It is not scientifically clear what role children play in the transmission of the corona virus. Many parents are therefore worried about the reopening of schools. A conversation with psychologist Fari Khabirpour.
Fari Khabirpour, is it right to open schools and daycare centers on Monday?
In principle, yes, we cannot lock children up indefinitely. The measures that are being taken focus very much on people's physical health. That's fine. The government is doing a good job, informing people, appealing to their personal responsibility. But health is more than physical health. It also includes the emotional, social and psychological areas. It is important that people can go out again and maintain social contacts. And that is why it is also important that schools reopen, even if a return to normality as we knew it before is not realistic at this point in time and for the time being. We have to live with the virus, but we also have to be careful that the virus does not penetrate all areas of our lives, hinder contacts and cause mental and psychological problems.
Are parents overreacting by not wanting to send their children to school for fear of the virus?
I can understand that parents are afraid. The information we receive is alarming and that creates fear. What is important is how you deal with it. You can also involve children in responsibility instead of protecting them completely. You can trust children to be capable of following rules and paying attention.
The virus is not everywhere, but is transmitted through direct contact with people. If you keep your distance, you don't need to live in constant fear. You can't protect children 100 percent. There are dangers everywhere and at all times. In traffic, you explain to them what they have to look out for. It is important to make children aware of dangers. And you have to help them learn how to deal with situations. If you constantly scare children, you are putting them at much greater risk.
Parents who say that health is more important than compulsory schooling must be aware that health is not limited to physical integrity.
Isn't this fear different because we are dealing with a completely new and unknown danger that requires completely new behaviors?
The danger is there. But we also know from experts that the virus is not dangerous if you keep your distance. This is of course very difficult with small children. They cannot protect themselves. That is why tests would be very useful.
Do you think it would be better to give parents the choice to send their children to school in Cycle 1?
Politicians are discussing the measures in close cooperation with scientists. These are not purely political decisions, but political decisions based on the opinion of experts. My advice would be to trust our politicians. The virus will be with us for a while. It is therefore crucial that parents and children learn to deal with the virus. We must change our behavior and habits, be cautious, but always think clearly and make our decisions based on reason, not fear.
But let’s return to the question: Should the decision be left to the parents?
If the government decides to open schools, then compulsory schooling will apply. Parents cannot then decide not to send their children to school. In this respect, I cannot recommend something that is not legally possible.
As a psychologist, however, I say yes. If parents, after detailed information, still come to the conclusion that it is better for their child not to go to school, then they should be able to make that decision. I base this on parental responsibility. However, I do not know whether this is compatible with the law. That does not mean that I agree with the decision. I would rather advocate trusting the children to be able to deal with the danger.
Politicians have made people afraid, which is why they have complied with the measures. Shouldn't politicians now send more signals to citizens that they trust them?
Politicians appeal to people's personal responsibility and say that they trust people to behave correctly. But I can only behave correctly if I am properly informed. That is sometimes problematic.
I don't want to blame anyone, but the messages from virologists don't always go in the same direction. I'm not talking about fake news. Even high-ranking and respected scientists who speak publicly on the subject convey contradictory things. I also think that politicians should seek more dialogue with people. We need discussion forums and not just the one-sided approach of the government dictating what should be done. The media also play an important role.
One accusation against the government is that it only communicates what it wants to communicate and that it does not disclose important information, for example the scientific data on which it bases its decisions...
It is unclear whether the government is deliberately not releasing information because sometimes it is better not to release information in order not to cause further unrest and unnecessary fear. Sometimes there is simply no more information available.
It is important - and the media have done a good job here - that the relationship between citizens and institutions has not been unnecessarily strained. The relationship must remain positive and trusting. If trust in institutions is lost, we are all lost. In situations like this, trust in institutions must remain. Fortunately, that is the case in Luxembourg, not least because of the closeness of citizens to politicians. In other countries, things are very different, in the USA or Great Britain, for example. There, trust in political leadership no longer exists.
Suppose there is a wave of infections in schools. How high do you think the risk is that there will be mutual distrust and mutual accusations, be it from parents to parents or from parents to teachers?
I believe in common sense and assume that parents are responsible enough to report their child to the authorities immediately if it is infected. If a child infects other children, it is wrong to look for someone to blame and discriminate against other parents. No one infects anyone else on purpose.
This crisis is also an opportunity for us. It promotes a sense of community solidarity. We see how much we depend on each other and that we must work together - even with authorities that we may have previously opposed or mistrusted. The crisis situation is also suitable for promoting social and emotional-spiritual skills in children.
Do you think that this crisis is a kind of test for the cohesion of our society?
That's exactly how it is. It's an opportunity and a challenge at the same time. We see to what extent we are able to help each other and be mindful of ourselves and others. It's not just about not getting sick, but also about not infecting others. The masks aren't for self-protection, but to protect others.
In an interview with the Tageblatt, psychiatrist Dr. Jean-Marc Cloos said that he expects there to be a rush on Luxembourg's psychiatric hospitals, but that there are not enough psychiatrists to cope.
In this crisis, the need for psychiatric or psychological help will certainly increase. The problem is that consultations with legally recognized psychotherapists are not reimbursed by the CNS and many families do not have the means to seek help. Discussions on reimbursement of psychotherapeutic treatments are not making any progress. This point must be clarified.
Comments