But you are ignorning the wider implications. If a child is in Y4 this year and Y4 next year, it then means they leave school at 17 rather than 16, college/sixth form at 19 rather than 18. You immediately create a whole new problem as even forgetting the social implications, the tax payer is then absorbed with a future cost for extra staff. You're solving one small problem, but then creating a much larger one. It's not just about the child's experience (which in my opinion would be hampered). You can homeschool children for a short period of time, but you are already creating a social gap as some kids right now won't even be getting home schooled properly).

 

You cannot compare defering a two week holiday to a full year's education.

 

 

Please. I did an extra year at school, I repeated my GCSE year cos I changed schools at the wrong time and was allocated CSE's that year instead by the new school (google them) - and then for A levels I didnt start the school year until December because we moved again at the wrong time. I was quite emotionally mature in some ways, very insecure in other ways, and LOVED the extra time at school vs starting a job as an alternative. I still did a degree, and was prob better for being a bit more mature age-wise.

 

It all backfired when I left cos unemployment hit 3 million and there were no jobs. had I left a year earlier I MIGHT have missed the peak but who knows. Point being, I was just the one being disadvantaged and it wasn't a massive bind doing the extra year, I enjoyed it. When it's a whole year nobody is disadvantaged, it's equal. What you've "lost" is time. Now can't speak for you, but when I was a kid having time to do stuff I liked wasn't anything I regarded as "wasted time", it was "time doing stuff I actually wanted to do rather than tedious homework".

 

In terms of timing, being unlucky like I was when I left a year late, well that surely might be an advantage given the massive economic shock with Lockdown and Brexit coming up? School leavers due to leave over the next year or two might well benefit a bit by not being unemployed while expected to be working - cos THAT really is soul-destroying. An extended holiday period, or being at school, is not soul-destroying. Plus...social advantage, unemployment would drop with no school-leavers one year, and they would be totally in demand the following year. Granted down the line 2 school years might end leaving the same year so it's a luck-of-the-draw. That's life!

 

Exams back in our day, BTW, were absolute - results were based on the percent achieved on the day, so if it was a hard paper, results reflected that and most people didn't get the top grades, even the brainboxes. These days it's more likely to be balanced in ratios so the same proportions get an A grade down to C grade year to year. Same with degrees - my tutors had me graded a I in my overall mark, the outside Nottingham Uni checker-upper knocked me down to a II cos he hated my artwork element of the course and was utterly obnoxious about something that is basically opinion, not absolute right or wrong (those parts of the course are harder to knock down). Can't, after all, have everyone getting a I, that won't do.....

 

At the other end of your life, if you DO have to spend a year extra at school and you've just spent 45 exhausting years doing a series of tedious jobs, trust me many people look back more fondly on their school/uni years than their working years. I still see it as a bonus cos all the dicks had left school at 16 and I got an extra year of school dick-free. So to speak. :D

No.10 has just announced that the charge has been scrapped. Less reason for your hatred of him.

 

It does not absolve him, not by a long way.

Edited May 21, 20205 yr by Tawdry Hepburn

I still think that being told you're only allowed to meet one person will stop group meet-ups more than being told you can meet a whole household. Can see Scots meeting friends and claiming that certain friends live together when they don't. Immature oversight from Sturgeon imo.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...k1bYDUSJ0RZjexk

 

The true measure of Boris Johnson. The same Boris Johnson who praised foreign NHS staff, saying "they frankly saved my life" - and so he repays them with this nice little slap in the face.

 

I really do hate that man's guts.

 

The funniest part about it is the guy who created the policy in the first place was championing it being scrapped! :lol:

 

Please. I did an extra year at school, I repeated my GCSE year cos I changed schools at the wrong time and was allocated CSE's that year instead by the new school (google them) - and then for A levels I didnt start the school year until December because we moved again at the wrong time. I was quite emotionally mature in some ways, very insecure in other ways, and LOVED the extra time at school vs starting a job as an alternative. I still did a degree, and was prob better for being a bit more mature age-wise.

 

It all backfired when I left cos unemployment hit 3 million and there were no jobs. had I left a year earlier I MIGHT have missed the peak but who knows. Point being, I was just the one being disadvantaged and it wasn't a massive bind doing the extra year, I enjoyed it. When it's a whole year nobody is disadvantaged, it's equal. What you've "lost" is time. Now can't speak for you, but when I was a kid having time to do stuff I liked wasn't anything I regarded as "wasted time", it was "time doing stuff I actually wanted to do rather than tedious homework".

 

In terms of timing, being unlucky like I was when I left a year late, well that surely might be an advantage given the massive economic shock with Lockdown and Brexit coming up? School leavers due to leave over the next year or two might well benefit a bit by not being unemployed while expected to be working - cos THAT really is soul-destroying. An extended holiday period, or being at school, is not soul-destroying. Plus...social advantage, unemployment would drop with no school-leavers one year, and they would be totally in demand the following year. Granted down the line 2 school years might end leaving the same year so it's a luck-of-the-draw. That's life!

 

Exams back in our day, BTW, were absolute - results were based on the percent achieved on the day, so if it was a hard paper, results reflected that and most people didn't get the top grades, even the brainboxes. These days it's more likely to be balanced in ratios so the same proportions get an A grade down to C grade year to year. Same with degrees - my tutors had me graded a I in my overall mark, the outside Nottingham Uni checker-upper knocked me down to a II cos he hated my artwork element of the course and was utterly obnoxious about something that is basically opinion, not absolute right or wrong (those parts of the course are harder to knock down). Can't, after all, have everyone getting a I, that won't do.....

 

At the other end of your life, if you DO have to spend a year extra at school and you've just spent 45 exhausting years doing a series of tedious jobs, trust me many people look back more fondly on their school/uni years than their working years. I still see it as a bonus cos all the dicks had left school at 16 and I got an extra year of school dick-free. So to speak. :D

 

That's one case though. I have heard you say you were a military child and I am sure it is tough, not least moving to a different school every 6 months (I wouldn't have been able to cope). And yes on a small scale I am sure it is not that bad, but there there is a huge difference between doing it for a minority of children in education compared to every single child in full-time education. This is not even considering the cost to the economy that it would bring with such a large scale needless change. The key to us moving out of this mess we're in is taking progressive safe steps forward, not deciding to shrink our economy another 10% to the 30% it is already going to shrink by.

 

The job market is sketchy at best, there will always be jobs and Brexit is going to leave a huge job shaped hole in the country. The question is then whether people will want these jobs as they are lower paid. It's swings and roundabouts, I hit the back end of the financial crisis and many people from my generation are now going to be affected once again by Covid-19.

I simply don't see why that's an issue, especially if its the same case across the board for the majority of kids. It's a change, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.

 

Does anyone else want to jump in to agree or disagree?

 

I don't disagree, but the main issue will likely be to do with tax revenue. If you repeat a year for everyone, then those who would've went out to start working would now not be - meaning the tax revenue generated by those would be workers no longer exists for that year.

 

In regards to children starting school at 6 instead of 5 - I don't see the issue. Most European countries have kids start school at age 6-7 and they all turn out fine. The main issue in that regard will be for the parents in trying to manage their time/childcare. Especially if one parent was hoping to start going back to work when their child started school.

According to a top Oxford professor, pubs and restaurants could now open tomorrow without risking a second wave.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11680143/ ... rce=pushly

 

 

PUBS and restaurants may now be safe to reopen without risking a second coronavirus wave, a top scientist claimed.

 

University of Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta insists there is a "strong possibility" the hospitality sector could exit the Covid-19 lockdown tomorrow without endangering the public.

 

The professor of Theoretical Epidemiology urged a "rapid exit" from the lockdown as the deadly bug was "on its way out".

 

In March, her team published a paper claiming up to half of Brits may already have been exposed to the virus as it had been spreading for months,

 

The controversial study found the UK's true fatality rate may be as low as 0.1 per cent.

 

Boris Johnson announced the lockdown on March 23, day after a study by Imperial University, led of by Professor Neil Ferguson, suggested as many as 500,000 Brits could die without action.

 

But Prof Gupta told Unherd her original theory is right, with the UK already developing a high level of "herd immunity".

 

LOCKDOWN CASE 'FRAGILE'

She said: "The Government's defence is that this [the Imperial College model] was a plausible worst case scenario.

 

"I agree it was a plausible – or at least a possible – worst case scenario.

 

"The question is, should we act on a possible worst case scenario, given the costs of lockdown?

 

"It seems to me that, given that the costs of lockdown are mounting, that case is becoming more and more fragile.

 

I would say that it is more likely that the pathogen arrived earlier than we think it did, that it had already spread substantially through the population by the time lockdown was put in place.

 

"I think there's a chance we might have done better by doing nothing at all."

 

The professor argues that people could have developed immunity for genetic reasons or pre-existing immunities to other coronaviruses, like the common cold.

 

 

I still think that being told you're only allowed to meet one person will stop group meet-ups more than being told you can meet a whole household. Can see Scots meeting friends and claiming that certain friends live together when they don't. Immature oversight from Sturgeon imo.

This is a take

 

Did we forget about the English conga lines for VE Day? Or was that just one bloody massive household wi a single pal? Dinnae be daft. She’s trusting people to take responsibility for their own actions. This is actually less than what is permissible in a lot of other European nations when they started lockdown easing

This is a take

 

Did we forget about the English conga lines for VE Day? Or was that just one bloody massive household wi a single pal? Dinnae be daft. She’s trusting people to take responsibility for their own actions. This is actually less than what is permissible in a lot of other European nations when they started lockdown easing

Oh I’m not denying that the English have largely been horrific at observing social distancing, I’m just commenting that I don’t trust anyone in the UK to take full responsibility for their actions, regardless of the country.

 

I know if Boris let the English meet a whole household then there’d be a significant amount more exploitation of the rules then there is currently - therefore I’d expect the same from the Scots. It’d be a touch xenophobic of me to say that the English are more ignorant to the rules than the Scottish and I trust the Scots more, frankly I don’t trust anyone in the UK to observe the guidelines tbh!

 

(therefore, I think all four nations should be as cautious as possible by only letting people see one person at a time)

Edited May 22, 20205 yr by mdh

According to a top Oxford professor, pubs and restaurants could now open tomorrow without risking a second wave.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11680143/ ... rce=pushly

PUBS and restaurants may now be safe to reopen without risking a second coronavirus wave, a top scientist claimed.

 

University of Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta insists there is a "strong possibility" the hospitality sector could exit the Covid-19 lockdown tomorrow without endangering the public.

 

The professor of Theoretical Epidemiology urged a "rapid exit" from the lockdown as the deadly bug was "on its way out".

 

In March, her team published a paper claiming up to half of Brits may already have been exposed to the virus as it had been spreading for months,

 

The controversial study found the UK's true fatality rate may be as low as 0.1 per cent.

 

Boris Johnson announced the lockdown on March 23, day after a study by Imperial University, led of by Professor Neil Ferguson, suggested as many as 500,000 Brits could die without action.

 

But Prof Gupta told Unherd her original theory is right, with the UK already developing a high level of "herd immunity".

Ugh, I hate professors like this. The fact that it is being called a bug bothers me for some reason.

 

Also the fact that they claim up to half of the birts have been exposed is nuts. Belgian, Dutch and Swedish studies have shown roghly a 6% exposure, with sweden being a bit higher.

I don't know about UK, French, Italian or Spanish studies, but they must be roughly the same as well. How this professor can claim up to 50% has had it is beyond me and in all fairness quite a dangerous statement.

 

 

 

13 new deaths and 9 new hospitalisations in The Netherlands. The way we seem to be winning right now :cheeseblock:

Yesterday was a bank holiday around here so it's probably more, but yesterday saw 13 hospitalisations

 

Also we had 2850 deaths in the week from 11 to 17 may, which is actually 200 less than a "regular week" in the past 5 years :cheeseblock:

The government has admitted that, if a person has a Covid test by taking a swab from the nostrils and another one from the back of the throat, that counts as two tests. As this comes from the government that counts a pair of gloves as two pieces of PPE, that isn't really a surprise.

Any new and creative methods to fudge the numbers ey?!

@1263914724305055745

 

Of course, while the rest of us were following the rules, Dominic Cummings — displaying symptoms — was doing whatever the hell he wanted.

 

Laura Kuenssberg continuing her role as Conservative mouthpiece — even to the point of directly commenting on another journalists story with government ("sources") spin.

 

 

 

The rules have always been very clear - if you have the virus, STAY AT HOME. How can driving the length of the country (England, before Scots get uppity) be compatible with that?

We had a scientist resigning over this - surely it's far more important that a government advisor who had input on the policy and was known to HAVE THE DISEASE at the time he went to visit elderly people resigns.

 

also 'journalists' stop uncritically quoting unnamed government sources on Twitter challenge

It’s testing but I try as far as possible to give Laura the benefit of the doubt. However, directly replying to a journalist’s story to deny that it happened due to Dominic telling her that cannot be justified. She shouldn’t be acting as his mouthpiece, if he wants to deny it he should do it himself.

 

No matter what the purpose of a visit was (which is still a breach of the rules), he travelled with the virus which again is unjustifiable. Maybe he wanted his family to develop the herd immunity he’s so passionate about.

Cummings’ wife wrote about their time with the virus in the Spectator. She wrote about emerging into London under lockdown, clearly designed to make readers believe they had been in London all the time. If they had done nothing wrong, why the subterfuge?

I thought he didn’t want to close schools because young children would kill their grandparents. And yet he takes that risk with his own parents.

Heads should roll for this.

 

One rule for me & another for thee

That's one case though. I have heard you say you were a military child and I am sure it is tough, not least moving to a different school every 6 months (I wouldn't have been able to cope). And yes on a small scale I am sure it is not that bad, but there there is a huge difference between doing it for a minority of children in education compared to every single child in full-time education. This is not even considering the cost to the economy that it would bring with such a large scale needless change. The key to us moving out of this mess we're in is taking progressive safe steps forward, not deciding to shrink our economy another 10% to the 30% it is already going to shrink by.

 

The job market is sketchy at best, there will always be jobs and Brexit is going to leave a huge job shaped hole in the country. The question is then whether people will want these jobs as they are lower paid. It's swings and roundabouts, I hit the back end of the financial crisis and many people from my generation are now going to be affected once again by Covid-19.

 

I'm not advocating it's advisable (and I don't expect it will happen) I'm just saying it's not the end of the world if it DOES happen. It's better than spreading the virus. Lesser of two evils. In terms of cost, we've just bailed out at massive taxpayer cost people who had to stay at home to save lives. To do anything which makes that a pointless act using cost as a reason is illogical, it should be based on what's safest, and if they can safely return to school, then fine.

 

The jobs market is bound to be hit, and I'm sorry for anyone who was hit by the banking crisis and is going to be hit by the next wave. I was on the dole for 2 and a half years in a dead coal mining community where the main industry had closed. I then worked for 2 years in a factory. There were 3 million on the dole and it was a social disaster that ruined lives, it reached 12%, recovered a bit, and then bounced back again years later nearly as bad. My entire immediate family were forced to move to Dorset to find work, and it was a hard struggle having to take temporary jobs to prove you were capable enough to get permanent jobs after your employment record was blotted with 5 years either unemployed or on unskilled jobs. To this day I can't abide applying for other jobs and interviews because doing nothing else for 3 years was so traumatic. I only change jobs when there are reorganisations or I get head-hunted.

 

At least during the last crisis there were more jobs that were available to do than in the 80's/early 90's, because people overall took the hit to wages for the greater good, rather than have unemployment in the millions and a sizeable part of the workforce who had no jobs for years. Not saying it wasn't bad, just that it wasn't AS bad, and I totally understand the fear of having to go through it again. I also understand that dumping kids onto the dole from school is not a solution, and neither is using them as cheap foreign-labour replacements because that's all there will be. Better to train them up first in further Education or have career-based subsidised training even if it's more expensive than whatever the current weekly benefits are.

 

 

Heads should roll for this.

 

One rule for me & another for thee

 

They won't. Cummings thinks he is 'untouchable'. I see that the Tory Spin machine have sent Rishi Sunak out there in support - he demeans himself.