TIME TO TACKLE BRITISH EXCEPTIONALIST AND ABHORRENT ABLEIST RHETORIC
Increasingly it seems @educationgovuk , some paediatric professionals, some school leaders, most media journalists and even some parents spout the line that it’s okay for children to be infected because…
1. “Children mostly have a mild infection”
OR
2. “Very few children die”
OR
3. “Children who don’t return to pre-infection health swiftly have underlying conditions “
2. Have you seen what is happening in other countries? Are you dismissing and minimising the loss of children?
3. How many of the families that @LongCovidKids are supporting had children with any pre-existing health issues prior to a covid infection?
As a parent or member of school staff who thinks it’s acceptable to only look at mortality with regards to an infectious disease?
Is it justified to IGNORE morbidity?
Is it acceptable to dismiss any death or negative health impact that occurs in those children who do have conditions?
What kind of society is it that minimises the right to NOT have your future health protected?
Everyone deserves protecting from infection.
Adults can choose not to attend an indoor setting where they think H&S legislation has been breached and all risk hasn’t been identified or mitigated.
@educationgovuk are mandating attendance in just such a setting!
Stop it!
Stop the ableist rhetoric!
Stop the British Exceptionalist rhetoric!
PROTECT ALL
It’s not morally or legally acceptable to unnecessarily and knowingly expose anyone to increased risk of infection
Oops, clumsily worded…
What kind of society minimises the right to have your future health protected due to you being under 16?
That’s what we meant!
For further reference 👇 no one can guarantee how anyone’s body will react to infection. Therefore, applying the precautionary principle is the morally, legally and epidemiologically sensible strategy. #mitigate
“A child my son shares a couple of classes with (secondary school, yr 8) had finished his 10 day isolation after testing positive and was back in school on Monday…1
My son is the only child wearing a mask in lessons. The teacher was speaking to the child and it came out that although it's 10 days since infection, he is still testing positive but he has been told as he has finished his isolation period he now needs to return to school…2
My son said almost immediately pretty much the whole class ducked under their desks and re-emerged with their masks on.
The teacher sent the child to the office to double check whether he should be in school…3
⭐️ Pleased to inform you that today we had a meeting with @KateGreenSU and @peterkyle to discuss the issues surrounding the lack of scientifically recognised mitigations in U.K. schools.
We are extremely grateful to be given the opportunity to speak to them both together
We provided a list of key points that we felt @UKLabour should be able to support & push forward and are happy to say both @KateGreenSU and @peterkyle were engaged & interested and have confirmed they will take this forward with their work in covid recovery policy discussions.
Here is a list of the action points/suggested actions we discussed and would like taken forward by @UKLabour ;
1. Publicly announce and campaign against punitive non-attendance measures
2. Publicly condemn the removal of CEV status from those who have clinical vulnerabilities
Yes we know the @educationgovuk guidance document is dire and has NO SCIENTIFIC basis.
Following the guidance will not be sufficient defence when a parent or staff member legally challenged your school risk assessment.
So, yep we get it no funding and no support from @educationgovuk means it’s difficult to do WHAT IS NECESSARY to prevent unnecessarily and knowingly exposing your staff, pupils and their families to increased risk of infection.
However, crafty @educationgovuk means it’s YOU not THEM that will face the initial legal action.
Whoever has conducted and signed a risk assessment that is found to breach H&S legislation IS LEGALLY LIABLE.