A brief thread on the importance of a touch policy for young children as we go back. 1. Here is Statistician Prof David Spiegelhalter saying (at 7.20) that, whn it comes to the risk of coronavirus, childrn are at exceptionally low risk. 2 of 10million children in E&W have died. https://twitter.com/LEYFonline/status/1260226979086962688

2. Here is Matt Hancock also saying that children are at very low at risk. (Note: I am not saying anything at all about whether people ought to trust Matt Hancock or the govt. I am just showing Hancock's correspondence with Prof Spiegelhalter's message.) https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1260221698282045440?s=20

3. My point is that if England is going to send young children back to school, then if they aren't at risk, we should not create new damage by denying them the things they do need for emotional health: touch, hugs, play, teddies, etc.

4. If young childrn aren't at risk of coronavirus, they ARE definitely at risk of anxiety, attchmnt wounds, mental ill-health, trauma. We should not increase their risk of these lifelong problms to protect them against catching a virus they aren't (apparntly) at risk of.

5. Alternatvely, if childrn ARE at risk of being carriers of t virus (meaning we need to protect others frm catchng it via them),then we STILL shd NOT subject childrn to t risk of emotional hlth problms by puttng thm in settngs whr they are denied t cuddles,toys,teddies they need

6/end. As the media & professions angst over practical problems of HOW social distancing can be created in educ settings, we end up distracting ourselves from the emotional risks inherent in social distancing. Worrying about 'how' is the wrong worry. 'What if' is a better one.

7/end- And just to state t obvious: If childrn are at risk of catchng t virus (& there is yet debate abt that), then they shd not be at school. Parents deserve to trust that their chldrn are safe (emotnlly & physiclly) before they are asked to participate in returng thm to school