Letter to school re: coronavirus

This week we, like many other families, have taken our children out of school. While in much of  Europe schools have been closed for more than a week, the British government has been slow to act -- which has put families who are concerned about the spread of the coronavirus in a difficult position. 

I copy here the email I wrote to the principal of Asa's school on Monday, which lays out why we feel withdrawing children from school is the right thing to do.

Dear Principal,

Thank you for your letter of yesterday clarifying the school’s position regarding the CoViD-19 outbreak. I’m aware that in keeping our son home yesterday, my family is in breach of the school’s instructions — and we may be in breach of the law. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we are doing this. There are three reasons, and they have to do with our responsibilities to our children, to the school, and to the wider community.

The first reason is that we are concerned about Asa being exposed to the virus at school. It is possible that the virus is circulating among students already, even if few are showing symptoms. in the absence of testing, we can only speculate. It is our duty as parents to be cautious and to act in his interest. 

The second reason is that Asa might expose others in the school to the virus. Currently his mother and his 3-year-old sister have respiratory infections. We pray that their symptoms are due to common colds, but were they in fact carrying CoViD-19, then Asa would inevitably be exposed too, and if he were to attend school he could transmit it to his classmates. In keeping him home under these circumstances, we feel we are acting in the best interest of the school.

The third reason is that we are concerned about the implications for the wider community. We would like to minimise the risk both of transmitting the virus to others, and of taking medical resources from those who need it more. The connection between non-attendance at school and this set of concerns is more indirect, but it is no less real.

My employer, Durham University, has suspended all face-to-face teaching this week on the grounds that large gatherings of students in classrooms and cafeterias provide ideal conditions for the virus to spread. The young people who make up the majority of the student body are not at high risk of complications if they contract the virus — they are for the most part fit and healthy; they have fairly robust immune systems. Were many of them to become infected, however (as is inevitable if business-as-usual were to continue) they would require medical help, and this would place additional strain on the local health services at the same time as they are needed by other members of our community — the elderly and infirm — who are equally at risk of contracting the virus and at much higher risk of dying from it. 

The same set of issues is relevant for schools. School-children themselves are not at high risk of complications from the virus, but if they had breathing difficulties they would compete for attention from our health services with the more frail. It follows that by keeping children home from school, whether or not they or their immediate family already show signs of infection, we are acting in the interest of the wider community. 

Asa  was  reluctant to stay away from school yesterday. He misses his friends. In the coming days and weeks I hope we may find ways to practice social distancing without social isolation — and to protect our families and our communities from the danger the epidemic poses, without sacrificing other things that matter.

Instead of a blanket instruction for children without symptoms to continue to attend school until further notice, I  encourage the school to support those families who choose to practice social distancing.

Yours sincerely,

J.S.