More evidence that schools don’t drive a rise in infections?

[notevenat20]

www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/coronavirus-schools-children.html

I can tell you what that graph certainly is not.

It's not people coming back from their summer holidays, which was the number one "no, it couldn't possibly be schools" reason when cases first started rising.

If not schools, then what DID happen around the end of August / beginning of September that continued for over a month?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

What about pubs, Nellodee?

I know that pubs opened way earlier and Y7-11 can't go to pubs but maybe it's pubs??

With the timing of the sudden rise in cases it must surely be the garden centres.

The mumsnet 'experts' and advocates of 'schools shouid be closed' gang will not like this

Not sure what you mean by "experts", would you care to clarify?

I've yet to see a post that says schools should be closed, would you care to clarify?

With the timing of the sudden rise in cases it must surely be the garden centres.

The children of the triffids coming to get their revenge!

If not schools, then what DID happen around the end of August / beginning of September that continued for over a month?

Why could it not be people coming back from their holidays? This could include holidays in the UK of course.

@TheClaws

Not sure how well you read the article, OP. A key quote:

"The evidence is far from conclusive, and much of the research has been tarnished by flaws in data collection and analysis. School reopenings are very much a work in progress."

The article also makes the point it is based primarily on younger children, and even then, those with robust safety controls.

This. Won’t comment on this thread again and have reported as it is spreading false news. Read the whole article!

If not schools, then what DID happen around the end of August / beginning of September that continued for over a month?

People going back to work, using public transport, going shopping, kids meeting their friends etc etc.

If not schools, then what DID happen around the end of August / beginning of September that continued for over a month?

Given the rise in hospitalisations started at least in the NW by August 26, this means the rise in infections in vulnerable people must have started at least a week or two before that. My guess is that it was a mixture of two things. First that having got over the first wave and seen cases/deaths drop to a low level people just started socialising more freely. I know I saw my parents for the first time since March in early August. Second people went on holiday, either in the UK or abroad and will have started coming back. This has the effect of spreading the virus from areas with infections to areas without.

A lot of people thought "sod it, what's the point in obeying all the rules when they are just being shoved back in classrooms in a week or so". And behaved accordingly.

This is another cause of cases rising, outside of schools. Parents even encouraged socialising outside of school.

A lot of people thought "sod it, what's the point in obeying all the rules when they are just being shoved back in classrooms in a week or so". And behaved accordingly.

This is definitely true.

Here is a study suggesting children do play a key role in spreading the virus:

www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

It’s a new virus and any one study won’t tell us everything. Important to look at all the evidence in context and keep an open mind.

This is definitely true

Why are you so sure about this but so resistant to the idea that schools are essentially daily mass gatherings?

Interesting article. I'm surprised how low the transmission rate is, even in a household:

The researchers found that the chances of a person with coronavirus, regardless of their age, passing it on to a close contact ranged from 2.6% in the community to 9% in the household

And that's presumably without masks.

@Lumene

I think I really matters exactly what question is being asked. Take the quote below.

While the role of children in transmission has been debated (36, 37), we identify high prevalence of infection among children who were contacts of cases around their own age; this finding of enhanced infection risk among individuals exposed to similar-age cases was also apparent among adults. School closures and other non-pharmaceutical interventions during the study period may have contributed to reductions in contact among children.

In other words, it’s all still very unclear and in any case their question was about children infecting other children outside of school settings.

Why are you so sure about this but so resistant to the idea that schools are essentially daily mass gatherings?

I don’t deny that schools exist :). The evidence so far just doesn’t suggest their opening has driven the rise in hospitalisations.

The evidence so far just doesn’t suggest their opening has driven the rise in hospitalisations

The evidence in the article you posted suggested that schools going back without distancing and other robust measures did exactly that.
🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Actually schools reopening don't have to result in an exponential rise in cases.
However, opening schools without effective mitigations - masks, space, ventilation does.
Also the psychological message of opening schools without effective mitigations affects behaviour outside of school. Driving cases up as well.
I believe we are the only country with such large class sizes in such small classrooms and the only country to have no effective mitigations within lessons. Lessons are as normal except maybe all facing front. Which does fuck all.

I think I really matters exactly what question is being asked.*

I agree. So for example, approaching a subject with the question ‘where is the evidence to back up my belief that children don’t transmit the virus or do so far less?’ is very different from approaching it with the question ‘what evidence is there for and against children being likely to transmit the virus?’

The first question is far more likely to lead to cherry picking of evidence, the second is more likely to lead to more objective research.

The evidence in the article you posted suggested that schools going back without distancing and other robust measures did exactly that.

I don’t see that in the article. But I was referring to data along the lines of the graph I pasted. If you look at the NE you see a similar picture. If you look at France there is similarly no indication that schools opening has driven their similarly disastrous rise in cases/hospitalisations.

I believe we are the only country with such large class sizes in such small classrooms and the only country to have no effective mitigations within lessons. Lessons are as normal except maybe all facing front.

I think French primaries are like here. One difference is that a lot of British primaries don’t sit children at desks but I don’t really know enough to comment on that.

I don’t see that in the article