Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee View Post
He teaches in a comp in one of the valleys. I do some instrumental teaching in the school where he used to teach and they've come up with their own risk assessment for staff. Had he still been there, he would be told not to return under their parameters.

I agree that schools are never 100% safe, but surely schools have a duty of care to staff and pupils to minimize risks. I hardly think unions are demanding 100% safety, that's impossible in a school environment, but that all steps are taken to minimize the effects on staff and pupils. If someone considered vunerable if they contracted Covid-19 was forced into a position where they would be more at risk of catching it, surely that must be considered negligence? You can't draw parallels from conditions like flu, not until those at risk from the flu can at least get vaccinated.
But someone classed as vulnerable shouldn't be there in the first place. And I did see somewhere, (admittedly some weeks ago where a union rep said exactly that, 'our members shouldn't be made ot go back until it is 100% safe'. (Paraphrased)
I think you have to strike a balance in all things. Make it as safe as you can but sooner or later the kids have to go back to school and the longer you leave it the worse it will be for them