Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 May 20
11:10
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Aug 05
KIDS are more likely to die by lightning strike than from Covid-19 caught at school, a top professor says.
Some scientists have warned that it's not safe for children to return to school this Monday amid the coronavirus pandemic.
However, Professor Robert Dingwall, who is part of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), has hit back - saying children are at "very low risk".
He added that the Government's decision to allow schools to reopen for reception, year one and six from Monday "is not a risky move".
It comes after a major study found that kids are not coronavirus super-spreaders - and are unlikely to transmit Covid-19 between each other or to adults.
Speaking on Sky News this morning, Prof Dingwall claimed: "I think there's a broad consensus that children are low risk, they're at very low risk of getting a serious infection.
"The risk of death in children is about one in five and a half million and they're rather more likely to die in road accidents or even from lightning strikes than from the virus."
Since the outbreak began, two children aged under 15 have died after testing positive for coronavirus in England and Wales.
And Prof Dingwall's estimation that the risk to children of catching and than dying from coronavirus is one in 5.5 million is based on these two deaths out of a population of 10.7 million under-15s in England and Wales.
It means that on average, under-15s face the lowest coronavirus fatality risk of any age group.
An average of three people in the UK are killed every year as a result of a lightning strike.
'Not a risky move'
Prof Dingwall added: "Children certainly don't transmit it among themselves in a greater rate than adults do - this is not a risky move in that respect.
"The teachers are just as likely to contract the infection from their own activities in the community."
The sociologist from Nottingham Trent University claimed that the main risk from schools reopening was to parents picking up their kids.
Despite this, Prof Dingwall pointed out that there is clear scientific evidence that there is a lower risk of spreading coronavirus outdoors.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11735602/kids-more-likely-die-lightning-covid-school/
^
Yet Boris shut all schools and now some Unions/Councils not happy about re-opening. Should never have been shut except for vulnerable kids.
Some scientists have warned that it's not safe for children to return to school this Monday amid the coronavirus pandemic.
However, Professor Robert Dingwall, who is part of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), has hit back - saying children are at "very low risk".
He added that the Government's decision to allow schools to reopen for reception, year one and six from Monday "is not a risky move".
It comes after a major study found that kids are not coronavirus super-spreaders - and are unlikely to transmit Covid-19 between each other or to adults.
Speaking on Sky News this morning, Prof Dingwall claimed: "I think there's a broad consensus that children are low risk, they're at very low risk of getting a serious infection.
"The risk of death in children is about one in five and a half million and they're rather more likely to die in road accidents or even from lightning strikes than from the virus."
Since the outbreak began, two children aged under 15 have died after testing positive for coronavirus in England and Wales.
And Prof Dingwall's estimation that the risk to children of catching and than dying from coronavirus is one in 5.5 million is based on these two deaths out of a population of 10.7 million under-15s in England and Wales.
It means that on average, under-15s face the lowest coronavirus fatality risk of any age group.
An average of three people in the UK are killed every year as a result of a lightning strike.
'Not a risky move'
Prof Dingwall added: "Children certainly don't transmit it among themselves in a greater rate than adults do - this is not a risky move in that respect.
"The teachers are just as likely to contract the infection from their own activities in the community."
The sociologist from Nottingham Trent University claimed that the main risk from schools reopening was to parents picking up their kids.
Despite this, Prof Dingwall pointed out that there is clear scientific evidence that there is a lower risk of spreading coronavirus outdoors.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11735602/kids-more-likely-die-lightning-covid-school/
^
Yet Boris shut all schools and now some Unions/Councils not happy about re-opening. Should never have been shut except for vulnerable kids.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 121
|
By:
Totally agree. More chance of being kicked to death by a camel in UK than a child dying of CV19. In a society such as the UK where risk is neither understood nor managed - the object seems to be to eliminate risk at the expense of everything else - this is going to be a huge problem in re-opening after the lockdown. Too many groups will argue the toss about everything.
|
|
By:
The worst for me was when the kid got struck by lightning, was fine but then passed that lightning strike on to a member of staff and she died instead. Never knew lightning worked that way.
|
|
By:
I assume the proff also agreed with
john Selwyn gummer force feeding his son a burger during the mad cow disease edwina currie eating eggs during salmonella outbreak both I,d guess 99% of people wouldn't do today and the odds would have been similar, lets hope the law of sod doesn't intervene |
|
By:
Another guff thread
No more chance of catching it off kids than in communuty SO YOU ARE SAYING OPENING SCHOOLS AT LEAST DOUBLES THE CHANCES OF TEACHERS CATCHING CORONA VIRUS, NO WONDER THE SCHOOLS ARE NOT OPENING YOU WANTING TO SLAUGHTER TEACHERS THE SAME AS YOUR DISREGARD FOR 60,000 ALREADY SLAUGHTERED BY THIS LYING CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IS FRANKLY TEDIOUS |
|
By:
Stop shouting you rabid lunatic
|
|
By:
Hey, if health workers can die then we can kill teachers too. The important thing is we ignore that kids have been getting educated at home for the last few weeks and force them back for the last half term of the year when they've already missed their exams and will be focusing on vital activities such as spending playtime segregated from each other, as well as doing the other traditional final half term activities such as watching a dvd and playing games.
|
|
By:
The furlough gravy train is over for some on this thread.
You are not experts in health so hush and get back to work. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
there is no lockdown your leaders have told you ,use your insticnts,commonn sense and small print and besides going to a pub there,s nothing you cant do
|
|
By:
Schools with squares drawn on the ground so each child is forced into a 2 metre square
No interaction on pain of exclusion Simply not normal, idiotic, peverse And doubling(at least) chances of teachers catching corona. Log into as many of your accounts as you want It's still idiotic, and yet another guff thread from the King of guff threads |
|
By:
We do need to get back to normal as soon as possible
Killing teachers is not and never will be normal Even one teacher is one too many when it's not required |
|
By:
Teachers do not need to be within 2 metres of Children at school, when they're at the front of class, maintain 2 metre distance, then wear a mask after class when walking to and from staff rooms/canteen/playground. Wear gloves as well.
|
|
By:
Kriskin, I'd agree we do need to get back to normal but it needs to be done both safely and in a way that gives consumers confidence to behave like before. This schools farrago is just the latest in a long line of hopeless mis-steps by this government.
The whopper above mentions the furlough scheme, conveniently ignoring that schooling has continued the last few months and the vast majority of teachers have been continuing to do their valuable work. The push to get them back in class is not based on science as it is not meeting the five government safety tests. It is a rush to some semblance of normality for the sake of it. And that is why you are seeing this push back. It is not furlough-laziness, nor is it lefty objectionism, it is simply a complete lack of faith that this government is managing this situation well and has the well-being of us and our families at heart. Sadly, I predict the same will happen in a couple of weeks when they open more shops. The current approach of shopping online and doing one big shop per week at the supermarket is hard-coded now and based on a safety-first approach. Shops may re-open and staff may be unfurloughed but without consumer confidence the inevitable consequence is a mass of redundancies and business closures this Autumn. The government needs to work much harder to get the public's trust in the coming days and weeks. That is why the Cummings issue was so important and so poorly handled. You can tell all the businesses in the country to re-open but if people don't feel safe then they'll be empty. |
|
By:
darren only sees the benefits of a four year old being forced back to school, faced with a teacher wearing a mask and gloves and telling them to go away if they get too close. Only benefits to the kids doing that, nothing traumatic at all.
|
|
By:
How can you maintain 2 metre distance from a class of nursery kids
When you are expected to change them when they shoite or pish themselves Shake yer heads, ffs |
|
By:
lazy.
sat there in your pants making predictions get to work |
|
By:
that to me?
|
|
By:
The level of risk young healthy people are willing to take is probably higher than the doomsters are predicting.
|
|
By:
If kids can meet family and go to the beach and go to the shops they can go to school.
Even Starmer and Blair agree. |
|
By:
We will get back to normal, there will be some flare ups along the way.
Some thought needs to be put into order of reopening stuff. A race to appease idiots because Cummings wanted to take his wife out must not speed any flare ups |
|
By:
It's an idea for the older children and workable, for nursery kids yes more difficult, maybe then can stay at home, not sure it's important for them to be there, much more important for year 6's.
|
|
By:
The level of risk young people are prepared to take is exactly why
60,000 are already dead If they took more care we could probably ease the lockdown more quickly You have all the facts but zero ability to use them with common sense |
|
By:
the death figures are not real though are they, they include people who have died with the virus and not just from, so it's inflated, also, many people have died because of things like missed cancer screenings which were restricted.
|
|
By:
It's deflated by road deaths not happening
Folk not stressed at work dying of heart attacks Folk not getting flu and other infections 60,000 is about right |
|
By:
Folk not getting killed by pollution etc etc
|
|
By:
Gang warfare down...
|
|
By:
Drug overdose probably down but yet to to see that confirmed
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Many?
You are making stuff up These are 60,000 deaths over the usual deaths, not just 60,000 deaths |
|
By:
Why not get your Mrs a job as a teacher
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Or let her go in to local school, clean the shoite off the kids arses they don't pass on the virus according to you
She'll be safer there than with you who is a risk to her |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Excess deaths should be negative already because of the lickdown
As detailed above |
|
By:
Lockdown
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
No it doesnt
It saves lives on top of corona lives saved You are making stuff uo |
|
By:
Again...
|
|
By:
|