says yet again that “Schools are safe”, because children are at low risk of serious disease.
With current v high disease prevalence (maybe 1 in 20 or 30 in #London ,#1in50 elsewhere) MORE children will catch #coronavirus & MORE children will become very ill. 1/8🧵
#Teachers & #earlyyears staff in JAN 21 STILL have virtually no #PPE. There will be many over 50s & others who are CV/CEV. This is not good. 3/8
I’ll keep showing this 👇because Gvmt keep ignoring it.
And the lack of adequate & appropriate #PPE puts all staff in these settings AND their families at increased risk.
This is not good. 4/8
NOTHING OR NO ONE ELSE.
In the midst of a deadly pandemic this is as bizarre as it is callous & ignorant. 5/8
SCHOOLS ARE NOT SAFE because they’re full of ppl mixing indoors.
#COVIDisAirborne
It is not rocket science!
Only children who HAVE to be there should be. Numbers should be very low.
Staff CAN wear 😷s. Children CAN wear 😷s.6/8
This is not a rehearsal, EVERY DAY of so many interactions will cause more illness & death.7/8
#marr #SophieRidge @GavinWilliamson @NickGibbUK @annelongfield @amanda_spielman @NAHTnews @NASUWT @tes @MaryBoustedNEU @cyclingkev @NEUnion @adamhamdy @NewcastleCC @nick_forbes @RidgeOnSunday
More from Education
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
