Hancock's Half Hour

[Rorschach]

And what's your plan?

 

[Rorschach]

Surprised to read the E111 described as 'for emergencies only', perhaps things have changed.
Back in '81 we were resident in Belgium. Our daughter, then aged four, was diagnosed as needing a tonsillectomy and ear grommets inserted. This was not an emergency operation but the local hospital produced an E111 form which we completed, the op was performed and that was that.

You were resident.

 

[Nigel Burden]

That brings back some memories. My loons were so tight they were indecent. I remember my brother sitting in the bath to shrink his drainpipes to get them skin tight.

Nigel.

Wasn’t that an advert for Levi 501’s?

I seem to remember something like that now you say.

Nigel.

 

[Robbo3]

As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations under Voltaire,
"Attri, in SG Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907)

 

[Andy Kev.]

As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations under Voltaire,
"Attri, in SG Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907)

Thanks for nailing it.

As for "that French bloke": I've only ever heard of five Frenchmen (Napoleon, Voltaire, Descartes, Cantona and de Gaulle) and for some reason I have a sort of mental block on the names of Voltaire and Descartes. That said, if I were really pushed I might be able to come up with the names of a couple of French rugby players but it would be a struggle.

Edit: and Robespierre (a sort of 18th century Jeremy Corbyn, if memory serves) and Alexandre Dumas who wrote books which could be a bit tedious but the plots were usually OK. I'm sure one or two other names will pop up during the course of the day but I don't think I'll bore the forum with them. I wonder if there were any famous French inventors? They seem to have confined themselves to hot air balloons and photography.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. - Wiki.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You've forgotten the most famous Frenchman of all time - Serge Blanco.

 

[Chris152]

And what's your plan?

I think there's two ways to answer that question.

First, what's my plan to get through this in spite of the govt's plan. I'm still working on that, it's tricky as my plan has to find ways around the problems in the govt's plan.

Second, what's a better plan for the govt to propose. That's a tricky one, for sure. It's fairly easy to come up with a solution for kids from homes with lots of resources ('blended learning' along the lines of what I hear some universities are planning - limited contact, most work done online). But that doesn't do much for kids that don't have those resources at home. And it fails to answer schools' child-minding role so parents can work full-time, and it can only offer limited social control.

Shorten the school day and teach half groups in two shifts, allowing distancing? Alternate days for half groups? Requisition other public buildings to allow teaching to take place with adequate social distancing? Make return to school optional so those with resources can go for a more blended approach to schooling and allow those who can't full access to school?

I don't know, definitely difficult. But just announcing all kids back to full-time and full curriculum in 2 months fails to take account of reality, a deadly virus that challenges our way of life and takes lives in their tens of thousands. The govt's advice consists essentially of 'back to school' and 'bubbles' - now sort it out, head teachers.

 

[Rorschach]

And what's your plan?

I think there's two ways to answer that question.

First, what's my plan to get through this in spite of the govt's plan. I'm still working on that, it's tricky as my plan has to find ways around the problems in the govt's plan.

Second, what's a better plan for the govt to propose. That's a tricky one, for sure. It's fairly easy to come up with a solution for kids from homes with lots of resources ('blended learning' along the lines of what I hear some universities are planning - limited contact, most work done online). But that doesn't do much for kids that don't have those resources at home. And it fails to answer schools' child-minding role so parents can work full-time, and it can only offer limited social control.

Shorten the school day and teach half groups in two shifts, allowing distancing? Alternate days for half groups? Requisition other public buildings to allow teaching to take place with adequate social distancing? Make return to school optional so those with resources can go for a more blended approach to schooling and allow those who can't full access to school?

I don't know, definitely difficult. But just announcing all kids back to full-time and full curriculum in 2 months fails to take account of reality, a deadly virus that challenges our way of life and takes lives in their tens of thousands.

On the surface some good ideas there except for something you pointed out in your original post on the subject. Children cannot social distance. Around the immediate area (within 1/2 mile) I live are 7 schools, I see a lot of school children over the course of a day. From what I have been told the schools are staggering lessons and learning times at the moment so I see children heading to school mornings and afternoons and alternate groups leaving late morning late afternoon. The children head to school individually but when they leave they gather in large groups, especially those who only school in the morning so have the afternoon to spend time with their friends.

The only way to socially distance children is to keep them at home and as I think we would all agree that simply is not a practical long term solution for a whole host of reasons I won't go into now. Children need to go to school, they will not socially distance, they might spread the disease.

Efforts should be made for vulnerable teachers and if you have vulnerable family members, keep them away from your children (remember I am still in favour of shielding for the vulnerable, I have never been against that). Otherwise though, get the kids to school.

 

[Chris152]

They stand a much better chance of socially distancing if there's space for them to do so, and kids can socially distance in school (especially the older ones), as has been happening already with reduced class sizes. And kids gathering after school as you describe happens outdoors which, as you pointed out, is way way safer. There's no absolute answer, but there are ways of significantly mitigating the risks beyond huge bubbles.

 

[Rorschach]

They stand a much better chance of socially distancing if there's space for them to do so, and kids can socially distance in school (especially the older ones), as has been happening already with reduced class sizes. And kids gathering after school as you describe happens outdoors which, as you pointed out, is way way safer. There's no absolute answer, but there are ways of significantly mitigating the risks beyond huge bubbles.

You are right space would help, but are those spaces being cleaned after every use?
I am not just talking about getting together and just chatting after school, they are hugging, kissing, scuffling, fighting sharing things around. They are being kids.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I've just heard a member of the police on the radio saying the police aren't well placed to enforce any regulations/laws/advice ............ because the government have not made clear which are which (Quite correctly - I did suggest this was done a long while ago). Every time they come out with another tranche of regulations/laws/advice there are hundreds of thousands more people who just shrug and think I don't know ......... and I really don't give a toss anymore.

 

[Chris152]

Yes, I think the govt's messaging's getting confused. To stick with my current obsession (schools), the education minister on tv this week saying it's not a question of 1m or 2m, it's a question of reducing transmission points - yet the govt is still insisting on social distancing. The result is people make of it what they will, which i'd think isn't a terribly good way of dealing with a pandemic.

 

[Rorschach]

I've just heard a member of the police on the radio saying the police aren't well placed to enforce any regulations/laws/advice ............ because the government have not made clear which are which (Quite correctly - I did suggest this was done a long while ago). Every time they come out with another tranche of regulations/laws/advice there are hundreds of thousands more people who just shrug and think I don't know ......... and I really don't give a toss anymore.

My personal view is that leaving ambiguity in the regulations is actually a very pragmatic solution.

Creating laws is difficult and time consuming. Badly written laws have lots of loopholes and interpretation and precedents are set using those loopholes. If they made everything law and prosecuted those who break it you would fill the courts with those fighting it creating havoc and potentially creating precedents in law that go against something you wanted to achieve. Remember as well, plenty of people already don't give a toss about the law.

By creating ambiguity you cause problems but you also create natural solutions. People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either. People who are law abiding will follow the regulations and advice regardless of if they are legally enforceable and people who aren't sure will generally err on the side of caution and follow it just in case. Therefore you get the desired outcome with minimal hassle.

Think of it like this, you have a piece of land and you want to stop people parking on it. If you put up signs with charges and fines you need to make them legally perfect otherwise you open yourself to litigation, you also need to pay someone to enforce it and they need to act with in the law as well for the same reason.
Regardless of the signs you put up, people will park there and then you have to fight to get money from them causing all sorts of trouble. Law abiding people though will not park there, or will pay the money.
However if you just put up a sign saying "No Parking", which has no legal clout at all, 3 things will happen. The people who break the law will park there, as always. The people who follow the law will not park there and the people who aren't sure if it is legal or not will probably err on the side of caution and stay away. No enforcement, no legal hassle and you are in the same position you were at the start of my scenario.

 

[Lons]

And it fails to answer schools' child-minding role so parents can work full-time, and it can only offer limited social control.

Anyone collecting kids from school will be well aware of just how many are met by grandparents so that is a huge issue for working parents of young children who up until now have relied on them to ferry kids to and from school then care for them until they get home from work.
Those ageing carers are likely to be classed as vulnerable and will be unavailable or putting themselves at substantial risk.

 

[Andy Kev.]

You've forgotten the most famous Frenchman of all time - Serge Blanco.

I had indeed forgotten the great Monsieur B. Good job they only produced on of him.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either...

No, but people who don't follow advice usually obey laws.

 

[Rorschach]

... People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either...

No, but people who don't follow advice usually obey laws.

We'll have to disagree on that one.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That children should return to school ASAP is unarguable. It is also the case that:

- children very rarely suffer serious consequences from infection
- the incidence of infection in the general community is low (1 in 2000)
- there will need to be some exceptions - eg: those particularly vulnerable
- for many children school is a place of safety compared to the home (sadly)
- many children do not have access to internet, computer etc
- many teachers need training to provide online support
- teenagers are more tightly monitored in a school than left free to roam
- schools provide care for younger children - parents can resume work

The Leicester lockdown has demonstrated that central government is incapable of controlling local outbreaks - they do not have a personal awareness of local contacts, behaviours, ethnic mix, local transport infrastructures, jobs, etc etc. They may have the capacity to find raw data - but only local knowledge and understanding can make that sing.

Local outbreaks require local leadership, informed, supported and guided by central government data and expert knowledge. Local leadership in Leicester has been woeful.

Local authorities, governing bodies, head teachers need to work out the best local solutions. They cannot expect central government rules to cover detailed actions for all circumstances. Criticism about the detail is either an attempt at political point scoring, or foolishly destructive. It actually achieves almost nothing!

"Solutions not problems" and "glass half full not half empty" would be a far more productive attitude.

 

[Chris152]

That children should return to school ASAP is unarguable. It is also the case that:

- children very rarely suffer serious consequences from infection
- the incidence of infection in the general community is low (1 in 2000)
- there will need to be some exceptions - eg: those particularly vulnerable
- for many children school is a place of safety compared to the home (sadly)
- many children do not have access to internet, computer etc
- many teachers need training to provide online support
- teenagers are more tightly monitored in a school than left free to roam
- schools provide care for younger children - parents can resume work

The Leicester lockdown has demonstrated that central government is incapable of controlling local outbreaks - they do not have a personal awareness of local contacts, behaviours, ethnic mix, local transport infrastructures, jobs, etc etc. They may have the capacity to find raw data - but only local knowledge and understanding can make that sing.

Local outbreaks require local leadership, informed, supported and guided by central government data and expert knowledge. Local leadership in Leicester has been woeful.

Local authorities, governing bodies, head teachers need to work out the best local solutions. They cannot expect central government rules to cover detailed actions for all circumstances. Criticism about the detail is either an attempt at political point scoring, or foolishly destructive. It actually achieves almost nothing!

"Solutions not problems" and "glass half full not half empty" would be a far more productive attitude.

Well that's that all sorted then