Younger pupils HAVE to have face to face schooling as for most, nothing will be done at home and some, especially those from poorer families it seems will never catch up in the future, which would be a tragedy as basically you are throwing away nearly halve a generation of kids by leaving them with no future.

Out of all the schools I attend, not one member of teaching staff has wanted their school to close and they are the ones who you could say are at greater risk of contracting it.

Totally agree regarding University students, they should never have reopened and that probably all comes down to the money they generate. They are all working remotely now anyway so should have stayed at home to do it.

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[cheeky~k8]

In most of the cases in schools its the teachers that catch the virus or at least the ones that show signs of it and then classes have to close. Some kids need more help than others.. some get on fine doing it at home with parents if possible but some never get on well without face to face learning from a trained teacher so it really does depend.

I volunteered in a primary school and you easily see the difference between those who can work independantly and those who can't. Some also don't get as much help at home than others so kids are generally better in school learning aslong as better precautions are taken. Otherwise its going to spread much easier.

This 2nd lockdown doesnt really seem like a lockdown because the majority of daily life is just as its been for the whole year anyway, most of us are getting used to going out less and only going to the shop when essential.

[KB1862 𝕏 @KB1862 Instagram Bainbridge316]

On 07/11/2020 at 22:30, Fozzy said:

@Chris

Younger pupils HAVE to have face to face schooling as for most, nothing will be done at home and some, especially those from poorer families it seems will never catch up in the future, which would be a tragedy as basically you are throwing away nearly halve a generation of kids by leaving them with no future. 

Totally agree with this part. Speaking as a father, my daughter started her first year in school last year but because of the first lockdown she missed out the rest of her first year from March. She went from learning so much at school to then slowly forgetting most parts. Even with home schooling.

Children at the same age as both mine, 5 & 3, home schooling isn't exactly a learning environment. Home is where they feel comfy. TV, toys, their own things, all distractions from them learning. Since my daughter went back to school in September, she's learnt so much more again and has even been praised and awarded a certificate for her willingness to learn. 

There's only so much schools can send out to help children learn but a child still learning in their first few years of school may get confused by teaching methods at home as it may not be the way it is in schools.

[allardyces tash]

Junior school is vital to a child's development but what is learned can be taught by any responsible person.

Provided that checks are made to see if the child is progressing.

I would say I don't feel there is any need to send them to school during a lockdown. Teenagers in compressive school have a much more serious curriculum. That is important but ensuring that the guidelines are followed by them does seem harder, as they will be more inclined to spend time with their friends and mix with others.

Younger children can be guided by teachers, at the older ages you see more rebellion and unruly behaviour.  

[liampie]

i think all schools should be closed if this is a full lockdown and its being done to protect people, families are still going to see loved ones and people are still ignoring the risk.

[KB1862 𝕏 @KB1862 Instagram Bainbridge316]

We all have our own opinions on international football but the internationals should he cancelled while the whole pandemic is around. 

Here's why I think it should be stopped. Iceland have been given exception to travel to the UK despite playing in Denmark that are on the UKs travel ban list. 

Secondly, let's trace players for example Harry Maguire played against Ireland. Maguire plays for Man United. David De Gea is a team mate of his and plays for Spain. David De Gea is team mates nationally with Sergio Ramos who plays for Real Madrid. Real Madrid have multiple nations in their squad. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that start a spread in multiple nations?  

Plus, Alan Browne tested positive a day after playing for Ireland against England. Players will be going back to club football with which their are multiple nationalities. 

For me, the internationals shouldn't be going on. We're in lockdown to avoid spread and have travel bans in place yet nations can travel from place to place. 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

Thread from a nurse:

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[lambleypie]

There's a long way to go despite the good news regarding the vaccine. I still think it will be around for another year or more.

[Fozzy]

Quite @lambleypie.

I'm not concerned about the Moderna vaccine and only getting low numbers of it, it's a nonstory really pushed by people trying to score political points. Both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccine will be available before it and we have ordered 140 million doses between the two of them.

I doubt they will get to me on the list until the back end of next year at the earliest and you young ones won't get it at all.

 

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Super_Danny_Allsopp]

On 16/11/2020 at 20:47, Piethagoram said:

 

This is bollocks and reeks of somebody approaching everything at an anti-Brexit angle. 

The EU's vaccine contract discussions have been slow. They only signed a contract with Pfizer/Biontech this month, and I live about 5 minutes from Biontech HQ! You could've quite easily spun that the other way. 



 

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

@Super_Danny_Allsopp I sincerely think you are missing the point in this case. The Pfizer vaccine has to be stored at -40 degrees, making such transport by road problematic ( also there is the capacity issue to find such articulated trailers for the vaccines), with threats to delays at channel ports

 

[Super_Danny_Allsopp]

4 hours ago, Piethagoram said:

@Super_Danny_Allsopp I sincerely think you are missing the point in this case. The Pfizer vaccine has to be stored at -40 degrees, making such transport by road problematic ( also there is the capacity issue to find such articulated trailers for the vaccines), with threats to delays at channel ports

 

You're right - I am lost then. Exactly what would the UK have gained by joining the EU's purchase agreement in this sense? 

The transport by road would have been the same regardless. A vaccine manufactured in either the US or perhaps in Switzerland (not in the EU either), will be delayed at the ports for an endless time? I'm sure nobody would think to prioritise it. 

[Joshua]

Close the schools!! How many outbreaks does it take before this happens.

My school are now mixing forms because of the amount of pupils now requiring to self isolate. When we went back, our head of year said it would happen if 5 pupils from the school had contracted COVID-19. Who's keeping it open then?

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

 

[Super_Danny_Allsopp]

11 hours ago, Piethagoram said:

 

Propaganda nonsense. I'm all for criticising the government, but at least have a valid argument. There are many aspects of their Covid response that has been bad and even terrible, but not pursuing an elimination goal is not one of them.

This is an argument for elimination of the virus, like New Zealand tried (it keeps getting out but they're pretty much on top of it). Hardly anybody has attempted this worldwide. The reasons why is a combination of 2 main factors, A: You need to be incredibly remote and isolate yourself off almost entirely (geographically) and a low population density helps and B: You need to implement draconian methods to suppress the freedoms of your population in order to achieve it. 

New Zealand falls mostly (but not entirely) into A. We won't see what damage they have done to their economy for a good number of years, but you can bet their tourism industry is knackered, although that would maybe have happened to a large part anyway. NZ has one main city, Auckland, and 2 small cities, Wellington and Christchurch. Beyond that there is a lot of land and not a lot of people. Sheep do not spread the virus. Even then, there has been many draconian measures placed on their population that wouldn't have been accepted by a larger population without the same herd mentality as exists in NZ. 

NZ should be commended for its handling, but it needs to be appreciated in context; an island nation bigger in landmass than the UK and in the middle of nowhere and 5 million population.

Or we can go the other route, like China, route B, and become a dictatorship to beat our population into accepting the terribly harsh conditions we enforce upon them to literally eliminate the virus by force. That's if you believe that China have a handle on it, like they say they do. Some may argue that the ends justify the means. Others, myself included, would argue that this is a draconian enforcement that I wouldn't want to live under.