How safe are our schools?
Following the science doesn’t mean it’s not subjected to political influence
Okay, we get it, our children will be safe in school. It is inferred that this not just a matter of trust but that those in charge are ‘following the science’. To dare to question is viewed as an act of heresy, but the statement is, and continues to be, equivocal. The final decision remains, a political one.
If allowed to progress naturally, scientific study goes through a number of different stages. It takes time. Patterns are observed in data, from this a hypothesis is formulated and eventually a theory is established. What cements a concept is data. The more information to support the idea, the greater its credibility. This is also the case when developing vaccines. At any stage in the process, new evidence can come to light to disprove the premise. The history of science is littered with discarded theories. With Covid-19 scientists are only at the stage of having a working hypothesis. They are generally very cautious and highly critical creatures, reluctant to publish until it has been rigorously and thoroughly tested. Science only goes so far and then comes God (Nichols Sparks).
Much is made of computer modelling to influence scientific hypotheses and they have been the major component in shaping scientific opinion. Boris Johnson blamed the exam results debacle in the UK on a ‘mutant algorithm’ but algorithms are only as good as the data that is entered, by humans. Weather reports, which use far more complicated algorithms, rarely agree! On Jersey, the STAC (science, technology advisory cell) are our science ‘experts’. Is there influence from non-scientists on this panel? They advise an emergency council, most of whom are accountants. The decision making process is not clinical nor is it without bias. Do they put the children first in their decision making?
Globally there seems little evidence to prove that children attending school are the cause of the disease spreading, especially those attending primary schools. However, schoolchildren from the age of 4–18 are treated collectively and evidence is emerging that teenagers are more like young adults, asymptomatic. It is the 16–24 age group that are the Covid-19 super-spreaders, unaware that they have the disease but actively passing it on. Jersey has decided not to treat secondary pupils differently. Is this wise? Are we really following the science, or is this another political decision?
What is becoming clear via the statistics, is that your child is unlikely to be harmed by the virus. Professor Chris Whitty comments that children are more likely to be harmed by not attending school than by contracting Covid-19. However, the real danger does not lie with our children’s health but rather their impact on the wider society. Not just family members but also school staff, teachers, ancillary staff and suchlike. This is why the World Health Organisation is advising that all children over twelve years of age wear face masks. The emergency council has made the decision not to comply.
Spikes are appearing all over the world and you do not have to be a scientist to work out the link between them. Their source is often large groups of people, crammed together in an enclosed space. That might be pubs, family living conditions, areas of high population density… or schools. Where schools differ is not just the age of the clientele but also adherence to basic rules, principally those of hygiene and social distancing. There is a scientific consensus that these basics reduce the spread of Covid-19 and Jersey schools seem better prepared than some.
The idea that children are not ‘super-spreaders’ of Covid-19 is not as simple as it would first appear. It all hinges on what is meant by super-spreading. Younger children may be resilient and not get infected but, like any human being, they can carry viral loads and be a conduit for the disease. If they come from a location where population density is high and there is poor hygiene they become a greater risk. However, parents want their children to receive a good education; there is the child’s own health and wellbeing to consider and of course the economics, both household and societal. Conveniently, governments (including ours) use the latter rather than the former to justify their decisions.
It would seem wise to follow the science but how accurate is the science and how reliable is the decision making process that tells us that our children are safe? It is a gamble despite what our Chief Medical officer and Teacher Union leader tell us. Let us hope for all our sakes that they have gambled correctly. Trust is hard won but easily lost.
originally published in the JEP 8/9/2020
#coronavirus #covid-19 #followingthescience
