This week, we have been forced to take our daughter out of school. She is disabled and needs constant one to one supervision. The lady who usually works with her is on leave and we discovered that her replacement has been wearing a mask. All day.
We politely explained that we were not happy with this. That we thought it was inappropriate, unnecessary and psychologically abusive. In any case, the government guidelines actually stipulate that masks should not be worn when teaching children with special needs.
The school's response was to explain that they had a duty of care to their staff and that they were not prepared to find a different person to work with our daughter, nor would they ask that the current person remove her mask.
Needless to say we are disgusted and appalled. It is yet another example of values being turned upside down. If this is what Oake Primary School in Somerset considers appropriate treatment of a disabled child, I expect others are behaving in a similarly revolting fashion.
Thank you for all the very kind replies. It is so sad because she wants and needs to be in school. She is at genuine risk of death every time she goes to sleep. My family know what it means to live with real risk. People's fearful attitude to this virus is pathetic & offensive.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The choice we have been presented with from the beginning is a false one. The government says - and most people seem to believe - that we must choose between sacrificing freedoms and livelihoods or letting thousands of people die.
This is not, and has never been, the choice.
The reality has always been that a lot of people were going to die this year (though possibly no more than any other year). The choice we had to make was between two groups of people; if we let one live, the other would possibly die.
The first group of people is, almost exclusively, very old people who are already very sick, with an average age which exceeds the average life expectancy. The size of this group is around 20,000 - that is the number we hope to save, although in this context, 'save' really means
A theory on the government's approach to herd immunity:
The scientific advisors understood from the beginning that herd immunity was essential as a way of coping with this new strain of flu.
However, the politicians understood very quickly that it would make them look bad.
As soon as the orthodoxy was established that all deaths from Covid were 'a tragedy' (but no other deaths mattered) and the concept of herd immunity was decried as evil by blue ticked celebrities, Johnson decided he couldn't be seen to intentionally implement the policy.
"What's the thing that will make me look as if I am most determined to avoid as many deaths as possible?" he probably asked Whitty. The answer was clearly a national lockdown.
During lockdown, the scientists were asked to come up with a way of getting herd immunity...