1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Easy to read table on relative safety

Discussion in 'News' started by ukpaul, Aug 26, 2020.

  1. ukpaul

    ukpaul Occasional commenter

    Work out what your classroom is. Work out what your school corridor is.

    Then act.

    Anyone carrying out activities in the red zone is endangering themselves and children, anyone in the yellow zone needs further mitigation. In the green zone, carry on.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. ukpaul

    ukpaul Occasional commenter

    old_dobbin and colacao17 like this.
  3. hhhh

    hhhh Star commenter

    Any high school would be in the red zone, surely? They certainly won't be silent, some students will be shouting, they're packed in, are together for a 'prolonged time' and most rooms wouldn't be well-ventilated, depending what the official definition for that is.
    Wouldn't that mean it's just not safe to reopen, unless we shift classes outside and drastically reduce numbers?
     
  4. ukpaul

    ukpaul Occasional commenter

    It’s why they are promoting the idea that children don’t spread the virus as much as adults, The problem being that it is widely suspected that anyone in secondary, at least, is going to be pretty much like an adult, that they have the same viral load and that, even if there was a lesser effect, sheer numbers and level of vocalisation counter that. So, yes, it’s in the red zone and they know it.

    Outdoor lessons would be fine and, in fact, New York is specifically promoting them as a way of keeping education safe.

    https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ls-count-down-to-contested-reopening/2581839/
     
    Sally006, gill11 and Catgirl1964 like this.
  5. weesteve

    weesteve New commenter

    Ok, so spending five hours a day with 32 seven and eight year olds and two other adults in a small room with very little ventilation is NOT a great idea... Who’d have thunk it?!
     
    Sally006, gill11 and old_dobbin like this.
  6. Newidentity

    Newidentity Occasional commenter

    So, I know it's not safe. You know it's not safe. Boris knows it's not safe. But we WILL be opening every school in September!
     
  7. averagedan

    averagedan Established commenter

    You don't need to panic, it's relative transmission. A high risk of transmission in a low risk environment is still a low risk overall compared to other situations one may be placed in.

    Read the note attached to the graph in the paper:

    upload_2020-8-27_10-17-31.png

    The point of the study was to model what may help, not the actual risk itself, the authors are pretty clear that it's not the point of the study. Quoting a graph without context gives a misleading impression of what they have modelled and leads to an incorrect conclusion.
     
  8. old_dobbin

    old_dobbin Occasional commenter

    If all goes to plan, next week there will be the same numbers of children in classes as we had before the pandemic. The seating arrangements will be roughly the same because more space can't be created in most cases. The children won't be wearing masks in classrooms but there will be an important difference: pre-pandemic it was reasonable to open windows because it wasn't so cold in the spring, but in the autumn and winter it will become increasingly problematic to keep windows open in cold weather.
    For most of the day, therefore, the conditions in schools will be about the same as they were pre-pandemic. So why did we close schools in the first place?
     
  9. caterpillartobutterfly

    caterpillartobutterfly Star commenter

    Because we closed more or less the entire country?
    Now the country is safer over all, we can reopen schools.
     
    ridleyrumpus, ChrisH77 and averagedan like this.
  10. old_dobbin

    old_dobbin Occasional commenter

    But the UK cases trend is UP at present and is now about the same as it was some months ago. Deaths may be lower because many exposed and vulnerable people have been infected and have died already but large numbers of older people are still shielding and there is more mask wearing / other measures than in earlier months. The virus is still here.
     
  11. caterpillartobutterfly

    caterpillartobutterfly Star commenter

    And schools have measures in place now to lower the risks of transmission, same as every other public place in the country.
     
    averagedan likes this.
  12. ukpaul

    ukpaul Occasional commenter

    Regarding ‘without context’ I posted the link to the study which you studiously misinterpret in the first place.

    “The levels of risk in fig 3 are relative not absolute, especially in relation to thresholds of time and occupancy, and they do not include additional factors such as individuals’ susceptibility to infection, shedding level from an infected person, indoor airflow patterns, and where someone is placed in relation to the infected person. Humidity may also be important, but this is yet to be rigorously established.”

    Not what you interpret their discussion on relative and absolute is it? Nothing to do with background levels of infection but how long you are in a space for and how many are in that space, Also, within that space there is a difference between someone, say, over fifty than a teacher in their twenties, or a student or at what point in the infection cycle the asymptomatic person is or where you are in the room.

    It is dangerous and and you know it, one asymptomatic person is dangerous in that space, as soon as you have around an infection rate that is seen now in many areas of the country it is dangerous. In the area where my school is, there are (on the gov.uk website) about 1 per 1000 people diagnosed with the virus in the last seven days and that’s just the symptomatic.

    And it’s been peer reviewed.
     
    frangipani123 and Catgirl1964 like this.
  13. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    They're not the same though are they? Any other place that had the density of people a school has would be wearing masks. If you declared an entire packed office to be a bubble so that there was no need for social distancing or face coverings you'd be ridiculed.
     
  14. Newidentity

    Newidentity Occasional commenter

    I'm not panicking. I'm being brutally realistic. As someone who does not have "other situations" (I don't leave my house without a mask) and is vulnerable for two different reasons, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about my safety.
     
  15. caterpillartobutterfly

    caterpillartobutterfly Star commenter

    Pubs? Restaurants? Hairdressers?
     
    averagedan likes this.
  16. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    None of them have the same density of people a school does under current arrangements.
     
  17. caterpillartobutterfly

    caterpillartobutterfly Star commenter

    I disagree.
     
  18. averagedan

    averagedan Established commenter

    None of which changes the fact that this is not a measure of absolute transmission, it's relative. The colours have been used for illustrative purposes not to convey "this WILL causes transmission". The authors themselves say it's only use is for minimising risk. They really should know.

    I'm guessing from your post that you're not a scientist, relative and absolute are words which have an additional meaning in the sciences.
     
  19. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    Very few schools are capable of keeping students a metre apart in classrooms, which is what's required in restaurants.
     
  20. averagedan

    averagedan Established commenter

    IT's always reasonable to be worried about ones safety - I just didn't want you to be worried about a study taken out of context which is what I thought had worried you.

    I too have a couple of comorbidities, most of which have turned out not to be a big issue now there's more data to look at, touch wood. The major risk factor, according to the research I have read, is age. The extra risk seems to kick in about the age of 50 for men and about 55 for women. With age comes illness such as CHD, COPD and obesity hence why they seem to be involved as well. But even if you have those illnesses and you're under 50 the risk of a serious outcome is extremely low. If you have a comorbidity that affects your immune system such as having had a transplant, high doses of steroids, etc. age doesn't seem to be a factor - in which case I'd be going for a doctor's note. A job isn't worth risking your life over if you're in that category.

    On a positive action you may be able to take. I read a really interesting study a few weeks back that found a correlation between having had a recent vaccine and experiencing mild to no Covid symptoms. There's a mechanism for this and the effect has been observed before, hence why people were looking for it in the first place. Grab a flu jab!
     

Share This Page