This is not 'Scientific Evidence'

[davidgillon]

I've just read the government 'scientific evidence' on the schools going back. Read it here.

There's some good sense; it's the first time I've seen the government admit that if you have someone clinically extremely vulnerable in the house then no one in the household should return to work. And it advises clinically vulnerable people should work from home. But it then says that if there's someone clinically vulnerable in the house the rest of the household can still go back to work. Which part of infection vector don't they understand?

But it's the advice of social distancing that beggars belief:

"We know that, unlike older children and adults, early years and primary age children cannot be expected to remain 2 metres apart from each other and staff. In deciding to bring more children back to early years and schools, we are taking this into account."

That's it. That's not 'Scientific Evidence', it barely has enough justification to count as an opinion.

(And I don't expect to find sentences that make no sense in English in 'scientific evidence', strongly suggests they didn't even proofread it).

Comments

[hilarita]

They don't even offer that much protection for the clinically vulnerable - they "should" work from home, but there's nothing there about a proper risk assessment & role evaluation for that. Only for if they can't work in the "safest" on-site roles.

[davidgillon]

Yes, it's very noticeable how much room is built into it to bend the rules in the employer's favour. The Guardian had an article yesterday talking about people with disabilities which mean they're vulnerable to infection being bullied back to work because they're not actually on the government's vulnerable list.