Similar for mine (4). Worksheets to go through every day (photo and uploaded online afterwarss) and a daily Zoom call for a story/activity/show and tell etc.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Return to Education
- Thread starter CD
- Start date
- Status
Similar for mine (4). Worksheets to go through every day (photo and uploaded online afterwarss) and a daily Zoom call for a story/activity/show and tell etc.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I wasn’t demanding that or said anything of the sort - I just mentioned that it was pure grandstanding by the BBC for making such a big deal about the fact that they are broadcasting educational programmes because the target audience won’t be able to watch it as they are in actual lessons online!
Primary "lessons" are quite short and interactive. No more than 20 minutes before rotating to something else. Not something that a Zoom call is effective for.
londonteacher
Member
That is not true at all. As a primary school teacher I can tell you the children do have lessons. In primary the lessons are not often live due to the needs of the children as they tend to need support from adults who are not always able to sit next to them.
But this is my normal day during lockdown as a teacher when I am not in school:
- 8am - Team meeting discussing the needs of the day - what needs to be done?
- 9am - Welcoming the children to do the day by recording a live video that is posted on Google Classroom for the children to access when they sign on.
- 9:30 - 12:00 - Producing a recorded lesson for Maths and Phonics including editing and producing the online task that goes with this.
- 12:30 - Lunch
- 13:00 - Online feedback
- 14:00 - Producing recorded lesson for foundation subjects such as Music and Art.
- 15:30 - Paper pack production for children without devices.
- 16:15 - Daily CPL (sometimes directed, sometimes my own choice)
- 17:00 - last check of days completed learning.
Also for the record, I could never be a doctor or nurse in this pandemic. They are incredibly resilient and hardworking and quite honestly I don't know how they do it.
Last edited:
DorkingMain
Member
A fair few of my friends and family are teachers.
Can vouch for the fact their workload is much, much more substantial than anything I've had in the several roles I've worked in the past (on and outside the railway)
Isn't that why they are on Iplayer?
Although sticking them behind an effective paywall with the TV license requirement isn't a great move.
Yes your right. I acknowledged this in #443.
londonteacher
Member
Sorry, I didn't see that. Thank you.
Completely missing the point that I was saying.
There is some sense in showing programmes for primary students as they are not expected to be in lessons all day long but are set activities and also needs a lot of parental involvement - your timetable above proves that! The same cannot be said for secondary school students and staff because they are in front of the screen; teaching live.
Last edited:
And why are we not takin the course of action that removes restrictions most quickly? How many times will the goalposts be moved before we tell them that enough is enough, and we cannot live in this pitiful excuse for existence any more?
At the current level of circa 225,000 over the last 7 days we're down from the peak but still above the circa 160,000 (also over 7 days) at the start of the November lockdown.
If it's not the lockdown, why had the number of cases over 7 days started to fall from the 4th January (circa 480,000) to the current level (circa 225,000)?
The November lockdown also showed a fall as well.
It's certainly not the weather (the reason given for the March lockdown having an impact).
They had already started to fall just before the lockdown!
Why have countries without lockdowns seen peaks and troughs in infections? Why does this happen with other viruses? The lockdown narrative is based on the flawed assumption that it will just keep increasing until it reaches equilibrium.
Lockdowns may well have some effect, but I don't believe they are the main cause of the peak and then decline, and the impact they have is not enough to justify the damage they cause.
Apart from a spike around the 3rd, which was probably Christmas infections working their way through the system, the numbers have been on the way down since about a week before the end of last year. That might be caused by moving London from level 2 to level 4, or it might just be the vaccine running out of victims to claim. What it isn't caused by is a lockdown which started on January 4th and couldn't possibly have impacted the figures until at least the 7th.
My recollection is that the BBC broadcasts are aimed at pupils who, for whavever reason, can't access online lessons or other home schooling. So that they get something rather than nothing.
DorkingMain
Member
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that this constant yo-yo of restrictions is not acceptable whatsoever, the course of action that prevents the hospitals from being filled with unwell old people is probably the best route out.
Cases were already falling before 4 Jan; see other threads
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry but this doesn't make sense; it's effectively like saying no-one is ever vaccinated against 'flu!
What matters is the efficacy; after 2-3 weeks efficacy of one dose, efficacy of the Oxford vaccine was found to be around 61% against symptomatic Covid and more importantly no-one died; admittedly it was small sample but it looks incredibly promising.
The second dose is more to boost longer term immunity ready for the 2021-22 winter season.
The best way to keep people out of hospital is to give as many people as possible one dose before you start giving out the 2nd dose.
Moving on to 65-69 age range will have a far bigger effect on hospitalisations than giving people 70+ a second dose sooner. See the vaccination thread for more on this topic.
But the mean age is 82, while...
..for this, the average age will be far younger. I'm sure this has been raised in other threads.
Back on topic...
In York it is only 3 weeks before the Easter break, but still worth going back for, in my opinion. I hope it's not delayed any further. The "Zero Covid" brigade who want to keep kids off school for the foreseeable future are an absolute disgrace and clearly have no idea of the terrible impact this is having on many children.
Some of the emails from parents that I have seen are frightening, such as previously happy kids who were model students who are now depressed and parents struggle to get them out of bed. We don't know what the long term damage will be until it's too late.
Last edited:
The best route out is the fastest one, I don't know if I'll be around for the slower ones.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
The mission goal is badged as protect the NHS day in day out by the politicians yet the group that are filling up the beds are well down the priority list for vaccinations. My take is JCVI success criteria is minimising the mortality rate which is equally laudable goal but isn't necessarily a policy that supports protecting the NHS.
DorkingMain
Member
Somewhat inclined to agree, though I would presume it takes much more investment of resources to deal with people who are dying or on the verge of doing so, vs. younger people who may be ill but are much less likely to end up further down the list of problems.
I also suspect although there is an increase in new admissions from under 65s, older people still represent the majority of those who are seriously ill. Certainly hospital death statistics suggest that the vast majority of those dying in hospital are over 60.
Really? The data below is from the government numbers and all I've done is added up the daily figures so that there's 7 grouped together. It does not show a fall in the numbers before the lockdown, but does show a fall after the start of each (the figures at the start of Jan are less clear cut as there was a semi lockdown due to Christmas).
If also point out a fall from 165,000 to 100,000 and then up to 428,000 and then back down to 225,000 over the course of 3 months broadly keying in with when lockdowns do and don't happen is a bit too much of a coincidence to dismiss as just random in most people's books. If the ranges were smaller I could accept that, but they are quite significant shifts.
If also point out that vaccine numbers were fairly low at Christmas (even now we're still only just above 10%) and generally the vaccine takes about 2 to 3 weeks before slowing recorded infection rates (about 2 weeks to provide much protection and another about a week before symptoms show up to require a test - the latter bit could be reduced if there's regular testing but that's for fairly limited numbers of people).
Also to put the numbers into perspective over the summer we were down at about 4,000 to 5,000 cases (7 day totals), so the highest we got was about 100 times that level.
If you wish to check my maths the data is available from here:
| 2021-01-23 | 224279 |
| 2021-01-22 | 237023 |
| 2021-01-21 | 249344 |
| 2021-01-20 | 260809 |
| 2021-01-19 | 271443 |
| 2021-01-18 | 281694 |
| 2021-01-17 | 293796 |
| 2021-01-16 | 301291 |
| 2021-01-15 | 309652 |
| 2021-01-14 | 316232 |
| 2021-01-13 | 325613 |
| 2021-01-12 | 337474 |
| 2021-01-11 | 352969 |
| 2021-01-10 | 372292 |
| 2021-01-09 | 391201 |
| 2021-01-08 | 412692 |
| 2021-01-07 | 397514 |
| 2021-01-06 | 398494 |
| 2021-01-05 | 412002 |
| 2021-01-04 | 428599 |
| 2021-01-03 | 398113 |
| 2021-01-02 | 390691 |
| 2021-01-01 | 370659 |
| 2020-12-31 | 353000 |
| 2020-12-30 | 332062 |
| 2020-12-29 | 303558 |
| 2020-12-28 | 267714 |
| 2020-12-27 | 269499 |
| 2020-12-26 | 254220 |
| 2020-12-25 | 239014 |
| 2020-12-24 | 260687 |
| 2020-12-23 | 262729 |
| 2020-12-22 | 255324 |
| 2020-12-21 | 243523 |
| 2020-12-20 | 230862 |
| 2020-12-19 | 220376 |
| 2020-12-18 | 214584 |
| 2020-12-17 | 202827 |
| 2020-12-16 | 191567 |
| 2020-12-15 | 178333 |
| 2020-12-14 | 165256 |
| 2020-12-13 | 151874 |
| 2020-12-12 | 143491 |
| 2020-12-11 | 136907 |
| 2020-12-10 | 128502 |
| 2020-12-09 | 121521 |
| 2020-12-08 | 116331 |
| 2020-12-07 | 111987 |
| 2020-12-06 | 108680 |
| 2020-12-05 | 105764 |
| 2020-12-04 | 103949 |
| 2020-12-03 | 102634 |
| 2020-12-02 | 101552 |
| 2020-12-01 | 101713 |
| 2020-11-30 | 101715 |
| 2020-11-29 | 102450 |
| 2020-11-28 | 103500 |
| 2020-11-27 | 104888 |
| 2020-11-26 | 107373 |
| 2020-11-25 | 110564 |
| 2020-11-24 | 114712 |
| 2020-11-23 | 121437 |
| 2020-11-22 | 129238 |
| 2020-11-21 | 133533 |
| 2020-11-20 | 139184 |
| 2020-11-19 | 146378 |
| 2020-11-18 | 153098 |
| 2020-11-17 | 159694 |
| 2020-11-16 | 163947 |
| 2020-11-15 | 168427 |
| 2020-11-14 | 172359 |
| 2020-11-13 | 172889 |
| 2020-11-12 | 172167 |
| 2020-11-11 | 171439 |
| 2020-11-10 | 167758 |
| 2020-11-09 | 165918 |
| 2020-11-08 | 166376 |
| 2020-11-07 | 162163 |
| 2020-11-06 | 160129 |
| 2020-11-05 | 159489 |
| 2020-11-04 | 159097 |
| 2020-11-03 | 159031 |
| 2020-11-02 | 157547 |
| 2020-11-01 | 152591 |
| 2020-10-31 | 152563 |
Nobody is saying it's 'random' - the point is that the lockdowns were knee-jerk reactions to an increase in numbers. Many of us expect such increases to peak naturally and tail off, as normally happens with other viruses, and as seen with this one in places without lockdowns. The fact that the current peak was already starting to decline before the lockdown could have had any effect also shows this.
So what? It is normal for all respiratory viruses to decline significantly in the summer. And given that we had a warm summer and are now in a winter which has generally been quite cold, surely this pattern is normal?
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
The problem is they wait too long before taking any action then have to utilise the lockdown sledgehammer. The tiering system was a reasonable compromise but they never applied it as they proposed. ie they set a threshold to intervene then never acted when areas breached the level.
The other problem is schools have clearly been a major contributor now acknowledged by them dragging there feet over when its safe to return. Remember BoJo told Marr on 3/1 that schools were safe when clearly they weren't and never have been and this demonstrates the real fault line of the govt to have any humility to acknowledge it may have called it wrong. Its other fault line remains a lack of contingency planning to deal with a changing situation. So whilst it was absolutely correct to keep education going but not to have adapted it to the current virus risk (ie smaller class sizes, reduced attendance days etc) was criminal but then not to have a contingency plan to deal with a forced closure dumps the problem on teachers and they are now rightly concerned about how safe there workplace is.
They like to use the changing situation to justify lockdowns but if only they would just run with a more flexible policy and get the opposition and media on board so they are not always worrying how they will react to drive policy response.
The risk to pupils, parents and most teachers is minimal. I'd happily send my children to school and not see my parents, bearing in mind I'm not seeing them anyway. The problem is multi generation families living together and care home workers that are also parents. I'm not convinced that closing the schools helps that much. I know of people that have to go to work so their parents are looking after the kids!
I don't believe that the scientific evidence backs up that assertion.
There are a few studies strongly suggesting that kids are nearly as good at spreading it as adults, but not very good at being symptomatic. That means that the schools could easily be the leading cause of spread without it being very obvious at all in the stats. There were some indicative figures from Scotland while a lot of areas were in tier 3 that more than half the contacts detected by the app were in schools, both primary and secondary. Obviously there have been some studies indicating the contrary, but we're a long way from having any settled science either way on the topic.
Personally I don't think that schools should be kept closed for a long time "just in case", but I feel the same way about the leisure and hospitality sectors, which are being kept closed on the basis of even weaker evidence.
if that was the case, it would be expected that there would be clusters associated with particular schools and individual classes. So far as I am aware this hasn't been identified as actually happening.
There have been plenty of cases of multiple people in a bubble getting it in schools. When they have been sending bubbles/clusters/year groups home from school as a result of pupils testing positive they haven't been testing other members of the bubble unless they develop symptoms (which, being children, they don't). A cluster amongst parents/teachers in the school would likely look much like any other cluster. You would have to put a lot more testing and contact-tracing in place to answer the question one or another.
I slightly get the impression that sufficiently-detailed studies aren't happening because nobody wants to find out that schools are indeed a problem.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
I wasn't advocating schools should be closed but there exists a risk of transmission, especially in later years pupils, occurring and thus the Dept of Education should have had a plan to mitigate that risk. It didn't it sent back complete classes had them all moving around the school between lessons as well as large congregations outside of schools (have a primary and a secondary on my doorstep as well numerous contacts with education staff). This is where Dept of Ed failed to put in place any sort of risk management nor contingency arrangements for a lockdown. So we end up with the rest of the economy being sacrificed to deal with that failure. The irony is the pupils will find as a result there opportunities will be somewhat diminished in the future as a result.
DorkingMain
Member
This hit the nail on the head, I feel. Schools were sent back in September with absolutely no support for distancing or measures to stop the spread. There were lots of platitudes wafted about, but no practical ways to achieve it (one suggestion I heard from a friend was that they'd have to teach half their class in person and half online - no consideration was given to how they'd do both at the same time).
Realistically our schools are set up to cram hundreds of pupils into very small patches of land, and 30+ at once in small classrooms. Distancing is not a possibility at most schools no matter how you lay the chairs out.
I also heard a resounding consensus from crew at my TOC and others that crowds of 100s of kids were boarding trains at 3-4pm, obviously without any attempts at distancing or possibility of doing so, and a great number of them without masks. Once again, no consideration was given to how that would work (TfL helpfully introduced school extra buses which they said distancing didn't need to apply on).
I agree there's probably limited research / insight available into this issue because it opens many, many cans of worms about school funding, lack of planning, and issues going forward. It's much easier to keep quiet about it and bash the teaching unions whenever they try and raise any of these points.
They may well know what impact it is having on children but they could not care less.
- Status