Closing schools actually causes more Covid 19 deaths long term

[Lucyandbet]

www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-confirms-advice-given-to-the-uk-government-about-school-closures/
This has probably already been discussed to death on here but I found this article surprising.

Interesting.

So the strategy they are proposing is just social distancing for the over 70s but not other age groups. I’d be happy with that but I’m sure someone will be along to disagree with the experts.

It's basically the herd immunity approach. (Which we know is flawed due to lack of long term immunity, and increased mutations due to more infections)
And their conclusion is based on no vaccine.

So meh, nice modelling, shame it is based on things we know are incorrect.

Is that the same/ similar to the Great Barrington?

Also there is a vaccines so its a moot point.

It doesn't say why it comes to that conclusion either apart from as pp said is hers immunity.

Dated 7th October? Things have moved on somewhat since then.

"Several predictions made by experts ahead of the UK-wide lockdown in March"
Probably best to consider research that's less than 10 months old. Situations evolve with unknown new viruses.

It's not 10 months old. It's a recent review of the mitigations that were followed.

Isn’t this just saying protect the vulnerable, let everyone else catch it and eventually deaths will come down (though cases won’t)?

And if Covid just happens to cause long term issues in younger people, so be it?

And if these new strains cause worsened illnesses in younger people, that’s not bee considered due to the age of the article?

And no mention of a vaccine, which means we don’t necessarily need to take such risks?

Right. OK then. Seems like a great idea.

This surprises me. DH and I are SS teachers in the current second most affected London borough and in the 3-4 weeks before the end of term it was carnage. There are also no ICU beds in our local trust and haven’t been for the past ten days (BIL is a doctor at the nearest local trust hospital) which is something that seems to be the case all over London (according to friends and relatives who are medics). It seems hard to not make a connection between how bad things have been in schools and the ICU beds.

So can someone explain to me like I’m five how keeping the schools open won’t continue this cycle with hospitals? I mean that most sincerely- I’m genuinely asking because I feel like I’m missing something.

It predates the advances with all the vaccines op and the additional new strain in the country. It's pretty redundant at this point.

@Lucyandbet

It's not 10 months old. It's a recent review of the mitigations that were followed.

It isn't recent.

Covid is a new virus so events change quickly. In October, when the article was published, we were unaware of the strain going around London and the SE in the November lockdown. Schools were open then but the number of positive cases was going up.

Load of rubbish. By march we already knew about

• Long term possible effects of covid

-possible reinfection.

There f we hadnt SD how many more would be on their 2/3/4 time catching it.
We know schools contribute 0.5 to spread even without a new strain. It means anyone in contact with a 10yo or over can catch it onwards. Lots of grandparents doing pick ups etc. To.me it suggests their simulations are missing something. Also if this was Edinburgh - scotland seem to think young kids dont spread it which isnt true.

Maybe the strategy should have been start pensions again from 63 or so so less at work.still.

If they want schools open then
Morally they need to allow masks on the teachers and kids. Just because in theory they are low risk doesnt mean we not take measures that are heap for the gov and easy and almost all other countries are doing.

It supports the projection that while general social distancing would reduce the number of covid-19 cases, it would increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70s only.

It's an interesting read, confirming that the government were too focused on minimising cases rather than minimising deaths. So a more targeted, individualised approach would have produced better outcomes. Unfortunately that's something this government is very bad at, just look at the way people with disabled people are treated by them.

If kidsnwerent a major spreader we wou!d have been told -just send your kids to grandma /the care home. Rather than -tier 4 dont meet anyone even on xmas day

It's not saying kids don't catch and spread it, just people under 70 are unlikely to die so emphasis on that age group would be more effective in reducing the number of deaths.

Interesting, but see how schools closing for the Christmas holidays have made a bit dent in the 10-19 age group infection rate. The bright green line.

Also interesting in that graph is the dip in the green line over half term

There will be other studies saying exactly the opposite OP.

@SusannahSophia Nobody is saying DC don't catch it, but they are not likely to become ill and die from it. It's saying mitigations in the over 70s is more effective than closing schools.

There are huge questions over the long term damage of Covid in younger people, including children.

They might be less likely to die, but I’ve read articles about Covid making younger people more likely to develop diabetes; potential impact on the male reproductive system; potential long term respiratory or cardiovascular issues; chronic fatigue; etc

For every article saying children are unaffected and schools being open reduces the death rates, there are articles to be find that will say the opposite or warn of long term health implications that can blight younger people for years. For example:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/as-child-covid-cases-rise-doctors-watch-for-potential-long-term-effects-11598289636

So I am of the thinking that as much as I loathe being locked down and teaching from home, until we know more and until this vaccine is being rolled out more widely, the safest place for everyone to be is home. I accept thought that I will probably have to go into work, but please don’t try and sell it to me like that’s the safest thing. It’s not and I find it insulting that my safety and the safety of hundreds of thousands of staff and students is disregarded for the sake of convenience.

But it is not a clinical study - it's mathematical / computer modelling - which is only ever as good as the initial assumptions. And 2 major ones are wrong - it assumes long term immunity and no vaccines. It also ignores the fact that allowing a virus to rampage unchecked through a population allows more mutations - some of which might be concerning.
Hence why leaving schools with no effective mitigation was a bad idea .

It would make sense though for the over 70s to isolate as much as possible until they receive the vaccination. It's hopefully not going to be for much longer.

The "protect the vulnerable" approach assumes that vulnerable people can somehow be kept separate. I'm very vulnerable- but my 9yo and 4yo still need me at home, and need hugs! We can't separate the millions of elderly and otherwise more vulnerable people off from society medium or long term.

Exactly SylvanianFamilies and my parents in their early 60s and late 50s have had to form a childcare bubble with my brother so he can work and also have my 90 year old grandparents living with them. This will not be an isolated situation.

@DBML as the vaccination is not going to be given to DC you'd be teaching from home for a very long time. This would likely be much more detrimental to all DC long term than theories of possible long term health impacts of them catching Covid 19.

It's not saying kids don't catch and spread it, just people under 70 are unlikely to die so emphasis on that age group would be more effective in reducing the number of deaths
Unfortunately people under 70 do die or get very unwell and clog up ICUs sotgere is the fkaw