1 new case of COVID-19 has been confirmed on the Isle of Wight, according to the latest figures released by Public Health England.
The total number of COVID-19 cases identified locally now sits at 178 – an infection rate of 125.8. This is an increase of just 1 from 177 cases yesterday (Sunday), which spiked by 8 from 169 cases on Saturday.
NHS England report that there have now been 33 coronavirus deaths in hospital, with the Office for National Statistics confirming a further 14 people have died in the community. This brings the total Isle of Wight death toll to 47, as of today.
The latest information from the Isle of Wight NHS Trust confirms 25 people have recovered from COVID-19 and have been discharged from hospital, although this number has not been updated in some time. It appears the NHS Trust are no longer issuing statements on each death.
This is the calm before the perfect storm.
Sunny warm weather, people returning to work, schools to allow the young who have no choice but to do what Mum or Dad say.
Give it a month to re ignite and then lets see the figures.
Imo, better to have a less educated child than a dead or disabled for life one. If little you can teach them as much as they will ever learn in early learning classes, with far less risk.
Your child your call, but remember it will be you who has to justify to them if they become afflicted why you didn’t protect them fully, not Boris.
These comments really don’t help. We know the risks are small for children and they are at risk of many things by not being at school….mental health difficulties, poor attainment and reduced chances in life.This comment does nothing but worry parents even more in what will be a difficult enough decision to make.
Disagree Mark, I feel all views, including jerms are relevant. Would you send a small child back to school knowing that the child even if at low risk, was indeed at some risk?
Adults can make an informed decision themselves but our children expect us to look after them and put all their trust in us to protect them.
You may feel comfortable sending a child of yours into what you see as a low risk situation, but if your child catches this dreadful virus and still looks up to you, I doubt you will ever be able to live with yourself again.
Whilst some prefer pleasing authority, others prefer looking after their own to their upmost that they can.
That’s the risk I’ll take, the one all parents will have to decide upon. You’re entitled to your views as I am mine. This virus may be around for years or forever, children cannot be shielded from the risks for that period of time. This is nothing about pleasing authority, so please do not make an assumption I do not care about my children or acting irresponsibly.
Mark, it is not just ‘the risk I’ll take’ but the real risk your innocent, unknowing fully the dangers, that your children ‘will take’.
When I say ‘pleasing authorities’ I am refer to Governments seeing the ‘bigger picture’ thus having a different agenda and view point than us individuals.
As in the War. Governments ‘knew’ that to send troops over the top, would have meant many would die, or come back broken, disabled for the rest of ‘their’ lives.
But again, Governments seeing the bigger picture saw what could happen to them and the ‘country’ if they didn’t risk such.
BUT if you were then a parent, would YOU have knowingly told your child to go the the front line, KNOWING that they had such a risk, just to ‘save’ all those others not putting themselves in such peril.
With only 2 minutes of stood still dropping a few plastic poppies at a carved monument as their hardship, while your child lost its ONE and ONLY life? And you spent the rest of your trying to ‘justify’ the greater good, as future politicians who you placed your trust in ruined the country they died for?
Your call
there is more risk of your child getting run over -stop wrapping them up in cotton wool and get them to school.
jerme – so, by that logic, the risk that your child gets run over, or breaks a limb whilst playing hockey/football etc during PE is to great, then you should keep them at home to avoid that risk – why don’t you just go the whole hog and lock your child in their room until 16 – and then let them out.
annoyed
Firstly, you say about the real risk of getting your child run over. Two points, one being that they do have that risk, but you can teach them how to cross safely, and clearly a large car is far more easily to avoid being killed or maimed for life by than an invisible virus.
Second point being, all children have the ‘run over’ risk, but why add another?
Similar for your points on football etc, very rare for a child to die, or have life long lasting damage from such. Also that is something the child will really want to do, and will learn about minor injuries etc from the experience as well as keeping fit.
A huge difference in my eyes to sending a young child, who cannot possibly know the full implications of the very real risk of death or a long painful, frightening illness which could leave them with lungs or heart or other organs ruined for the rest of their lives, just so ‘we’ can get back to normal.
If you now have a very YOUNG, fully healthy child, and even with a lower risk, you then choose to send you child back to school, then that little child is putting their full trust in your decision making, and you are gambling with their life and future of being severely disabled for the rest of their life, long after you have passed away.
And the ‘gamble’ is for what? So you can get the ‘missus’ back to work earlier, or because you can’t be bothered to give them the very basic education that LITTLE children get from early stage learning, or in some cases, that people have ‘had enough’ of having to entertain what they have bought into this world, and are just ‘looking’ for an excuse to dump them on others for a while.
The world is going to change drastically after this, with huge unemployment, as many businesses will not be viable with social distancing.
I suggest that it would be more beneficial for one parent to work, and the other to stay home, as we used to do and live more frugally and go without the huge TV, the Sky+++, the two cars, the bling of life, and instead give your children a safe, healthy, happy childhood by keeping your young children at home as long as possible.
Plenty of teaching aids are on the web, and unless thick most parents could instruct their child whilst young so easily nowadays thanks to the net.
You then get your joy from knowing you have a happy, healthy child rather than from some bling consumer items. That or think about your priorities in life FIRST and use contraception which is free, and live a more indulgent life if bringing up a child yourself is too much effort without the state funding, feeding, and looking after them.
Your call.
Jerrme, by your use of smart ass language I suspect you’re the same person I’ve had other discussions with, do you go by the name ‘none given’ or ‘Mr Justice’ by any chance? Annoyed is right in his views and you are just being and idiot. You have very bigoted views and your use of language does not intimidate me
Here’s a firework little Johnny. You might get burnt… you might not. Let’s take an unnecessary risk!
One point people seem to be missing here is that although right from the start we were told that kids are at minimal risk of catching the disease, we were nevertheless told that they are classed as ‘super spreaders’. School? Should be the last places to open. My kid? Ain’t happening.
We were also told, you can get it twice,lie! We were also told we must stay 2 meters apart or ur breaking the law, lie! And now the cdc have said ,you can’t catch b.s covid from surfaces, another LIE exposed!. How many more lies do you people have to see before you wake up!
when i was young , i had two months summer holiday one month at Easter and one month at Christmas the only children who suffer in the slightest by having a few months off are the 15/16 year old group. for the rest of them a few months loss of schooling not one whit.
Shame on you island echo