National Lockdown from Wednesday

Jostler said:
I wouldn't write off the lockdown bringing down figures yet. We're still less than two weeks in and as we know symptoms can take up to 14 days to show. Add in those that have delayed getting tested & delayed reporting figures, I'd expect we will know the answer for sure by the end of this week.
Click to expand...

Is it 14 days to show symptoms? I thought it was a lot less than that, or maybe I just assumed that.

I think the reduction in cases ship has sailed, that sailed when we opted for "lockdown-lite". I was hoping the lock down would be similar/ or stringer than last time, but it's nowhere near. It needed to be firmer, to get the same results as last time, with us going into winter, not spring/ summer. To me they're massaging it to stop massive growth, but not going for major reduction.

We were about 6% growth per day, pre the tiers 1-3, then about 2% after/ in the tiers and now they're saying we're 1-3% (as of last Friday). I imagine we're probably low end of that, but it depends how much winter and crimbo shopping is off setting the "lockdown-lite". We're still in daily growth though, and whilst that happens, cases won't reduce :(
 
Statto1 said:
Is it 14 days to show symptoms? I thought it was a lot less than that, or maybe I just assumed that.

I think the reduction in cases ship has sailed, that sailed when we opted for "lockdown-lite". I was hoping the lock down would be similar/ or stringer than last time, but it's nowhere near. It needed to be firmer, to get the same results as last time, with us going into winter, not spring/ summer. To me they're massaging it to stop massive growth, but not going for major reduction.

We were about 6% growth per day, pre the tiers 1-3, then about 2% after/ in the tiers and now they're saying we're 1-3% (as of last Friday). I imagine we're probably low end of that, but it depends how much winter and crimbo shopping is off setting the "lockdown-lite". We're still in daily growth though, and whilst that happens, cases won't reduce :(
Click to expand...
Everyone incubation period is different. It’s up to 14 days
 
Statto1 said:
Yeah, I don't get it either, it's not been harsh enough to take cases down, just slow the curve. Maybe they just expect people to go wild over crimbo anyway, so are just using it to limit the damage that's coming and hope everyone will then bunker down in the new year, or the vaccine bails us out.

What confuses me is I don't get why education has suddenly become more important than lives and the economy. The latter two seem to be playing second fiddle to education, with education probably the easiest thing to rebuild. It doesn't make sense, unless it's a political hot potato.
There may be a simple answer to that, but I've not seen it yet?
Click to expand...

I think education and the economy go hand in hand. If you shut the schools you then lockdown the parents and your workforce. This is the same reason I do not forsee them extending school holidays.
 
Cambsred said:
I think education and the economy go hand in hand. If you shut the schools you then lockdown the parents and your workforce. This is the same reason I do not forsee them extending school holidays.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the main reason I thought of too, it's not actually the education stopping which is the big player, it's what comes with that. Effectively school is reliable childcare for a lot of people, that have no other way of having their kids looked after?

College and Uni should be all on-line though, assuming the college and uni lot can look after themselves, which is a big assumption from how I acted in further education :)

Might be better if those that can still have the kids at home did, with online teaching and those that couldn't do that sent their kids to school, much smaller bubbles and the same on-line teaching (so everyone's being taught the same, and no kid gaining an advantage). It's a logistical nightmare, but it's probably not one that couldn't be figured out. Could even have one stream for multiple schools, even national if it's the same syllabus, that would free up more staff to help out. Don't get me wrong though, there would be big problems and it would be worse for education, I'm just thinking to buy some time and free up some of that "R" for the economy, but still ensure R is below 1.

This is far from my area of expertise mind, as I'm not a teacher, a parent or a child, so if this is a stupid idea or won't work, I totally get that :)
 
Statto I have a 9 year old and she struggled during the first lockdown. Lots of parents didn't have a structure for learning during the first lockdown and those were generally the parents who don't particularly value education so their children tend to have the same attitude. It would stretch the gap between the high performing kids and the low performing kids.
 
Statto1 said:
Yeah, that was the main reason I thought of too, it's not actually the education stopping which is the big player, it's what comes with that. Effectively school is reliable childcare for a lot of people, that have no other way of having their kids looked after?

College and Uni should be all on-line though, assuming the college and uni lot can look after themselves, which is a big assumption from how I acted in further education :)

Might be better if those that can still have the kids at home did, with online teaching and those that couldn't do that sent their kids to school, much smaller bubbles and the same on-line teaching (so everyone's being taught the same, and no kid gaining an advantage). It's a logistical nightmare, but it's probably not one that couldn't be figured out. Could even have one stream for multiple schools, even national if it's the same syllabus, that would free up more staff to help out. Don't get me wrong though, there would be big problems and it would be worse for education, I'm just thinking to buy some time and free up some of that "R" for the economy, but still ensure R is below 1.

This is far from my area of expertise mind, as I'm not a teacher, a parent or a child, so if this is a stupid idea or won't work, I totally get that :)
Click to expand...

College and Uni should be all on-line though, assuming the college and uni lot can look after themselves, which is a big assumption from how I acted in further education :)

I'd take this if they opened the pubs (y)
 
You are right Randy. Talking to my wife yesterday imagine if an elderly parent had lost their spouse during the year, covid or otherwise. Would you, in all good conscious leave them alone at Christmas? Of course you wouldn't. My father in law has a daughter living close by so he isn't in that position. What if a brother or sister has lost their job this year and are struggling over Christmas, would you abandon them? Again I would hope not. If isn't just as simple as their being restrictions as you and Alvez point out lockdown has had a devestating effect on some families and their extended families should be allowed to support them in whatever way they can without fear of reprisals from a set of laws that have been clumsily thought out at best.
 
Laughing said:
Statto I have a 9 year old and she struggled during the first lockdown. Lots of parents didn't have a structure for learning during the first lockdown and those were generally the parents who don't particularly value education so their children tend to have the same attitude. It would stretch the gap between the high performing kids and the low performing kids.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet most kids (and parents) did, really sorry to hear that. Everyone was chucked in the deep end first time around (ignored what was going on in China and spreading), but I would have hoped it could have been better prepared for second time around. Every model said a second wave was coming in winter, and they should have known it would come at a time when schools are active and case transmission is easier (more people inside).

I struggle to get my head around how parents can not value education, but it's usually because they're lacking education themselves. So, another reason is it's helping kids not get screwed over by their poor parents? I would say maybe those kids could be supported better, but I can't see there being anyone available to do that, especially from what I hear from some social workers I know.
 
my theory, and it is only an unsubstantiated (and very simplistic!) theory, is that we need to embrace and align working from home and educating from home in parallel - so secondary school age kids and above (so i include college and uni students in this) education should be from home, as they don't require the same levels of child care as younger kids. this allows parents to go to work if they cannot WFH, but all parents who can WFH should be doing so. primary school age kids should be in on a rotational basis (either 1 or 2 weeks in, then 1 or 2 weeks at home), this halves the amount of childcare required when not in school, but allows for greater social distancing and, with fewer pupils in, the school could operate with less staff; it seems many educators are getting stuck in a self-isolation vortex such is the sheer volume of people they are in contact with on a daily basis and they're effectively doing 2 weeks in and 2 off (in isolation) anyway

the logistics and practicalities of this may be tricky to work out, but it's a complex problem so a complex solution is inevitable
 
Artie Fufkin said:
my theory, and it is only an unsubstantiated (and very simplistic!) theory, is that we need to embrace and align working from home and educating from home in parallel - so secondary school age kids and above (so i include college and uni students in this) education should be from home, as they don't require the same levels of child care as younger kids. this allows parents to go to work if they cannot WFH, but all parents who can WFH should be doing so. primary school age kids should be in on a rotational basis (either 1 or 2 weeks in, then 1 or 2 weeks at home), this halves the amount of childcare required when not in school, but allows for greater social distancing and, with fewer pupils in, the school could operate with less staff; it seems many educators are getting stuck in a self-isolation vortex such is the sheer volume of people they are in contact with on a daily basis and they're effectively doing 2 weeks in and 2 off (in isolation) anyway

the logistics and practicalities of this may be tricky to work out, but it's a complex problem so a complex solution is inevitable
Click to expand...

But your idea falls down when parents will have to be to take 2 weeks off on a rota basis.
 
Laughing said:
You are right Randy. Talking to my wife yesterday imagine if an elderly parent had lost their spouse during the year, covid or otherwise. Would you, in all good conscious leave them alone at Christmas? Of course you wouldn't. My father in law has a daughter living close by so he isn't in that position. What if a brother or sister has lost their job this year and are struggling over Christmas, would you abandon them? Again I would hope not. If isn't just as simple as their being restrictions as you and Alvez point out lockdown has had a devestating effect on some families and their extended families should be allowed to support them in whatever way they can without fear of reprisals from a set of laws that have been clumsily thought out at best.
Click to expand...

This is covered in 'bubbles' - my elderly mother is a single person who lives on her own, she will be coming to us for Xmas regardless as she is in our bubble. Good job we have bubbles!!
 
RandySavage said:
But not every profession can work from home so what do we do then?
Click to expand...

same as we did in the previous proper lockdown. we're not going to get a grip of this anytime soon is schools are open 'as normal', we have to face that and that's why i came up with a proposal. doing what we're doing now is not working, so let's try a different approach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top