tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post7918453035634382001..comments2024-03-26T09:38:39.888+00:00Comments on Borthlas: Watching the collapse in slow motionJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-85370753318962069092020-05-22T13:36:13.601+01:002020-05-22T13:36:13.601+01:00Spirit,
I was also in school in 1957, although I ...Spirit,<br /><br />I was also in school in 1957, although I have no memory of that pandemic. What we know, however, is that around 9 million people were infected in the UK, of whom around 33,000 died (precise figures are somewhat elusive). We don't know how many have been infected with Covid-19 in the UK to date - the 'official' figures show around 250,000, but I suspect that the real number is probably 3 or 4 times that. The 'official' death toll is 36,000, but I suspect that the real total is by now more than 60,000 - the FT is giving a figure of 62,000 from their calculations, I understand. However you look at the numbers, that makes it considerably more deadly than the 1957 flu pandemic in the UK. It makes a comparison of limited value.<br /><br />I agree that some early studies have suggested that children are less likely to infect others, although I'm also aware that these findings are disputed by other researchers. One of the problems at the moment is that we can all find a study or report somewhere which supports our own particular views (the perils of the internet!), but the reliability of some of those reports is, to put it mildly, questionable. The real question - and this goes back to our earlier discussion - is about what weighting to apply to the various reports and factors, and what level of risk we deem to be 'acceptable', given that 'zero risk' is unattainable.<br /><br />The supplementary question is the one to which you allude - who takes the decision? I instinctively agree with your proposition that one-size-fits-all is the wrong approach, and that local decision-making is to be preferred. I'm more than a little less comfortable with the idea that 'they can be voted out if they get it wrong' is an adequate protection; it certainly does not protect those who will have died as a result of the decision-makers having got it wrong.<br /><br />Having said that, I don't have a simple easy solution (indeed, anyone who says that he or she does in the light of a complex and still-developing problem is someone whose advice is probably best disregarded), but that, in a sense, is one of the points that I have been trying to make in recent posts. We need a proper informed discussion and those taking the decisions need to be open and honest about what the options are and what trade-offs they are making. Merely insisting that they are right and know what they're doing (when they patently aren't and don't) is a recipe for continued confusion and distrust.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-12517987974204278222020-05-22T11:22:40.918+01:002020-05-22T11:22:40.918+01:00I my opinion schools should never have closed, but...I my opinion schools should never have closed, but we are, where we are.<br />In the lethal Asian flu endemic in 1957, I was in school and all I remember is that the Headmaster announced that he had a letter from the council health office asking us to wash our hands-on arrival and before we go home- that was it, everything else went on as normal.<br />The data on this virus is all over the place, but I read that hospital deaths in England only two children under 15 died with the 19.That makes the odds as one in 5.3 million ,the data on children under 10 infecting adults, a report by WHO and China ,they found none.<br />Returning children to school, the one size fits-all rules will not work, as there is a healthy amount of chaos in their behaviour and on these odds distance rule should not apply, as we will be bringing them up in a type of North Korea kindergarten, which will be very damaging to their development..<br />The opening should be the responsibility of local councils, as if they get it wrong, they can be dismissed by the electorate and health experts in Cardiff cannot.<br />Lastly, I have an extended family in the teaching business and I have been shocked by most of their views as to when schools should start. However, I am advised that I am out of date and teaching is a job like any other. Ah, well. <br />Spirit of BMEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-15403289346508961402020-05-21T07:41:36.447+01:002020-05-21T07:41:36.447+01:00"...there is no such thing in life as 100% sa...<i>"...there is no such thing in life as 100% safe and everything is a trade-off"</i> Precisely, and had Gove said that voluntarily at the outset rather than having it dragged out of him after foolishly 'guaranteeing' the safety of all, he might have helped boost rather than undermine confidence in the government and its members.<br /><br />But if you and I can agree on that, it follows that the debate on whether and when schools should re-open becomes a question of analysing probabilities and risks, putting in place mitigating measures, and reaching agreement on what level of risk is 'acceptable' given that there is risk in everything. I'm not sure how you think that joining in the tabloid approach to attacking teachers contributes to that.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-21600703616783413032020-05-20T12:30:55.684+01:002020-05-20T12:30:55.684+01:00I think Mickey Gove`s statement of `guarantee ‘or ...I think Mickey Gove`s statement of `guarantee ‘or the teachers Union of `safe` should be clarified and explained, in that in that there is no such thing in life as 100% safe and everything is a trade-off. When teachers get into their car to go to work ,it`s not 100% safe ,if they wanted to be safe you would have to buy a tank, but that would not be efficient ,so trade- offs are something we live with and have to make everything work.<br />However, the teachers have been off on full pay (not furloughed) so why on earth should they want to go back until the end of summer? There is no danger of a conflict between the Labour/Liberal coalition as they have no political will set an early return as they are a captured agency of the academic intuitions.<br />Back in the real-world executive pay is being cut by 20%, which a simple decision to make as the market projection for their services or goods, will not produce the income to sustain it. Perhaps in an act of solidarity with the wealth creating sector, the executive management like head teachers and above, should also get their pay cut by 20%- but don`t hold your breath with that one.<br />Spirit of BMEnoreply@blogger.com