Coronavirus

[tuffers#1]

If you pull up others PW
I'll willingly not muddle things further .

Maybe Admin needs to add another moderator for balance ?

We need to add a mod who is pro imbecile?

I didn't notice the other posts because so much is about Labour on here. You didn't need to start posting about Yemen too.

I merely pointed out to MS

About the Zinger comment .

Why is it ok to complain about labour on a thread about a virus killing
Half a million people worldwide & not about Yemen where people are dying ?

Action & Re-Action

[Long slender neck]

It's not, I've just explained that and irrelevant posts have been deleted.

[tuffers#1]

So much about Labour
During a pandemic when they are
Not in Power ?


At least the relevant posts were deleted .

Thankyou for that .

[Dohnut]

Hard evidence about the mental impact of the lockdown on young children of that age is not readily available at this point, for reasons that should be obvious if you think it through. The Oxford survey is the only one I could find.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence (radio, tv speaking to people with young children) and a general opinion that it will be an issue some time down the line, eg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53037702 (Child psychologists highlight mental health risks of lockdown)

Why don't you just declare your vested interest, instead of being cynical. Then it can be debated and perhaps we can all learn something.

I think FaldO that RedO is on some sort of mission to have a dig at me. Which is fine. He clearly is not interested in debate despite his alledged interest.

This subject in my opinion is serious and damaging, bloody sad. And one that personally affects my family. So I have resisted getting involved, preferring to offer what information I have in a constructive way.

I've asked you from where you have learnt that 4-6 year olds are being more greatly affected by this than any other age group. That's it. And, as per normal, you've been unable to provide any sources from which your opinions have been formed.

You shouldn't be allowed to go around spouting your bullshit on such a serious issue. It's dangerous.

I said where I heard it. I have no issue with you disagreeing or even feeling my explanation does not satisfy you.

But your motives are very clear. your tone is very insulting and aggressive. I choose not to get involved any more in this thread. I’ll choose other topics to sort you out, like I’ve done before, hence this. I understand you are smarting over previous encounters with me, Looking for revenge. That’s fine.

[NuneatonO's]

To be fair to PW, we rarely agree on anything.

That said, I think he's unbiased; and lets a lot go that he probably vehemently disagrees with.

I assume it's an unpaid position being a Mod; so there's probably quite a few of us that wouldn't similarly put in the hours gratis, keeping things in order.

[NuneatonO's]

I blame the unions, don't you faldo?

[faldO]

I blame the unions, don't you faldo?

Since you must have missed it, judging by your obsession with what I think about them...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3527&p=115815&hilit=union#p115815

[tuffers#1]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... virus.html

"Seven members of staff from a single primary school test positive for coronavirus as thousands of pupils return to classrooms today".

Perhaps they had very good reason to protect there members.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I think FaldO that RedO is on some sort of mission to have a dig at me. Which is fine. He clearly is not interested in debate despite his alledged interest.

This subject in my opinion is serious and damaging, bloody sad. And one that personally affects my family. So I have resisted getting involved, preferring to offer what information I have in a constructive way.

I've asked you from where you have learnt that 4-6 year olds are being more greatly affected by this than any other age group. That's it. And, as per normal, you've been unable to provide any sources from which your opinions have been formed.

You shouldn't be allowed to go around spouting your bullshit on such a serious issue. It's dangerous.

I said where I heard it. I have no issue with you disagreeing or even feeling my explanation does not satisfy you.

But your motives are very clear. your tone is very insulting and aggressive. I choose not to get involved any more in this thread. I’ll choose other topics to sort you out, like I’ve done before, hence this. I understand you are smarting over previous encounters with me, Looking for revenge. That’s fine.

You heard it on a tv programme, but you can't remember which tv programme? Sounds legit. No wonder you don't want to engage on this topic anymore.

I haven't seen anything that adequately substantiates why 4, 5 and 6 year olds had been prioritised to go back to school first. I'd be grateful if anyone who has seen the tv shows or research alluded to above could point me in the direction of it. I had assumed that it was merely to help their parents get back to work and get the economy going, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.

[Dunners]

That's obviously the main reason. I happen to know a couple of teachers [Thor mode: activated] who said that early years reading at that age is very important for their future development. But then, don't some of those Scandi countries not send their kids to school until they're 7 or 8 or something?

[faldO]

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/educatio ... nd-2849123

That gives some explanation on why specific years are prioritised.

[Currywurst and Chips]

I've asked you from where you have learnt that 4-6 year olds are being more greatly affected by this than any other age group. That's it. And, as per normal, you've been unable to provide any sources from which your opinions have been formed.

You shouldn't be allowed to go around spouting your bullshit on such a serious issue. It's dangerous.

I said where I heard it. I have no issue with you disagreeing or even feeling my explanation does not satisfy you.

But your motives are very clear. your tone is very insulting and aggressive. I choose not to get involved any more in this thread. I’ll choose other topics to sort you out, like I’ve done before, hence this. I understand you are smarting over previous encounters with me, Looking for revenge. That’s fine.

You heard it on a tv programme, but you can't remember which tv programme? Sounds legit. No wonder you don't want to engage on this topic anymore.

I haven't seen anything that adequately substantiates why 4, 5 and 6 year olds had been prioritised to go back to school first. I'd be grateful if anyone who has seen the tv shows or research alluded to above could point me in the direction of it. I had assumed that it was merely to help their parents get back to work and get the economy going, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.

Here's a link to the report he's talking about given he's incapable of finding it himself

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgUoh0wW0AAjrkn.jpg

[faldO]

BOB250620.jpg (110.93 KiB) Viewed 642 times

[Dohnut]

I've asked you from where you have learnt that 4-6 year olds are being more greatly affected by this than any other age group. That's it. And, as per normal, you've been unable to provide any sources from which your opinions have been formed.

You shouldn't be allowed to go around spouting your bullshit on such a serious issue. It's dangerous.

I said where I heard it. I have no issue with you disagreeing or even feeling my explanation does not satisfy you.

But your motives are very clear. your tone is very insulting and aggressive. I choose not to get involved any more in this thread. I’ll choose other topics to sort you out, like I’ve done before, hence this. I understand you are smarting over previous encounters with me, Looking for revenge. That’s fine.

You heard it on a tv programme, but you can't remember which tv programme? Sounds legit. No wonder you don't want to engage on this topic anymore.

I haven't seen anything that adequately substantiates why 4, 5 and 6 year olds had been prioritised to go back to school first. I'd be grateful if anyone who has seen the tv shows or research alluded to above could point me in the direction of it. I had assumed that it was merely to help their parents get back to work and get the economy going, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.

I’m really happy to engage in this topic, any topic But it’s the snide comments that prevent that. Like so many debates on here, some just want them to become sort of infantile point scoring slanging matches which seem to be the Modus Operandi of a few gutless keyboard warriors. OK when done with humour though.

Can’t be bothered with this stuff any more.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/educatio ... nd-2849123

That gives some explanation on why specific years are prioritised.

Thanks Faldo.

I have read that but can't see where it actually gives any reasons as to why reception and year 1 have been prioritised. Is it the bit where it says they'll be the best at social distancing because they don't have friends at that age?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I said where I heard it. I have no issue with you disagreeing or even feeling my explanation does not satisfy you.

But your motives are very clear. your tone is very insulting and aggressive. I choose not to get involved any more in this thread. I’ll choose other topics to sort you out, like I’ve done before, hence this. I understand you are smarting over previous encounters with me, Looking for revenge. That’s fine.

You heard it on a tv programme, but you can't remember which tv programme? Sounds legit. No wonder you don't want to engage on this topic anymore.

I haven't seen anything that adequately substantiates why 4, 5 and 6 year olds had been prioritised to go back to school first. I'd be grateful if anyone who has seen the tv shows or research alluded to above could point me in the direction of it. I had assumed that it was merely to help their parents get back to work and get the economy going, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.

I’m really happy to engage in this topic, any topic But it’s the snide comments that prevent that. Like so many debates on here, some just want them to become sort of infantile point scoring slanging matches which seem to be the Modus Operandi of a few gutless keyboard warriors. OK when done with humour though.

Can’t be bothered with this stuff any more.

Just hold your hands up and say there isn't any evidence, it's honestly no big deal.

[o-no]

Not hard to find

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... rategy.pdf

Page 30

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Not hard to find

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... rategy.pdf

Page 30

Thanks.

That says what the policy is but doesn’t give a reason why.

It really is all about childcare provision, isn’t it.

[faldO]

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/educatio ... nd-2849123

That gives some explanation on why specific years are prioritised.

Thanks Faldo.

I have read that but can't see where it actually gives any reasons as to why reception and year 1 have been prioritised. Is it the bit where it says they'll be the best at social distancing because they don't have friends at that age?

This one may be better: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... r-18240263

"Children in Reception and Year 1 are at the very beginning of their school career and are mastering the essential basics, including counting and the fundamentals of reading and writing, and learning to socialise with their peers," says the report.

It's more or less a direct quote taken from this report on gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -june-2020

If you look for the section entitled "Year groups in first phase of wider opening" there is some more explanation. Or just search through it for any mentions of "reception". I think this is the main explanation:

We are prioritising younger children in the first phases of wider opening, for several reasons. Firstly, because there is moderately high scientific confidence in evidence suggesting younger children are less likely to become unwell if infected with coronavirus (COVID-19); and secondly because evidence shows the particularly detrimental impact which time spent out of education can have upon them. In addition, older children are more likely to have higher numbers of contacts outside of school so pose a greater transmission risk, and they are typically better able to learn at home.

I cannot see any citations for the evidence mentioned but will post if I find any.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Good man, faldo.

I've lifted this from the link you've provided:

The three year groups within mainstream primary have been prioritised because they are key transition years – children in Reception and year 1 are at the very beginning of their school career and are mastering the essential basics, including counting and the fundamentals of reading and writing, and learning to socialise with their peers. We know that attending early education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and supports children’s social and emotional development. Year 6 children are finishing Key Stage 2 and are preparing for the transition to secondary school, and will benefit immensely from time with their friends and teachers to ensure they are ready.

We are prioritising younger children in the first phases of wider opening, for several reasons. Firstly, because there is moderately high scientific confidence in evidence suggesting younger children are less likely to become unwell if infected with coronavirus (COVID-19); and secondly because evidence shows the particularly detrimental impact which time spent out of education can have upon them. In addition, older children are more likely to have higher numbers of contacts outside of school so pose a greater transmission risk, and they are typically better able to learn at home.

The two year groups in mainstream secondary schools and colleges have been prioritised because they are preparing for key examinations next year, and are most at risk of falling behind due to time out of school or college. From 15 June 2020, secondary schools and colleges will be able to offer some face-to-face contact with year 10 and year 12 pupils or 16 to 19 learners in the first year of a two-year study programme.

Getting years 10 and 12 back, ready for their examinations next year in years 11 and 13, is totally understandable.

Getting year 6 back to finish up their time at primary and help them get ready for the move to senior school in September is of course totally understandable.

Getting back reception and year 1 (and the early years pre schoolers) because these are 'key transition years' simply isn't true. I'd wish they were honest about it and said it's to help working parents out.

[JimbO]

Good man, faldo.

I've lifted this from the link you've provided:

The three year groups within mainstream primary have been prioritised because they are key transition years – children in Reception and year 1 are at the very beginning of their school career and are mastering the essential basics, including counting and the fundamentals of reading and writing, and learning to socialise with their peers. We know that attending early education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and supports children’s social and emotional development. Year 6 children are finishing Key Stage 2 and are preparing for the transition to secondary school, and will benefit immensely from time with their friends and teachers to ensure they are ready.

We are prioritising younger children in the first phases of wider opening, for several reasons. Firstly, because there is moderately high scientific confidence in evidence suggesting younger children are less likely to become unwell if infected with coronavirus (COVID-19); and secondly because evidence shows the particularly detrimental impact which time spent out of education can have upon them. In addition, older children are more likely to have higher numbers of contacts outside of school so pose a greater transmission risk, and they are typically better able to learn at home.

The two year groups in mainstream secondary schools and colleges have been prioritised because they are preparing for key examinations next year, and are most at risk of falling behind due to time out of school or college. From 15 June 2020, secondary schools and colleges will be able to offer some face-to-face contact with year 10 and year 12 pupils or 16 to 19 learners in the first year of a two-year study programme.

Getting years 10 and 12 back, ready for their examinations next year in years 11 and 13, is totally understandable.

Getting year 6 back to finish up their time at primary and help them get ready for the move to senior school in September is of course totally understandable.

Getting back reception and year 1 (and the early years pre schoolers) because these are 'key transition years' simply isn't true. I'd wish they were honest about it and said it's to help working parents out.

Really so only the Kids in yeas 1 & 2 have working parents what nonsense

[Long slender neck]

It isn't true because you said so RedO? Evidence please.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Good man, faldo.

I've lifted this from the link you've provided:

The three year groups within mainstream primary have been prioritised because they are key transition years – children in Reception and year 1 are at the very beginning of their school career and are mastering the essential basics, including counting and the fundamentals of reading and writing, and learning to socialise with their peers. We know that attending early education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and supports children’s social and emotional development. Year 6 children are finishing Key Stage 2 and are preparing for the transition to secondary school, and will benefit immensely from time with their friends and teachers to ensure they are ready.

We are prioritising younger children in the first phases of wider opening, for several reasons. Firstly, because there is moderately high scientific confidence in evidence suggesting younger children are less likely to become unwell if infected with coronavirus (COVID-19); and secondly because evidence shows the particularly detrimental impact which time spent out of education can have upon them. In addition, older children are more likely to have higher numbers of contacts outside of school so pose a greater transmission risk, and they are typically better able to learn at home.

The two year groups in mainstream secondary schools and colleges have been prioritised because they are preparing for key examinations next year, and are most at risk of falling behind due to time out of school or college. From 15 June 2020, secondary schools and colleges will be able to offer some face-to-face contact with year 10 and year 12 pupils or 16 to 19 learners in the first year of a two-year study programme.

Getting years 10 and 12 back, ready for their examinations next year in years 11 and 13, is totally understandable.

Getting year 6 back to finish up their time at primary and help them get ready for the move to senior school in September is of course totally understandable.

Getting back reception and year 1 (and the early years pre schoolers) because these are 'key transition years' simply isn't true. I'd wish they were honest about it and said it's to help working parents out.

Really so only the Kids in yeas 1 & 2 have working parents what nonsense

It's not years 1 and 2, it's reception and year 1.

As it happens, year 2 is more of a 'key transition year' as those kids move into KS2 in September (and had sats to complete by now).

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

It isn't true because you said so RedO? Evidence please.

I've been asking for evidence for some time, in case you haven't noticed.

[NuneatonO's]

A superb overview, outlining the Tory-led utter debacle around the Coronavirus Tracing chaos.



This system and process was about potentially saving peoples' lives. It hasn't only been poorly managed, it has been an utter farce. A monumental failure of promises; an epic failure delivering what it was intended to do; and even more tax-payers money simply wasted.

Quite simply, this Tory Government have failed the British People.

If anyone still finds Johnson and his mismangement of this entire process acceptable, then there's really no hope for you. You are, quite simply, brain-dead.