The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
Few about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.
I have googled for oxford.ac.uk and found that one. It mentions the age group 4-10 as struggling but doesn’t go into specific details on 4-6 year olds.Dohnut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:38 pmFew about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.
There have been more reports by others on TV, can’t remember the details, but the gist being that reception and year 1 kids were most affected and would benefit from a return to school. I wonder if this research is by they were first amongst kids going back.
Which is sort of supported by the Oxford University research.
Why? If my grandson is typical, he can maintain a good social life with friends via his xbox and mobile phone. Plus Netflix and Prime. Only disrupted by online schooling every day. Reception and year 1 kids maybe have not quite got that advantage.
have got to say about their blatant disregard for adopting such common sense? Indeed, what exactly have they been doing to actively progress this issue; apart from sitting with their thumbs up their arses for weeks?
Like I already said. It was on a TV programme. Particularly relevant to me as my daughter teaches in reception year so I paid attention. Up to you to accept that or not. With the Oxford report, it shows Kids issues decrease with age, so it’s is reasonable to consider the reverse. Up to you.RedO wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pmI have googled for oxford.ac.uk and found that one. It mentions the age group 4-10 as struggling but doesn’t go into specific details on 4-6 year olds.Dohnut wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:38 pmFew about, one I recall recently was the University of Oxford. Ox.ac.uk. This focuses on the issues in the 4-10 age group which they reported suffered from an increase in mental health issues after one month of lockdown. However those of an older age did not show Issues to quite the same extent.
There have been more reports by others on TV, can’t remember the details, but the gist being that reception and year 1 kids were most affected and would benefit from a return to school. I wonder if this research is by they were first amongst kids going back.
Which is sort of supported by the Oxford University research.
Why? If my grandson is typical, he can maintain a good social life with friends via his xbox and mobile phone. Plus Netflix and Prime. Only disrupted by online schooling every day. Reception and year 1 kids maybe have not quite got that advantage.
Could you please provide a link to something that supports that?
Surely WHO are now totally discredited after all the things we’ve learned about them through this pandemic? I personally don’t trust that organisation any longer.Lovejoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:51 pm WHO director: Pandemic is 'speeding up'.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... -ntp-feeds
WHY?Thor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:18 amSurely WHO are now totally discredited after all the things we’ve learned about them through this pandemic? I personally don’t trust that organisation any longer.Lovejoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:51 pm WHO director: Pandemic is 'speeding up'.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... -ntp-feeds
The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.
I too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:49 amThe institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.
Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.
Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.
It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.
Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.
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.RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:26 pmI too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:49 amThe institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.
Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.
Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.
It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.
Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.
Should have guessed you’d just made it up.
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.faldO wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:38 pmHard 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.RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:26 pmI too have a vested interest in this issue, hence asking to see where the evidence was to support your assertion that 4-6 year olds were most likely to suffer.Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:49 am
The institute for fiscal studies completed a risk of mental health survey. Available online, that in the 16-64 age group the risks increased as you get younger.
Oxford University conducted a study for those of school age and concluded the risks increased as you get Younger.
Two studies that came to the same conclusion. So it’s no Unreasonable leap into the dark to conclude those in the 5-6 Year age group carry a slightly higher risk than those aged 9-10. Not proof of course. But few things in life are that certain. But a reasonable line of thinking based on available information. It’s about gathering information and coming to a conclusion.
It was probably this type of data that was used on the TV by whoever it was felt reception and year 1 children carry a higher risk. Not an unreasonable view, but no link.
Me, I was against reception and year 1 going back. No doubt influenced by the risk to my daughter and family. Couldn’t see the point. But endless TV discussions at that time talked about these issues, which is where my opinions derive from. And why I changed my mind. Life is full of opinions. I have mine, you make up your own mind.
Should have guessed you’d just made it up.
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.
Agreed 100%. I have heard some heartbreaking stories (mainly phone-ins) of the affect of the lockdown on children at the younger end of the school age scale, especially not being able to see their friends. At that age, social interaction is critical to a child's development, the education side of it is almost secondary.
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.Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:45 pmI 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.faldO wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:38 pmHard 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.
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.
We need to add a mod who is pro imbecile?