When I suggest online learning isn't as effective as in-person learning people often think I'm insinuating teachers aren't working as hard. I think they are - and we should be grateful! - but that doesn't mean online learning is as effective.

In general I think the work and sacrifice of teachers is criminally understated in normal times, let alone in a pandemic. But there are also sections of the left who seem pretty cavalier about the costs of closing schools. Providing kids with laptops won't be enough!

I've worked in schools as a TA (one main reason I didn't go on to become a teacher is seeing how hard they work - so, respect!), and was usually with struggling teenagers. I just can't imagine how 6 months out of school would do anything other than come at enormous cost to them.

In the first lockdown, surveys showed 28% of secondary pupils spent ZERO hours per week in online classes. What do you think are the likely profiles of the large minority of kids going without any education? https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/R178-Family-time-use-and-home-learning-during-the-COVID-19-lockdown-1.pdf

Tests results show some children falling 22 months behind in writing skills (This report isn't enormously scientific, but it accords with what teachers have told me since kids came back in September) https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-year-7s-going-backwards-now-nearly-22-months-behind

The way teachers have been treated in this pandemic is terrible. The government have understated the risks teachers face. They've been helped along by the ONS (see: https://twitter.com/SarahDRasmussen/status/1343639137287593988) and by advisers (see from 20:50 ).

It's also the case that with the new strain there's probably no choice but to close schools for January - as I said last week - and as SAGE are now reported as saying.

But that will come at enormous cost to kids, and I don't see how laptops, cancelling exams, or almost any other immediate plausible policy will make much of a dent in the damage caused.