9 November (Part 1) - Lurgy Logic. Is there any?
Dilemmas such as this will have been repeated across the country but I can’t
quite get my head around the logic of it all.
Last Monday my granddaughter’s best friend did not show up at school.
The reason was that her father had tested positive for Covid19 the previous day and was
exhibiting the classic symptoms. My granddaughter had seen him at the school
gate the previous Friday, so presumably had many other children. It seems odd to
me that someone who must have suspected he was unwell should be out and about.
Shades of Margaret Ferrier MP perhaps?
That evening (Monday) my granddaughter was complaining of a headache and a slightly sore
throat. Next morning my son informed her school and the head suggested getting a Covid test
and quarantine. This was by agreement and not by decree of an over enthusiast school head.
The
test facility asked if there was a high temperature. There was not so a fib was
required to get the ten year old across the threshold. She had the test on Wednesday morning
and by late afternoon - Sod’s Law - she had a temperature. Meanwhile my
daughter-in-law who runs her own business had to close it down and suffer the
lack of income. My son works from home even in normal times so that was not a problem.
By next morning (Thursday) the temperature had gone and my granddaughter was
pretty much back to normal but the rules were that no one could go out whilst
awaiting a test result; not even for shopping or to walk the dog on pain of a £10,000 fine.
I am not sure that is correct procedure, there had after all been no Track and Trace, and
except that there had been a precautionary test the health of all three of them
was normal by Thursday morning. But it was the advice given locally and Bozo's
rules have never been wholly sensible.
Meanwhile the school friend’s father had not infected either his wife or his two daughters. My son and his wife
continued to have no ill effects.
The test result limped home on Sunday evening. It was negative. The renewed advice was
that both my son and his wife could leave the house but my granddaughter is not
allowed out until next week.
All because two parents exercised caution in order to protect a school from a
possible infection. In return the state was prepared to fine them heavily,
potentially starve them for two weeks and cripple their ability to earn a crust.
Assuming the advice given is correct it is a huge disincentive to take
childhood sniffles seriously.
The school is very relieved to see a negative result because had things been
otherwise they would have had to send the whole year group home and thanks to the slow testing,
a whole week after an infected child had run amongst them.
The reason given for the parents being allowed out now but the child remaining
in enforced quarantine is that the negative test result might be wrong - but if th etest is
wrong why are the parents allowed out?
If the tests are that unreliable one may as well guess the result. I had guessed correctly. The
NHS failed to do any better.