Too Soon for Easing Lockdown

I am an educationalist. We are all aware of the benefits of early learning and childcare placements. However, regarding a recent comment about re-opening nurseries, in my view this is failing to take account of the bigger picture ie the need to stay at home; save lives; protect the NHS.

Why the contribution is important

Until the First Minister and Scottish Government's Test, Trace, Isolate and Support process is put into place and evidences an outcome like New Zealand's ie the R number is almost flat-lined, nurseries cannot go back. Floodgates will open. Parents will see it as a carte blanche to go back to work. Public transport breeding grounds for viruses.

And how is it proposed that young children ie babies to 4 years old physical distance from others? Shared toilets with all that entails? Changing nappies? Teething babies dribbling; Mouthing toys; Crawling? Climbing on the same equipment? Sharing the same toys, drawing and painting utensils? Toys would need to be sprayed with bacterial spray when passed from. child to child. At the moment we wipe down each piece of food shopping that we buy to minimise the spread. No different with nursery toys. Thorough hand washing?

I have worked in a nursery and know that this is just not possible. They are extremely busy environments and even in normal circumstances pre-COVID 19, it is extremely challenging to ensure that Care Inspectorate demands are fully met.

We need to see the bigger picture...what is more important is SAVING LIVES! It's only when it hits close to home ie when a loved one becomes seriously ill that some people realise. And sadly some young children with no underlying condition have become very unwell with COVID 19. We need to hold the line for a bit longer and then reap the benefits. If we don't, we'll be back in lockdown before we know it. Is that what we want?

by KMR on May 09, 2020 at 07:45AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 1.7
Based on: 19 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Churchill May 09, 2020 at 08:53

    There is a huge movement for saving lives. However, lives are about much more than life and death. We need to ensure that the mental, social and financial wellbeing of as many people as possible is protected. The lockdown is having a much longer term impact on people than the immediate statistics of life and death.

  • Posted by LeslieSinclair May 09, 2020 at 08:53

    This contribution is based on value judgement alone, and has no supporting evidence.

  • Posted by Dave_H May 09, 2020 at 09:25

    Nobody is calling for activities that involve lots of people in a small space to re open, e.g no re opening of pubs etc for some time.

    But what people DO need is some small steps to relax the rules on socially distanced activities with no risk. A common theme in many of the suggestions is for a whole host of outdoor leisure activities that take place alone or in very small groups to be allowed first. Things like hill walking, cycling, golf, sailing and other small group water sports.

    All these sorts of activities take place alone or in very small groups outdoors away from others. To allow some freedom to do these will show that the Scottish Government is listening and taking sensible decisions which will make the lockdown more bearable and will keep people on side.

    I believe I saw a suggestion that such outdoor activity should be allowed in groups up to 4 people which would cover a round of golf say with a few friends.

  • Posted by Robert1000 May 09, 2020 at 09:45

    So the people who will, tragically , die because they can't get treatment now for cancer, heart disease etc- is that life worth less?
    I understand the point but there is a bigger picture, people who need support now and a way forward. The problem is it is easy to avoid hard decisions and keep stating the same script on a daily basis.

  • Posted by KMR May 09, 2020 at 22:15

    I have confidence in what is being proposed - a gradual easing of the lockdown but only as and when, those whose job it is to provide the evidence, say that it is safe to begin. It is not my job to present evidence. There is enough of it around...First Minister's Briefings; WHO stats; more local stats for anyone who wishes to check them out. Yes...my comments are based on values - universal values - one being the preservation of life. No apology for that.

    I was commenting on the fact that as an educationalist, whose career has been teaching, caring and looking after children and young people, I have enough experience to know that if nurseries re-opened now, it will be virtually impossible to create environments in the nursery which will facilitate the necessary conditions to limit the spread of the virus.

    As far as mental, spiritual, emotional and physical health is concerned - of course these are crucially important. And a gradual easing may include allowing more periods of exercise outside, observing the necessary measures to limit the spread. Or, as has has been previously indicated, allowing small bubbles of people to get together eg a small group of family members or friends. Again following the necessary measures. I will be led by the expert evidence and the Scottish Government and First Minister.

    I understood this facility was for expressing ideas and opinions which is what I am doing.

    For someone to say that my comments are based on value judgement alone - first of all what is wrong with that / ironically your own comment is the same! - with no supporting evidence (not my role - there are experts to do that /although I do have an MSc Education (Merit) and do have experience of researching and presenting evidence.

  • Posted by KMR May 09, 2020 at 22:22

    With regard to the comments about cancer and other patients...of course their lives are just as important - my mother died of cancer; my father of pulmonary fibrosis. Their lives were as important as anyone else's. Surely easing the lockdown too soon has the potential to put the lives of cancer patients, for example, whose immune systems are often significantly compromised, at more risk?

  • Posted by Lstewart May 09, 2020 at 22:24

    There are some places where mild risk will need to be accepted and that, unfortunately includes nurseries. Is is unfair to expect 100% of parents with jobs to do to be forced out of those jobs due to childcare commitments which were previously being met by putting the kids to nursery. Such impacts disproportionately affect woman in the 20-40 age bracket

  • Posted by KMR May 10, 2020 at 10:16

    Mild risk? Where is the evidence to back up that children returning to nursery is a 'mild' risk? There is some information already that some young children have contracted the virus, become seriously ill, contracted meningitis even. Mild risk? I think not. And that is at the micro individual child level which, yes, is very important.

    But then there is also the macro level and the aggregate impact from opening things up again, potentially risking a resurgence of the virus and all that would entail.

    But getting to nursery....public transport? Mild risk? With crowded buses or trains with no knowledge of who might be incubating the virus; who is asymptomatic; who is a carrier? Risks for both parents and children and the wider community. Also not least bus drivers who do not have PPE but should in my view. Councils, bus companies, train, companies.....listen up! Any barrier in terms of a face covering must be better than none.

    Once there how do you suggest 3 and 4 year olds in a play environment could be kept 2m apart? Impossible- and I speak from experience. From what position do you speak? What do you have in your armoury to back up your statements?

    Teachers travelling in from various Health Board areas ...cross border if you like.....potentially bringing the virus with them and exposing children and other adults.

    I just heard a HT speak about her concerns if schools were to go back. She feels the most vulnerable she has ever felt and worries for staff and children.

    Yes...it's an issue for working parents to have to look after their own children for a while and not go to a workplace. However, what is more important? Their child's life, health and care? Or allowing them to go to a nursery with the added risks because of COVID 19? Allowing parents to go back to work, potentially exposing themselves and, by implication, their children to the virus. Obviously the children of front line key workers eg health and care staff have to go to work, the reason the SG made provision for this eventuality.

    Values are important. We all have values, and our opinions...mine and yours....are based on our values.

    I make no apology therefore for basing my opinions, and my stance on this issue, on putting the safety and the lives of each and every member of our community first, whether that be our local community; national community or international community.
    Children are our future. To have a future, they need to remain safe and well. The Government objectives, which I share, for our children and young people, are that they are:
    1) safe - safer at home
    2) healthy - healthier at home
    3) included - included at home
    4) nurtured - nurtured at
            home
    5) active - at home...probably
           a lot more active for more
           of the time
    6) respected at home - not
            exposed to bullying which
            sadly has become a fact of
            life in our schools
    7) responsible at home -
            allocated tasks by parents,
             learning life skills
    8) achieving at home -
            attainment and
            achievement are two
            different concepts.

    There is more than one way to learn. We need to support our children to learn for themselves.

    All possible with a bit of creative thinking. Learning happens everywhere. See it as an opportunity for children to learn how they want to learn and what they want to learn. The internet opens up so many possibilities, properly monitored of course. The outdoors. The environment. The expressive arts. It's all there for the taking.

    The best place for all this to happen for children at the moment is at home! Until we get to the situation eg that New Zealand has.....then we can begin to think about the how of the next steps.

    The caveat I put on the above is that sadly, sometimes home is not the place where children are provided with the kind of experiences they need. Vulnerable children. Again provision made by Government. Also I am aware enough to know that some children, despite our best efforts, will still be vulnerable. But we have to keep trying.

  • Posted by KMR May 10, 2020 at 14:35

    And....Professor David Spiegelhalter, scientific adviser said this morning on Andrew Marr's show...the rate of death in children and young people from Covid 19 is very low. Maybe so. But one avoidable death of a child in my view is too many. Let's bring it down to the personal..... because that often focuses the mind. What if that one death was my/your son? My/your daughter? My/your grandchild?

  • Posted by KMR May 11, 2020 at 08:05

    Dominic Raab answered a question not long ago on BBC breakfast, the answer to which was that it was ok to meet up with family members in a park as long as the 2 m physical distancing was observed, and he went on to say that it was not ok to meet the same family members outside in one's driveway or garden, observing the same physical distancing measures.
    I don't see why one is ok and one is not. It could be argued that meeting in the garden or driveway is safer as it limits the contact to specific family members as opposed to a park full of people all of whom may not be physical distancing. 
    More confusion. Lack of logic.

Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics