Right. Head above parapet time. The issue of schools is rightly a hotly debated, emotive and important one, with far reaching ramifications.

I write this as a father to young kids, husband to a clinically extremely vulnerable wife (1st jab done, thankfully), and a virologist...

In summary, it strikes me that this has become an overly polarised, sometimes sadly unpleasant debate and it probably never should have come to this. There has been ample time to strike a balance between potential risks and benefits. The real issue is why so little has been done

either way, regardless of which camp or fence you may be in/on.

First and foremost, everyone wants the kids to be in school. It benefits them tremendously, esp during early years and as @MarcusRashford has brilliantly highlighted, its a lifeline for kids suffering in shameful

UK poverty.

It also is a huge psychological and logistical boost 4 parents, working or otherwise (notably with health issues), also teachers having to deal with effectively twice the teaching for kids in/out of school premises. Of course, economy also benefits as a result.

However, it's right to raise concerns around whether kids a) can get very sick from COVID, b) propagate spread and c) pass infection to vulnerable people.

It strikes me that we've yet again reached a polarised position of either opening or closing schools based on arbitrary

yard sticks. Debate is fierce around what these should/shouldn't be.

As with most extreme views, actions either way at the expense of the other could lead to profound consequences if one or other view is even partially correct.

For this reason, I feel that a balance ought to

have been reached well before this became an issue, perhaps when the kids were off school properly last summer (), and certainly before circumstances meant consequences were extreme, i.e. the kids going back as the epidemic grew exponentially.

For this reason, I feel strongly

that the standard fallback position of things being "kept under review" yet again just isn't good enough. I'm not sure how many lessons need to arise around being proactive during a pandemic before this changes

The argument over are schools safe, seems as false as are e.g

pubs safe...we must recognise that diversity and nuance profoundly affect such debate. Moreover, keeping things under review and analysing/modelling whether or not concerns are justified is ALWAYS going to be either retrospective, or amidst a changeable, dynamic scenario.

The scientific debate around all of this is valid, and I naturally have my own views as a virologist, but in this circumstance I feel that this is a genuine case for compromise such that we can move forwards. We can always work out who was (probably partially) right/wrong later!

Also, this issue spans virology, immunology, public health, psychology, politics and economics. Without a consensus we could be debating forever.

My view is there are some quick, easy wins that I hope can satisfy the majority of parents, teachers and other parties that the risk

associated (whether "real" or perceived, equally valid to a concerned parent) with sending kids in is balanced with the benefits. Some may be thought of as on the cautious side, but I've tried to measure faff vs benefits. Please forgive if some of these already happen, just my

stream of consciousness.

First, give the schools the means (guidance and finance) to assess whether their premises are as safe as they can be. Being at Leeds, the work of @CathNoakes and others clearly shows the value of well ventilated space. Provide CO2 monitors, airflow

gauges, and advice on how to maximise ventilation without necessarily giving everyone . Anecdotally, schools are crying out for this, if it exists, make it clearer. Hepa filters purifiers and even simple fans can be a great help.

Second, test, test test. It's great that LFTs

are being rolled out for schools now, keep it going, but possibly extend to at least a proportion of older kids to gauge possible asymptomatic spread.

Third, class/bubble sizes reduced. With the above measures and hopefully additional staff, this should be feasible and lessen

disruption if cases do occur.

Fourth. Masks for staff and older kids, plus parents at drop off/pick up. I know this might upset people with certain views, but it's not a huge deal and is, on balance, highly likely to help reduce potential spread.

Fifth, support

schools in the measures they are already taking and encourage them to continue, even when cases drop locally. Kids are unlikely to maintain social distancing all the time, but the new hygiene regimens I've seen are good in the main.

Sixth, vaccinate. Starting with clinically

vulnerable staff, but also hopefully all key workers, followed asap by the kids themselves. Whilst I would hope this might be a rare issue, children in families with vulnerable parents/relatives perhaps unable (hopefully not unwilling) to get vaccinated, should come first.

I know much of this has been said already, but I see so many well meaning and excellent scientists, journalists, parents and others getting embroiled in so many bitter arguments on this, it astounds me that a rapid action plan has yet to emerge. Minimising risk in schools should

benefit our pandemic response across the board, so where's the funding, guidance and certification for schools to show they are, specific to their circumstances, as safe as possible? We seem to throw millions at certain other measures, why not this? In terms of cost/faff benefit

surely it's a no-brainer?

Let's stop squabbling and get it done...don't keep it under review any more!