2/Whole principle seems that measures to cut transmission occur after the outbreak.
A reactionary rather than proactive approach to infection.
Takes a minimalist approach
3/To prioritise education they want the minimum number of measures for the minimum amount of time.
"Lift as soon as evidence supports"
What evidence? Whose evidence?
The evidence is saying we should already have these measures in place!
4/ So the plan is,
Wait for an outbreak
Introduce minimal measures
(To reassure parents to keep sending their kids in)
Lift as soon as possible
Rinse and repeat
5/ Talk of collaboration, I notice Heads get no input.
6/ Testing could be brought back on site, acknowledging testing done at home is less reliable.
But considering FDA view on these LFDs this is more like covid theatre than a serious measure.
7/ Masks can be brought back but any decision around this must balance education vs transmission.
Ignores the fact that if we don't manage transmission the students won't be in school
8/Shielding could be reintroduced, but only by national government.
9/If things get really bad then they might even limit residential trips..
All these things are currently recommended by DfE as a third wave sweeps through schools
10/ Attendence could be limited, however it specified that certain year groups in certain setting would still be expected in, however this is designed to be used after an outbreak when multiple year groups are already isolating.
I bet this is never used
11/ These measures in the previous containment framework were never used.
Not in December as Alpha ripped through London and South East and threats of court action were made by DfE
Not in Jan before primary staff walked out on the 1st day back
14/ Also Delta can do something other Covid variants haven't.
It takes your cells and fuses them together into larger virus factories, makes it harder for antibodies to tackle
🧵Oh what a suprise, Together Declaration are part of this network, and members of the Exec like UsForThem founder Kingsley accused anyone who said they were a hard right political project of smears and defamation
2/ Founded as anti-lockdown but going straight into anti-vax talking points, Together then switched to anti Ulez, anti net zero heading towards climate change denial
3/ They have been one of the main groups peddling nonsense about the WHO pandemic treaty, starting two years ago with Farage then becoming the leading face of a new astroturf group
While much of the media claims the inquiry is accomplishing nothing, its slowly revealed the gov knew transmission occurs in schools and causes harm to a not insignificant number of children
2/ The bill gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of interests that can access your childrens data through secondary legislation avoiding parliamentary scrutiny
3/ The Bill also permits 14-18 year olds to be targeted with political marketing
3/ More and more evidence emerges of the long term harms caused by covid, but the UK govs preferred paedatricians continue to peddle claims that with enough infections children will develop lasting immunity
Said this would occur after 1 infection, what is it now? 5? 7? 10?🤷♂️
🧵Cass Review
Not had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but have had time to look through the main points
What positives can be taken from it? The time spent on waiting lists was identified as a major issue, all children's services are massively underfunded at the moment
2/ I would like to think that this will lead to an investment in all children's support services like CAHMS, more pastoral support in schools etc
That would be a positive outcome, regardless of what else is included in the review, unfortunately real terms cuts are the reality
3/ What matters is how government interprets the review and what it chooses to implement, additional funding for children isn't going to be prioritised over tax cuts to appease RW papers
Imagine if the billions from last round of tax cuts had instead been invested in children