Back to school?

The government's PR machine is in full swing with a carefully choreographed campaign to try to ensure a smooth opening of the new school year.  All four Chief Medical Officers (one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) were "put up" (I believe is the phrase) on Sunday to  to assure us that that the children would be, if not perfectly safe, then almost, and that keeping them out of school would be far worse for their mental and physical health than would the danger of catching the virus, which is less likely than getting run over on the way to school.  I wonder if they tested that conclusion by an algorithm?

A former government chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, was more cautious and said that: "It’s important that we focus on elimination before opening schools . . . .. That doesn’t mean hurting the economy - just hurting the virus better."

However, there hasn't been much about that in the papers.  I wonder why? 

 

Yesterday Prime Minister Johnson was brought back from his holiday in Scotland to instruct us that it was his and our moral duty to get the children back to school. 

 

Given that both Mr Johnson's private life and political life are more associated with immorality than morality this is a bit rich. Clearly the man not only has no sense of shame, but no sense of irony either

 Curiously little so far has been heard from the actual Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, he of the "A" level results shambles of the last ten days.

If the government is really so concerned about the children's  education, then they could  demonstrate this more effectively by funding it properly: perhaps up to the same level the  private sector enjoys.

 

It is true that we are faced with an almost intractable problem.  Yes the children need to get back to school and, yes, their parents, guardians and careers need to  be released from home schooling and child minding in order to get back to their jobs, both for the sake of their own incomes and to restore as much economic activity as possible.

 

I suspect the government's focus groups have told them that "kids back to school" will be the most popular decision whatever the danger.

 

it is probably perfectly true that, as far as we know, the young are unlikely to catch the virus, and even if they do they will experience only a mild form of the illness, at least in the short run.  The virus has not yet been around long enough for us to know its long-term effects.

 

What seems to to be downplayed is that, although the children might not suffer much, they are fully capable of infecting the teachers and the many other adults  involved in running schools.

 

Schools are stuffy, smelly, sweaty, unhygienic places.  Classrooms crowded with thirty individuals, all breathing, coughing and spluttering, generate quite  a germ-laden soup, especially in the winter with the windows firmly closed and the heating (if it works) full on.

And schools built on the cheap have pretty narrow corridors in which passing at  a responsible physical distance is extremely difficult, even for adults behaving maturely, and hardly likely to be the norm for excitable children .

 

A full return to school for all children clearly poses many dangers, especially to the adults, and then the people they in turn may go on to infect.  The right-wing press accuse the teachers and our unions of being over-cautious and even obstructive.  I think the unions  are right .

 

One solution which would reduce  the danger is to take in only half classes, either one half  in the morning and the other in the afternoon, or one half one week and one the next.  This ,of course, would not have the advantage of releasing all the parents and carers to return to their jobs, though an adjustment to the furlough scheme would help.  

 

This could lead to a slower economic recovery, but surely it would be preferable for more of us to survive, but at a slightly lower level of luxury.