Part of my issue, however, is that this does not take into account individual circumstances and is - in a broad form - ableist: those who children are in at risk groups or who themselves are in at risk groups are faced with a choice of putting them and their children in serious jeopardy or falling hugely behind in schooling.

Originally Posted by: NickR 

Where's Martyn when you want his considered opinion on these weighty matters of State?

Originally Posted by: NMA 

I am increasingly coming to the view that the elderly and other vulnerable groups need to self isolate immediately, and hopefully they can rely on family/friends/neighbours/local services to help them out throughout this

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

Where's Martyn when you want his considered opinion on these weighty matters of State?

Originally Posted by: NMA 

He's wearing a medical mask at his desk in the Wibsey branch of the Skipton Building Society!

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

He's wearing a medical mask at his desk in the Wibsey branch of the Skipton Building Society!

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

Is the surname of your landlord Whitty or Vallance by any chance?

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

Extract from the FT:

A population ready to comply with strict controls has also been key for Japan in containing coronavirus. The government’s handling of the failed quarantine on the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its policy of testing relatively few people have come under heavy criticism. But experts say social and cultural norms that impose self-discipline and obedience to official guidance are one of the reasons Japan has so far managed to limit the number of infections.

“There is a social norm that you should not cause trouble to other people,” says Kazuto Suzuki, an expert on international politics at Hokkaido University. “If you don’t take care of yourself and become ill, that is taken as causing problems for other people.” The coronavirus outbreak has resulted in the rigorous use of hand sanitisers and washing of hands, while not wearing a mask on the train would attract immediate disapproval.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key to success is in protecting vulnerable groups, the elderly, NHS staff, emergency responders and carers.

The rest of us can go about our normal business, provided we take all responsible measures, both in terms of personal hygiene and also in terms of self isolating if any symptoms become apparent.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

I would have thought the capacity to set up and monitor some form of 'cyber' schooling would be easier for selective individuals, than an en masse arrangement.

The vast majority of pupils can attend school without problem, and - whilst appreciating this could sound callous - shouldn't be forced to not attend school simply because a tiny minority should, for reasons of either themselves or a parent being at higher risk, not attend school for a period of time.

There are GCSE's and A-Levels to prepare for and sit for yer 11's and 13's. They will be severely handicapped in terms of results if schools close completely. Delaying the exams will create its own substantial problems.

My general opinion is that some aspects of life are obviously going to be forced to temporarily change (and 'temporarily' could mean anything from 6 weeks to 12+ months), and some groups are going to have to make much more adjustment than others, but the overriding aim should be to wherever possible minimise the negative impacts on as many people as possible, to maintain normality as far as we can. So taking a 'one size fits all' approach is not IMO the right way to do this.

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

Or he's having to step in as cashier in his building society because one of the cashier girls is self-isolating.

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

The suggestion that only East Asian populations will comply with government regulations is wrong. Our government asked pubs to restrict numbers to no more than 100. Cue headlines over the weekend showing packed pubs. Now, the government has asked pubs to close and that's exactly what's happening today, a complete shutdown of pubs. This is voluntary as there has been no legislation passed ordering it. Many cafes and restaurants have also closed even though there has been no government call to do so. If the government calls on them all to close, that's what will happen. People will self police this to a large extent. 

Originally Posted by: Lionel Hutz 

We can surely be scathing and p*ss-taking without being so specific? 

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

Exactly, I find these suggestions to be patronising and irresponsible. I started wondering if this is used as an excuse for HMG's choice to prioritise the economy?

Originally Posted by: xioni2 

Completely agree with you and Lionel. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

From an article in The Times:

"...

Two countries that have already faced massive coronavirus infection rates offer very different approaches — and lessons — for how to tackle the disease (Tom Kington writes).

To address its more than 8,000 cases, South Korea has limited lockdowns and opted for mass testing — while Italy, with more than 24,000 cases, has done the opposite.

With fewer than 80 deaths compared with 1,809 in Italy, the numbers suggest that South Korea has won the argument.

Seoul has ordered 240,000 tests and is using mobile phone tracking to trace potential sufferers, a tactic that might not go down well with western democracies due to privacy concerns.

..."

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

Part of my issue, however, is that this does not take into account individual circumstances and is - in a broad form - ableist: those who children are in at risk groups or who themselves are in at risk groups are faced with a choice of putting them and their children in serious jeopardy or falling hugely behind in schooling.

Originally Posted by: NickR 

Ridiculous ignorance. We won't know if the Italian lock-down is effective or not for days yet.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

But it’s referring to school closures Nick, not individual circumstances. I think schools should stay open as long as they can for those who can attend. Each parent needs to make their own assessment according to their own circumstances.  

Originally Posted by: Caz 

Part of my issue, however, is that this does not take into account individual circumstances and is - in a broad form - ableist: those who children are in at risk groups or who themselves are in at risk groups are faced with a choice of putting them and their children in serious jeopardy or falling hugely behind in schooling.

Originally Posted by: NickR 

Exactly Caz. Local circumstances need to be taken into account too - we have very few cases in Worcestershire at the moment, so why should schools here be closed, just because another county may have a lot of cases. I think a lot of such decisions need to be taken locally by those who know what is actually happening on the ground.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

I'm due to lead a Forest Schools trip on Thursday but had an e-mail from our head this morning that lots of our children are being kept off by parents so it might be cancelled. I can only see that increasing as numbers rise and the anxiety increases. Having said that it's a SEN school and a higher proportion of our children have underlying health issues than mainstream schools. 

In terms of keeping schools open in general, I can see the logic in keeping them open as long as possible but it will only work while there is enough staff to run them. Schools are places where the spread of illness is notoriously effective and many schools will have staff who are older or have health problems. 

Originally Posted by: Northern Sky 

True enough. However, the point is that SK did not need to implement such drastic measures to contain the outbreak (for now).

There is no "one size fits all" approach to this - only time will tell what the best approach was and that will probably be two years down the line from here.

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

Nick's point is that some pupils & parents of pupils are in the high risk category, and it would be wise for those pupils to not be at school, which raises the potential for infection.

Nick's legitimate concern is that those pupils, through missing a lot of school, would fall well behind and need to somehow catch up.

Where I disagree with Nick is that all schools shouldn't need to close because a minority might otherwise fall behind. Instead, I'd want to see strong resources devoted to a 'cyber schooling' facility to help these pupils maintain their education.

Yes, it won't be easy and will take dedication by the pupil (not easy for many!!) but IMO it's the least disruptive option for the vast majority.

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow