Public transport is so risky at the moment. You would have been better walking or cycling I think.

 

 

That's what wife said, told me off but it was warm and had 4 shopping bags. I stayed near the door and away from others as best I could. No way would I go on the tube at present.

Wife's employers' daughter, 15, is at a private school in C. London and they're not going back until Sept. Lass actually wants to go back and her parents want her to too. Always amazes me how many extra weeks' holiday she has in a year too. Like 8 in summer, 4 at Xmas and Easter. Far too long. How do they get the syllabus in?

 

The issue here is that private schools are not going back when state schools are, and it should give you a good indication of how safe this is.

 

The syllabus gets along fine. Often longer days and pupils are encouraged by parents (as they're paying for it) to engage better in term time. Same proportion of disruptive children, the rich are no better than anyone else, but they also get a higher standard.

 

That's what wife said, told me off but it was warm and had 4 shopping bags. I stayed near the door and away from others as best I could. No way would I go on the tube at present.

 

I still don't go on public transport even though life is basically back to normal here. Not worth the risk of forced quarantine should anything be found.

This is exactly the thing that certain online commentators seem to miss.

 

Parents given the choice of kids missing even a YEAR of school vs their kid potentially dying or causing granny and grandad to die are going to put assured safety above education which can be deferred.

 

Human lives are *far* more important than an overattachment to doing things a certain way just because it's become accepted.

This is exactly the thing that certain online commentators seem to miss.

 

Parents given the choice of kids missing even a YEAR of school vs their kid potentially dying or causing granny and grandad to die are going to put assured safety above education which can be deferred.

 

Human lives are *far* more important than an overattachment to doing things a certain way just because it's become accepted.

 

But children should also go to school. We do not know the impact of what happens if children miss a year out of school.

 

The issue is around safety in the school. I can sympathise with safety in schools and the problems it causes, but then parents still take their children to supermarkets where they are just as likely to catch Covid-19.

But children should also go to school. We do not know the impact of what happens if children miss a year out of school.

 

The issue is around safety in the school. I can sympathise with safety in schools and the problems it causes, but then parents still take their children to supermarkets where they are just as likely to catch Covid-19.

 

Not really. Going to the supermarket takes half an hour or so whereas school is most of the day. Not that parents should take their children to the supermarket if it can be avoided at the moment.

Edited May 19, 20205 yr by The Snake

Not really. Going to the supermarket takes half an hour or so whereas school is most of the day. Not that parents should take their children to the supermarket if it can be avoided at the moment.

 

Whilst I'm not disagreeing (although I'd challenge someone to do a fully weekly shop for a family in 30 minutes), the difference is if social distancing is able to be properly implemented in the workplaces, the same applies to children (obviously KS1 a lot more challenging) at school.

But children should also go to school. We do not know the impact of what happens if children miss a year out of school.

 

The issue is around safety in the school. I can sympathise with safety in schools and the problems it causes, but then parents still take their children to supermarkets where they are just as likely to catch Covid-19.

 

But if they don't the absolute worst case scenario is they repeat the year and do everything one year later - just like any child who is out of school for health reasons has to.

 

And if lots of children now fall into that camp it doesn't even become a rare thing that marks one out as different.

 

Whereas if a child goes to school for convenience, contracts the illness and dies, or passes it to a parent or guardian who dies, the whole family will be messed up forever.

 

The idea of children 'missing' a year is misleading and shifts the discussion. They will simply be deferring the year while they spend a year being homeschooled for medical reasons. This is not a new and novel concept, it already happens to plenty of children every year pre-pandemic.

Edited May 20, 20205 yr by J00psyMethyd

But if they don't the absolute worst case scenario is they repeat the year and do everything one year later - just like any child who is out of school for health reasons has to.

 

And if lots of children now fall into that camp it doesn't even become a rare thing that marks one out as different.

 

Whereas if a child goes to school for convenience, contracts the illness and dies, or passes it to a parent or guardian who dies, the whole family will be messed up forever.

 

The idea of children 'missing' a year is misleading and shifts the discussion. They will simply be deferring the year while they spend a year being homeschooled for medical reasons. This is not a new and novel concept, it already happens to plenty of children every year pre-pandemic.

 

But there are massive implications, both socially and cost which will be felt for a generation if every child repeats the year. On the odd special occasion, I completely understand, but longer term it's not feasible. Surely if 1st June is not achievable, the outcome would be to go back on 1st July for 1 month before having a summer break for 1 month. At least that way there is time to pilot the approach before a larger rollout come September.

 

Being homeschooled is not good imo. You cannot expert parents or teachers to fully engage with children or to work full-time and be full time teachers. Not only are children missing out on education they are also missing out the social benefits that come up school, which is especially important for younger year groups.

 

The Government will ultimately regret not locking down sooner, that's all it comes down to. At some point, as awful as it sounds we are going to have to try and get back to some form of normality. The damage the virus is causing economocally will take years to recover from and have countless indirect deaths linked to as well.

I simply don't agree. In an absolute worst case scenario it would literally be just putting a pause on ONE part of children's lives. It's not like they would be locked entirely in their rooms in the dark until June 2021.

 

What separates it happening to one child on a special occasion to it happening for many children? Why is the former more acceptable than the latter, when each individual child will be having the same experience, whether they're off because of extended quarantine or because they're re-learning how to walk or whatever.

 

Being homeschooled is not good imo. You cannot expert parents or teachers to fully engage with children or to work full-time and be full time teachers. Not only are children missing out on education they are also missing out the social benefits that come up school, which is especially important for younger year groups.

 

But the point is that they don't have to. If I'm told that I can't take my holiday to America this year and will have to take it next year instead, I'm not going to try and halfass it myself from home this June. Parents don't have to become teachers if, say, a child aged 5 who would be doing their first year of school this year is going to be doing their first year next year instead aged 6. The entire point of deferring it to when it's safe is that they'll then cover exactly the same content they would have done one year (again, worst case scenario - it might be six months, or three) later.

Edited May 20, 20205 yr by J00psyMethyd

I simply don't agree. In an absolute worst case scenario it would literally be just putting a pause on ONE part of children's lives. It's not like they would be locked entirely in their rooms in the dark until June 2021.

 

What separates it happening to one child on a special occasion to it happening for many children? Why is the former more acceptable than the latter, when each individual child will be having the same experience, whether they're off because of extended quarantine or because they're re-learning how to walk or whatever.

But the point is that they don't have to. If I'm told that I can't take my holiday to America this year and will have to take it next year instead, I'm not going to try and halfass it myself from home this June. Parents don't have to become teachers if, say, a child aged 5 who would be doing their first year of school this year is going to be doing their first year next year instead aged 6. The entire point of deferring it to when it's safe is that they'll then cover exactly the same content they would have done one year (again, worst case scenario - it might be six months, or three) later.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

Priti Patel has extended the bereavement scheme to support staff and care workers rather than just frontline workers.

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?

 

It's an issue because it creates a wider societial problem. You are proposing changing the entire education system for the next 10-15 years. Now I am not an expert by any chance in child learning, but I would suggest that there is a link between children who perform better academically in school who attend nursey vs those who do not. While I am sure your idea is well spirited you would create an further gap between higher vs lower income as well as having a huge extra cost on the taxpayer.

 

As much as people don't want to hear it, we are going to have to pump up our economy pretty fast. The actions of the European countries and their quickening of loosening measures should tell you everything- they have run the cost of the lockdown and it's not pretty..

Scotland being a bit too lenient with their restrictions I feel. Meeting one person is far more mature than being able to meet a whole household imo.

Scotland being a bit too lenient with their restrictions I feel. Meeting one person is far more mature than being able to meet a whole household imo.

 

It likely won’t matter considering how many people went to the beach in England yesterday.

Schools not opening until Aug 11, after the summer holidays as Sturgeon said way back at the start of this.

 

The plan itself is so much more detailed and considered than England’s is almost f***ing comical.

 

 

 

I heard her statement to parliament as I phone my parents just as it was on. As I’ve said before, neither of my parents are nationalists, quite Steadfastly the opposite, and they both were fully supportive of the changes and the measures and were immediately looking up the detailed plan - so many people did that the government website has crashed! People from all areas of Scottish society are supportive of the government and the detailed steps.

Nicola is almost single-handedly keeping me sane rn

It likely won’t matter considering how many people went to the beach in England yesterday.

 

People also went to the beach in Scotland too! It's not just an English problem..

 

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as people are safe and adhere to social distancing. Not a massive fan of people travelling hundreds of miles to these places though. The fact that they choose to go to the beach with lots of other people the first sunny day of the year tells you more about the type of people they are- idiots!

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.

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.

 

 

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