blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 03, 2020, 10:47:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2252164 Posts in 66523 Topics by 16596 Members
Latest Member: Taximan returns
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 [156] 157 158 159 160 ... 189 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 66683 times)
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1197


View Profile
« Reply #2325 on: May 19, 2020, 04:49:54 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

Do you have any relevant science for that? Secret or not.

Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1740


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2326 on: May 19, 2020, 04:53:47 PM »

It has always been wondered who schools are run for, teachers, children or parents, the reopening of schools is just another front in that debate.
Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6095



View Profile
« Reply #2327 on: May 19, 2020, 05:00:17 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

"The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong"

That's only really relevant to the final part - the effect of an extended amount of home schooling followed by the summer holiday.

In the rest of it - the current situation is irrelevant. The damage caused by primary to secondary transfer is a very well known factor, a lot of work is put in to place to mitigate it. I don't think it's too difficult to see that this is going to make it worse; but at a practical level without schools going back then no mitigation measures can be put in place.

"We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected "

When you mention any other factor - that's the only thing that matters.

Taking some rough figures.
The average primary school has 300 pupils - the opening up at the moment suggests 100 for each of these schools.
I don't know about everywhere but my wife's secondary school is planning on a maximum of 90 students and 10 staff at a time (out of 1200 pupils).
Extrapolating these leaves less than 2 million pupils going back. It's hard to guess how many parents will refuse to let their children go back, a survey quoted by the BBC said something like 29% of parents from worse off backgrounds will send their children back and 55% from better off backgrounds. Going towards the upper end that means about a million pupils will go back  (not going back would also include pupils from households where someone has symptoms or is vulnerable so they shouldn't be going back anyway)

My guess would be less than a 1000 pupils will end up getting the virus and zero dies as a result of them going back; I'd certainly think 100 is much more likely than 100,000.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 05:03:03 PM by Jon MW » Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2328 on: May 19, 2020, 05:46:34 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

"The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong"

That's only really relevant to the final part - the effect of an extended amount of home schooling followed by the summer holiday.

In the rest of it - the current situation is irrelevant. The damage caused by primary to secondary transfer is a very well known factor, a lot of work is put in to place to mitigate it. I don't think it's too difficult to see that this is going to make it worse; but at a practical level without schools going back then no mitigation measures can be put in place.

"We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected "

When you mention any other factor - that's the only thing that matters.

Taking some rough figures.
The average primary school has 300 pupils - the opening up at the moment suggests 100 for each of these schools.
I don't know about everywhere but my wife's secondary school is planning on a maximum of 90 students and 10 staff at a time (out of 1200 pupils).
Extrapolating these leaves less than 2 million pupils going back. It's hard to guess how many parents will refuse to let their children go back, a survey quoted by the BBC said something like 29% of parents from worse off backgrounds will send their children back and 55% from better off backgrounds. Going towards the upper end that means about a million pupils will go back  (not going back would also include pupils from households where someone has symptoms or is vulnerable so they shouldn't be going back anyway)

My guess would be less than a 1000 pupils will end up getting the virus and zero dies as a result of them going back; I'd certainly think 100 is much more likely than 100,000.

I hadn’t known the issue of moving between schools was considered such a problem, that’s certainly interesting.

Trying to address Pokerpops as well.....I won’t be so bold so as to call it science (it hasn’t been peer reviewed;-). My projection was just from the ONS infection survey, applying a small coefficient for classrooms being a perfect environment for spread. The only way to stop it running in to 100’s of thousands will be rapidly closing whole schools on the first sign of infection, I don’t see it going well. As always with my negative forward looks, let’s hope I’m wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020

Key takeaway being that children are as likely to be infected as any other age group.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2329 on: May 19, 2020, 05:56:15 PM »


Drama at the daily briefing, really good questions and an increasingly agitated and shambolic response. Boulton saying they’ll have to cancel them if it keeps looking like that, he’s almost certainly right.
Logged
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1197


View Profile
« Reply #2330 on: May 19, 2020, 08:05:40 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

"The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong"

That's only really relevant to the final part - the effect of an extended amount of home schooling followed by the summer holiday.

In the rest of it - the current situation is irrelevant. The damage caused by primary to secondary transfer is a very well known factor, a lot of work is put in to place to mitigate it. I don't think it's too difficult to see that this is going to make it worse; but at a practical level without schools going back then no mitigation measures can be put in place.

"We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected "

When you mention any other factor - that's the only thing that matters.

Taking some rough figures.
The average primary school has 300 pupils - the opening up at the moment suggests 100 for each of these schools.
I don't know about everywhere but my wife's secondary school is planning on a maximum of 90 students and 10 staff at a time (out of 1200 pupils).
Extrapolating these leaves less than 2 million pupils going back. It's hard to guess how many parents will refuse to let their children go back, a survey quoted by the BBC said something like 29% of parents from worse off backgrounds will send their children back and 55% from better off backgrounds. Going towards the upper end that means about a million pupils will go back  (not going back would also include pupils from households where someone has symptoms or is vulnerable so they shouldn't be going back anyway)

My guess would be less than a 1000 pupils will end up getting the virus and zero dies as a result of them going back; I'd certainly think 100 is much more likely than 100,000.

I hadn’t known the issue of moving between schools was considered such a problem, that’s certainly interesting.

Trying to address Pokerpops as well.....I won’t be so bold so as to call it science (it hasn’t been peer reviewed;-). My projection was just from the ONS infection survey, applying a small coefficient for classrooms being a perfect environment for spread. The only way to stop it running in to 100’s of thousands will be rapidly closing whole schools on the first sign of infection, I don’t see it going well. As always with my negative forward looks, let’s hope I’m wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020

Key takeaway being that children are as likely to be infected as any other age group.


So the short answer to ‘where’s the science that preducts 100s of thousand if we reopen schools’ is nowhere. It’s scared reasoning at best. Disingenuous at worst.

Here’s some real analysis.

https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/und0008/

An appropriate extract..

What role do children play in transmission?

The fact that children are less likely to show symptoms when infected with SARS-CoV-2 has raised concerns that they may be responsible for covert virus transmission, though there is little direct evidence to suggest that asymptomatic children are playing a major role in spreading the disease. One study which analysed the source of 31 household clusters of COVID-19 in China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Iran found that children were the source of infection in just three of these cases.[13] The China/WHO joint commission, a panel of international experts which investigated the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China, found, by contact tracing, no cases where transmission occurred from a child to an adult.[14] Possibly, the early closure of schools, combined with children’s apparent reduced susceptibility to infection, may have limited transmission from children. However, the absence of coughing in milder or asymptomatic cases may reduce transmission of the virus. Further studies are needed to test this idea.

Although the role children play in transmitting the virus is unclear, evidence consistently demonstrates that children are less likely than adults to acquire infection, and less likely to bring infections into households.[10]
Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14837


View Profile
« Reply #2331 on: May 19, 2020, 08:22:39 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

Do you have any relevant science for that? Secret or not.



We know those infected by the virus can double every 3 days in a population, and a lot of children have minor or no symptoms.  That seems a recipe for a quick spread that isn't noticed quicklyenough.  I would be more interested in the science that means 100 is more likely than 100,000.  I can see 100 getting it at my daughter's secondary school alone.  Luckily, or unluckily depending on your viewpoint, she isn't one of those going back in the first wave.

My daughter's school sent round a survey asking about our thoughts on them going back and I genuinely had no idea how to answer it.  Are you happy with your kids going back to school at some indeterminate date in the future where we have no knowledge of the general population spread at that time, and long term effects are unknown.  Both seem to be coping well enough and working hard enough right now which doesn't make it easier.  Both definitely want to go back to school.   But from experience other parents are pretty reluctant to take little Johnny out from school, and there are significant minority of people who think there isn't an issue with Covid still.   I suspect we'll have a few months to consider it with my eldest at least.

Looks like there is an uphill battle for the Government right now.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/19/only-5-of-teachers-think-it-safe-to-reopen-english-schools-poll-shows

 
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14837


View Profile
« Reply #2332 on: May 19, 2020, 08:39:12 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

"The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong"

That's only really relevant to the final part - the effect of an extended amount of home schooling followed by the summer holiday.

In the rest of it - the current situation is irrelevant. The damage caused by primary to secondary transfer is a very well known factor, a lot of work is put in to place to mitigate it. I don't think it's too difficult to see that this is going to make it worse; but at a practical level without schools going back then no mitigation measures can be put in place.

"We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected "

When you mention any other factor - that's the only thing that matters.

Taking some rough figures.
The average primary school has 300 pupils - the opening up at the moment suggests 100 for each of these schools.
I don't know about everywhere but my wife's secondary school is planning on a maximum of 90 students and 10 staff at a time (out of 1200 pupils).
Extrapolating these leaves less than 2 million pupils going back. It's hard to guess how many parents will refuse to let their children go back, a survey quoted by the BBC said something like 29% of parents from worse off backgrounds will send their children back and 55% from better off backgrounds. Going towards the upper end that means about a million pupils will go back  (not going back would also include pupils from households where someone has symptoms or is vulnerable so they shouldn't be going back anyway)

My guess would be less than a 1000 pupils will end up getting the virus and zero dies as a result of them going back; I'd certainly think 100 is much more likely than 100,000.

I hadn’t known the issue of moving between schools was considered such a problem, that’s certainly interesting.

Trying to address Pokerpops as well.....I won’t be so bold so as to call it science (it hasn’t been peer reviewed;-). My projection was just from the ONS infection survey, applying a small coefficient for classrooms being a perfect environment for spread. The only way to stop it running in to 100’s of thousands will be rapidly closing whole schools on the first sign of infection, I don’t see it going well. As always with my negative forward looks, let’s hope I’m wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020

Key takeaway being that children are as likely to be infected as any other age group.


So the short answer to ‘where’s the science that preducts 100s of thousand if we reopen schools’ is nowhere. It’s scared reasoning at best. Disingenuous at worst.

Here’s some real analysis.

https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/und0008/

An appropriate extract..

What role do children play in transmission?

The fact that children are less likely to show symptoms when infected with SARS-CoV-2 has raised concerns that they may be responsible for covert virus transmission, though there is little direct evidence to suggest that asymptomatic children are playing a major role in spreading the disease. One study which analysed the source of 31 household clusters of COVID-19 in China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Iran found that children were the source of infection in just three of these cases.[13] The China/WHO joint commission, a panel of international experts which investigated the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China, found, by contact tracing, no cases where transmission occurred from a child to an adult.[14] Possibly, the early closure of schools, combined with children’s apparent reduced susceptibility to infection, may have limited transmission from children. However, the absence of coughing in milder or asymptomatic cases may reduce transmission of the virus. Further studies are needed to test this idea.

Although the role children play in transmitting the virus is unclear, evidence consistently demonstrates that children are less likely than adults to acquire infection, and less likely to bring infections into households.[10]


I don't think that is up to date.  The recent Spanish study showed rates in children were not much lower than within the general population https://mobile.twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1260625031119409156  I think it was about 3% to 4% amongst school age population, and that difference could be explained just by lower exposure due to school closures.  I'll try and find an English language link to check.  

If people are assuming lower transmission rates amongst children, then they shouldn't be assuming they will be massively lower.  

edit  Here is a Spanish link to the study, but google translate works

https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/serviciosdeprensa/notasprensa/sanidad14/Documents/2020/130520-ENE-COVID_Informe1.pdf

on page 8 you have the positives by age band:
 
5-9 is 3%
10-14 is 3.9%
15-18 is 3.8%

The whole population is 5%.  I'd say from that study that there was little evidence that children are less likely to acquire infection.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 08:51:58 PM by Doobs » Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6095



View Profile
« Reply #2333 on: May 19, 2020, 08:41:47 PM »

...
 I can see 100 getting it at my daughter's secondary school alone.  Luckily, or unluckily depending on your viewpoint, she isn't one of those going back in the first wave.
...  

Nobody is saying all primary school pupils or all secondary school pupils should return. For primary schools it's about a third of the school going back. For secondary school's they haven't even been asked to re-open, they've been asked to consider how to give key years 'face time' before the end of the academic year (the primary to secondary transfer summer break is the most damaging but all summer holidays damage academic progress).

Using my wife's school (because I know the figures) - there are 1200 pupils in the whole school. Their current plan is that there will be no more than 90 pupils at any one time in the school; they won't move between lessons and there will be at most 10 members of staff there at any one time. At the points where they do have to move they are instigating a one way route through the school so that any two groups don't cross each other.

Do you think 100 cases seems likely in this scenario?

Out of 40,000 French schools reopening they have had 70 cases in total. That was with (from what I can tell) schools almost completely reopening if they were in low risk areas - as opposed to the partial reopening  we're planning.

What would really help would be if children of NHS workers could be taught in separate schools from everyone else because that would substantially reduce the chance of any pupil being in contact with someone with the virus - but I'm guessing that would always be a political no no.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14837


View Profile
« Reply #2334 on: May 19, 2020, 09:02:28 PM »

...
 I can see 100 getting it at my daughter's secondary school alone.  Luckily, or unluckily depending on your viewpoint, she isn't one of those going back in the first wave.
...  

Nobody is saying all primary school pupils or all secondary school pupils should return. For primary schools it's about a third of the school going back. For secondary school's they haven't even been asked to re-open, they've been asked to consider how to give key years 'face time' before the end of the academic year (the primary to secondary transfer summer break is the most damaging but all summer holidays damage academic progress).

Using my wife's school (because I know the figures) - there are 1200 pupils in the whole school. Their current plan is that there will be no more than 90 pupils at any one time in the school; they won't move between lessons and there will be at most 10 members of staff there at any one time. At the points where they do have to move they are instigating a one way route through the school so that any two groups don't cross each other.

Do you think 100 cases seems likely in this scenario?

Out of 40,000 French schools reopening they have had 70 cases in total. That was with (from what I can tell) schools almost completely reopening if they were in low risk areas - as opposed to the partial reopening  we're planning.

What would really help would be if children of NHS workers could be taught in separate schools from everyone else because that would substantially reduce the chance of any pupil being in contact with someone with the virus - but I'm guessing that would always be a political no no.

70 (known) new cases ... in a week after reopening.

Given the time between infection and symptoms I don't think that is a useful stat at all.

There are 30,000 schools in the UK, so I don't think 100 is a likely number at all. 
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14837


View Profile
« Reply #2335 on: May 19, 2020, 09:13:19 PM »

The latest weekly CMI report is out now.

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality%20monitor%20Week%2019%202020%20v01%202020-05-19_0.pdf

I know it has been said in numerous places (including here) that the excess deaths could be caused by people avoiding hospitals.  I think it is likely that some people will die from avoiding hospitals, and some people will die down the road from not getting treatment/diagnosis early enough. 

Looking at the evidence in the report above, it seems pretty clear that the excess deaths are going up and down in step with known Covid deaths (see charts 3, 5 and 6).  I think it is pretty safe to conclude that the vast majority of these excess deaths in the last few weeks have been due to Covid. 

Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
TightEnd
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: I am a geek!!



View Profile
« Reply #2336 on: May 19, 2020, 09:17:27 PM »

The effortless pivot from "we're ending free movement" to "please someone help us pick the fruit" from Eustace in the press conference today was fun to watch

As was the scientist and the politician trying to draw lines in the sand on March testing. Angela McLean was testy as a testy thing
Logged

My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1197


View Profile
« Reply #2337 on: May 19, 2020, 10:45:49 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

Do you have any relevant science for that? Secret or not.



We know those infected by the virus can double every 3 days in a population, and a lot of children have minor or no symptoms.  That seems a recipe for a quick spread that isn't noticed quicklyenough.  I would be more interested in the science that means 100 is more likely than 100,000.  I can see 100 getting it at my daughter's secondary school alone.  Luckily, or unluckily depending on your viewpoint, she isn't one of those going back in the first wave.

My daughter's school sent round a survey asking about our thoughts on them going back and I genuinely had no idea how to answer it.  Are you happy with your kids going back to school at some indeterminate date in the future where we have no knowledge of the general population spread at that time, and long term effects are unknown.  Both seem to be coping well enough and working hard enough right now which doesn't make it easier.  Both definitely want to go back to school.   But from experience other parents are pretty reluctant to take little Johnny out from school, and there are significant minority of people who think there isn't an issue with Covid still.   I suspect we'll have a few months to consider it with my eldest at least.

Looks like there is an uphill battle for the Government right now.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/19/only-5-of-teachers-think-it-safe-to-reopen-english-schools-poll-shows

 

I don’t think anyone actually suggested there would only be 100. My point was that to bandy suggestions that there could be hundreds of thousands was spurious.
Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2338 on: May 19, 2020, 11:25:00 PM »

...‘As soon as something becomes a secret, it is no longer science’. ...

That literally makes no sense.

A lot of maths in history (for example) has been discovered by lone mavericks - is it not science because they were doing it by themselves?
If someone is investigating something and brings in a few colleagues to help - is that not science because it's secret from everyone outside of that group?
If a state is developing some top secret scientific project (like splitting the atom for example) - is that not science because it's internationally secret?

Science is the scientific process, I can't see how open it is can have any effect.


...
Life lesson (took me a long time to learn this one): When we don’t know something, be completely open about our ignorance, almost proud of it and then proceed with caution, an endless desire to learn and an open mind.

In terms of the school's re-opening - how much damage do you think is done by a year 6 pupil having 6 weeks off at summer before they start secondary school?
How much difference does it make if they come from a poorer background?
How much does that effect their results in secondary school?
How much does that effect their ongoing health into adulthood?

How much worse do you think a 6 month gap instead of a 6 week gap would be?

I don’t know the answers to part two of the response, I don’t think anyone does. So it’s hard to assign it an appropriate value in weighting what is undoubtedly a difficult decision.

Yes - they (some experts) do have a pretty good idea about all of them (apart from the last one, and you can infer that).

Basically - a lot, even more (about twice as much), a lot, a significant amount and nobody knows because it's never been done at this scale before but all the evidence would suggest a considerable amount of harm.

I could get the study I did as part of my PGCE but that was a bit London centric and the gist matters more than exact numbers anyway.

My point is that this is one consideration, for one year group, for one stage of the education system.

In all the points you raised that you considered to be important there wasn't a single mention of education or learning.

And just like the economy, this doesn't work in isolation. If pupils have a worse start in the education system, they have worse outcomes at the end and that has a knock on effect to their health in later life.

The points you raised about the virus were fair enough, but harming the life chances of millions of pupils to avoid the chance of a 100 or so of them catching the virus would be doing more harm than good.

It’s certainly valid that the education and subsequent effect on children should be front and centre of the decision making. The studies you allude to won’t have considered this situation or anything like it, not just in scale but in the context of the complexity of the overall problem that society as a whole faces, happy to be proved wrong. We’re not taking about 100 or so children catching it, we’re talking 100,000’s infected and potentially, the loss of what little control we now have.

Do you have any relevant science for that? Secret or not.



We know those infected by the virus can double every 3 days in a population, and a lot of children have minor or no symptoms.  That seems a recipe for a quick spread that isn't noticed quicklyenough.  I would be more interested in the science that means 100 is more likely than 100,000.  I can see 100 getting it at my daughter's secondary school alone.  Luckily, or unluckily depending on your viewpoint, she isn't one of those going back in the first wave.

My daughter's school sent round a survey asking about our thoughts on them going back and I genuinely had no idea how to answer it.  Are you happy with your kids going back to school at some indeterminate date in the future where we have no knowledge of the general population spread at that time, and long term effects are unknown.  Both seem to be coping well enough and working hard enough right now which doesn't make it easier.  Both definitely want to go back to school.   But from experience other parents are pretty reluctant to take little Johnny out from school, and there are significant minority of people who think there isn't an issue with Covid still.   I suspect we'll have a few months to consider it with my eldest at least.

Looks like there is an uphill battle for the Government right now.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/19/only-5-of-teachers-think-it-safe-to-reopen-english-schools-poll-shows

 

I don’t think anyone actually suggested there would only be 100. My point was that to bandy suggestions that there could be hundreds of thousands was spurious.

This is an odd one to pick up on. Which of these do you think is most likely? (new infections as a result of partially reopening schools)

a) hundreds
b) thousands
c) tens of thousands
d) hundreds of thousands
e) millions

We’ll do some more maths in the morning.


Logged
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1197


View Profile
« Reply #2339 on: May 20, 2020, 08:52:02 AM »

In the meantime, let’s laugh at stuff because the alternative is madness.

Charlie Brooker is a genius

Charlie Brooker's Antiviral Wipe: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j4bl via @bbciplayer
Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 [156] 157 158 159 160 ... 189 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.577 seconds with 20 queries.