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
Working on a newsletter edition about deliberate practice.
Deliberate practice is crucial if you want to reach expert level in any skill, but what is it, and how can it help you learn more precisely?
A thread based on @augustbradley's conversation with the late Anders Ericsson.
You can find my complete notes from the conversation in my public Roam graph:
https://t.co/Z5bXHsg3oc
The entire conversation is on
The 10,000-hour 'rule' was based on Ericsson's research, but simple practice is not enough for mastery.
We need teachers and coaches to give us feedback on how we're doing to adjust our actions effectively. Technology can help us by providing short feedback loops.
There's purposeful and deliberate practice.
In purposeful practice, you gain breakthroughs by trying out different techniques you find on your own.
In deliberate practice, an expert tells you what to improve on and how to do it, and then you do that (while getting feedback).
It's possible to come to powerful techniques through purposeful practice, but it's always a gamble.
Deliberate practice is possible with a map of the domain and a recommended way to move through it. This makes success more likely.
Deliberate practice is crucial if you want to reach expert level in any skill, but what is it, and how can it help you learn more precisely?
A thread based on @augustbradley's conversation with the late Anders Ericsson.
You can find my complete notes from the conversation in my public Roam graph:
https://t.co/Z5bXHsg3oc
The entire conversation is on
The 10,000-hour 'rule' was based on Ericsson's research, but simple practice is not enough for mastery.
We need teachers and coaches to give us feedback on how we're doing to adjust our actions effectively. Technology can help us by providing short feedback loops.
There's purposeful and deliberate practice.
In purposeful practice, you gain breakthroughs by trying out different techniques you find on your own.
In deliberate practice, an expert tells you what to improve on and how to do it, and then you do that (while getting feedback).
It's possible to come to powerful techniques through purposeful practice, but it's always a gamble.
Deliberate practice is possible with a map of the domain and a recommended way to move through it. This makes success more likely.
OK I am going to be tackling this as surveillance/open source intel gathering exercise, because that is my background. I blew away 3 years of my life doing site acquisition/reconnaissance for a certain industry that shall remain unnamed and believe there is significant carryover.
This is NOT going to be zillow "here is how to google school districts and find walmart" we are not concerned with this malarkey, we are homeschooling and planting victory gardens and having gigantic happy families.
With that said, for my frog and frog-adjacent bros and sisters:
CHOICE SITES:
Zillow is obvious one, but there are many good sites like Billy Land, Classic Country Land, Landwatch, etc. and many of these specialize in owner financing (more on that later.) Do NOT treat these as authoritative sources - trust plat maps and parcel viewers.
TARGET IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION:
Okay, everyone knows how to google "raw land in x state" but there are other resources out there, including state Departments of Natural Resources, foreclosure auctions, etc. Finding the land you like is the easy part. Let's do a case study.
I'm going to target using an "off-grid but not" algorithm. This is a good piece in my book - middle of nowhere but still trekkable to civilization.
Note: visible power, power/fiber pedestal, utility corridor, nearby commercial enterprise(s), and utility pole shadows visible.
If I did thred on finding/acquiring decent raw land would that be something pepo are interested in
— Ovcharka (@ouroboros_outis) January 18, 2021
I think I know a bunch of weird tips/tricks for selection at this point that it might help u guys, lemme know
This is NOT going to be zillow "here is how to google school districts and find walmart" we are not concerned with this malarkey, we are homeschooling and planting victory gardens and having gigantic happy families.
With that said, for my frog and frog-adjacent bros and sisters:
CHOICE SITES:
Zillow is obvious one, but there are many good sites like Billy Land, Classic Country Land, Landwatch, etc. and many of these specialize in owner financing (more on that later.) Do NOT treat these as authoritative sources - trust plat maps and parcel viewers.
TARGET IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION:
Okay, everyone knows how to google "raw land in x state" but there are other resources out there, including state Departments of Natural Resources, foreclosure auctions, etc. Finding the land you like is the easy part. Let's do a case study.
I'm going to target using an "off-grid but not" algorithm. This is a good piece in my book - middle of nowhere but still trekkable to civilization.
Note: visible power, power/fiber pedestal, utility corridor, nearby commercial enterprise(s), and utility pole shadows visible.

You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?