- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
It still bothers me that gov has only tacitly acknowledged the role that schools played in the rise of cases last term (by including them in this lockdown). Nationally, on average, over 3% of secondary school children had covid towards the end of term, so some places would have been well over that. (The ONS data show it to be a fairly steady rise during the term rather than a dramatic peak at the end that one might presume to be the UK variant). That level of infection would clearly be a perfect environment for a variant to arise. Anyway, it bothers me because I believe that most people will act responsibly if presented the facts (including reasonable assumptions).
There's news today of a study done by the University of Warwick which finds that Schools do not play a significant role in community spread of covid. As far as I can tell, the study isn't available to read yet (even as preprint), so I assume it's a press release.
Brief bit from the Telegraph's live feed:
Schools are not a significant driver of coronavirus transmission in the community, a study has found.
There is no hard evidence to suggest that children attending in-person classes - especially at a primary school age - has led to outbreaks in local areas, according to epidemiologists at the University of Warwick.
A significant number of secondary school absences were seen in December amid outbreaks in London and the South East, but researchers attributed this to the more transmissible Kent variant of the virus and generally high case rates.
"During the first two weeks of the November lockdown we observed an increase in pupil absence as a result of infection with Covid-19," said Dr Edward Hill, from the University of Warwick.
"Yet in the following weeks the data indicates that in several regions there was no subsequent rise in Covid-19-caused teacher absence."
It comes as Boris Johnson said that no final decision has been made on whether all pupils will return to school on March 8.
While looking for the latest study, I found a BBC article from June: Fully reopening schools 'could cause second wave' which links to an earlier study by a different group. The predictions they made were startlingly accurate (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons, however, while a new variant came along, there was also the November lockdown):
They analysed what happens when Reception, Year 1 and Year Six go back at the start of June; followed by all primary school pupils in July; secondary pupils in Year 10 and 12 having some contact in July and all secondary schools going back in September.
The study showed the combined effect on pupils and parents would be enough to cause a second wave without an effective test and trace programme.
This would happen around December 2020 and would be twice as big as the first peak, unless the government took other actions such as re-imposing lockdown.
The new variant was seen in about 1/4 of cases in London at the beginning of Nov, rising to 2/3 by the middle of Dec. Even with hindsight it's hard to pin it as being the main reason for cases rising prior to the Nov lockdown.
I must admit I'm a tad sceptical of the findings of this new study, or at least how it's being reported. Will keep an open mind until I can read it and find out what their methodology was. The study group's previous focus has been on how infection in schools would affect schools, rather than community transmission. If their measure is "teacher absence" then I don't think that's a good proxy for "community transmission", which would have parents as the most likely next link in the chain.
---
edit 16 Feb 01:00: Still haven't found the paper, only the press release. It's rather as suspected: the data into the study consisted of student and teacher absences, along with levels of covid in the community local to the schools. I don't think that is enough to answer the question. It doesn't address asymptomatic cases. It certainly doesn't address the ONS data that showed secondary school age children as having the highest prevalence of any age group (by a significant margin), and barely dipping during the Nov lockdown. Indeed it seems to deny that by specifically noting that "In many regions cases in secondary school pupils increased for the first two weeks of the November lockdown, before decreasing" - technically yes, but hardly decreased at all on the national stats.
There's also this: "The researchers observed a positive correlation between cases in the community and cases in schools in some regions, with some weak evidence suggesting that cases in schools actually lag behind cases in the surrounding community". Surely they mean absences from school, not cases, since that's the data they say they used? If so, I don't see how they can ascribe "weak evidence" to that direction of transmission hypothesis, as they aren't comparing like for like.
I do expect that the actual paper will be open about its limitations (not that many journalists read them). Dr Tildesley's comments in the BBC article on it caution against reading too much into it, and he says it's a political decision as to how schools open up again.
Last edited: