“No evidence” schools spread Covid

[ThePenIsBlue]

This was on BBC news

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56072460

I saw that. What to make of it? An absence of evidence just means they've not figured it out via the study. They may be others that find a connection.

I wonder why lockdown is driving down rates then? Because closing schools is a major aspect of this lockdown. Do the wider public take it more seriously when schools get shut down?

This is a good example of scientific language being misunderstood by a journalist IMO. The important phrase being:

Co-researcher Dr Mike Tildesley said: "We are not saying there is no risk.
"It's an absence of evidence."

When they say there is ‘no evidence’ it means literally that. Not that it isn’t true.

You see this all the time with articles about vaccines. ‘Not enough evidence’ that they protect against variants, for example, has quickly turned in to ‘the AZ vaccine is completely useless’

Irresponsible reporting IMO.

I do think that the wider public (and parents) take it more seriously when schools are closed - it certainly felt more Serious than the November lockdown and schools closing this time is the only thing different..... and of course no parents mixing at school gates ( because they do, despite staggered pick ups) which I think would be a higher factor in transmission than kids....

The University of Warwick research suggested even in London and SE the schools cases increased 5-7 days after local increases, suggesting the driver was still community cases.
The Warwick press release has more detail:
warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/new_research_finds_no_evidence_that_schools_are_playing_a_significant_role_in_driving_spread_of_the_covid-19_virus_in_the_community1
There's a summary here including that the ECDC came to the same conclusion from EU analysis:www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-preprint-on-schools-and-absences-due-to-covid-19-between-september-and-december-2020/.

The other thing to consider is the timing of these articles.

I’ve said on other posts weeks ago that the tone in reporting would change when they want the population’s behaviour to change.
At the start of this lockdown, the stories were very sensationalised - made to I still fear and/or emotional blackmail.

Now the tone is more this type of report.
Won’t be long before they start to tell us about the economy being in the toilet, just before non-essential retail opens again.

It’s so transparent.

Whoops. Warwick link: warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/new_research_finds_no_evidence_that_schools_are_playing_a_significant_role_in_driving_spread_of_the_covid-19_virus_in_the_community1.

Analysis link: www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-preprint-on-schools-and-absences-due-to-covid-19-between-september-and-december-2020/

ECDC link: www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/children-and-school-settings-covid-19-transmission.

Let me guess. Schools are about to open on 8 March so this is released now. So predictable.

What that link says is there is a correlation between high local community spread and high infections in schools Not exactly a surprise.

It says absolutely nothing about the driver of that correlation, except that there is no evidence for saying that school infections drive community infection. That does not mean that school infections don't contribute to community infection.or that you can't catch Covid in schools

It is also worth remembering that the government closed the schools not because of anything teachers were saying but because of the massive community spread of Covid that happened post Christmas.

I am very very happy schools are opening but that article is almost insulting in its obvious intent and it's manipulative phrasing of what is effectively ' we don't know much more than we did about how opening schools affects community infections'

Wasn’t there a More or Less on this question recently-ish?

@Wherediditgo

This is a good example of scientific language being misunderstood by a journalist IMO. The important phrase being:

Co-researcher Dr Mike Tildesley said: "We are not saying there is no risk.
"It's an absence of evidence."

When they say there is ‘no evidence’ it means literally that. Not that it isn’t true.

You see this all the time with articles about vaccines. ‘Not enough evidence’ that they protect against variants, for example, has quickly turned in to ‘the AZ vaccine is completely useless’

Irresponsible reporting IMO.

This.

There was evidence they were drivers of household transmission.

There's an absence of evidence of any other transmission from schools.

For me that shows the government have failed to collect evidence correctly. (But we actually know they didn't want any evidence in schools because it may end up disproving their narrative)

@pinkhappy

Wasn’t there a More or Less on this question recently-ish?

Oh I'm a bit behind with more or less. My 2nd favourite show. TA obviously comes first

This report is not even published in preprint yet so it is impossible to properly comment. God knows why a proper academic research is allowing titbits of information to be released. This reminds me of when Whitty discussed a specific aspect of ONS data in a select committee before it was released. It politicises and sensationalises research and isn't a good look.

This reminds me of what I was taught at university.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

There's no "evidence" from schools because it's not required to be reported.:.

Since Christmas, In our school bubble (10 adults and about 20 children) 7/10 adults tested positive within 5 days of each other. No one went anywhere in that time apart from to work...

The bubble has had to close 3 times, but this doesn't have to be reported anywhere. And a child came into school despite waiting for a test result which was then positive, taking everyone down again. It's ridiculous.

I usually like More Or Less but that edition annoyed me : they didn't even acknowledge that the Statistics Authority criticised that research. Most unlike them.

It doesn't really matter whether school cases come in from the community or whether schools spread it : this is a common argument. Either way if cases rise, education is impacted and disrupted. This was really clear when the Kent variant struck.

Some of the media report this as if cases in teachers somehow reduced or were really low in November : even from the press release we can see that this is not what is said.

And, yes, any teacher will tell you that the DfE fiddled with ways in which absence was being recorded and reported and weren't gathering detailed stats of absent teachers at all in any kind of methodical fashion, so I really do want to seee the methodologies of this study.

@ThePenIsBlue

I do think that the wider public (and parents) take it more seriously when schools are closed - it certainly felt more Serious than the November lockdown and schools closing this time is the only thing different..... and of course no parents mixing at school gates ( because they do, despite staggered pick ups) which I think would be a higher factor in transmission than kids....

Agreed. I think many are more relaxed about mixing outside schools for play dates and sleepovers because they are mixing at school all day anyway.

I wonder how they corrected for certain workplaces being closed, the use of furlough particularly for those who are more vulnerable?

Also it didn't cover the time that the new variant began to be much commoner. And was explicit that it's funding was absence of evidence.

One point from the BBC article is the difference between secondary and primary schools. But the headline covers all schools, so I am left wondering if the reporting is reflecting the actual study closely enough.

Also, what's the weight of evidence from other studies? I've a vague recollection that there have been several and they point in various directions.

I totally agree that people’s adherence to the general lockdown rules is much tighter when the schools are shut.
Anecdotally from my sons 240 a year secondary there has been very little / no spread within school. We get emailed everytime time there is a case, and it tells us how many have had to isolate (this has ranged from 0 to 14 contacts - so never sending home a whole year). And not once has the next case in the school community been in the same year group.
I do believe schools being shut really drives the perception of seriousness and this makes a huge difference to people’s behaviours (it rules out the ‘well they’re mixing at school brigade’)

Great news that will support primary schools going back.

I feel much better about the propaganda when it supports MY views.

Cue a thousand threads full of graphs on why schools need to be closed again for the next six months

I used to trust this country, but I don’t any more.

This article has a purpose... to ensure teachers and pupils go back to unsafe schools that have had no measures put in place, without complaint.

And to make sure parents are happy about this.

@StillDumDeDumming

This one: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rvjr

Seemed fair and balanced to me.

@DBML

I used to trust this country, but I don’t any more.

This article has a purpose... to ensure teachers and pupils go back to unsafe schools that have had no measures put in place, without complaint.

And to make sure parents are happy about this.

All communications from the government over this have had a purpose - to direct and change opinion and behaviour. This is no more sinister than relentless pushing of various variants in order to justify closing schools in January.

How you feel when you read each type of propaganda depends on how your views to start with. I didn't buy the relentless 'variant' news. It seemed contrived and curated to terrify and get people talking about a bogeyman. I am more inclined to buy that schools aren't dangerous because I agree with that.

@Piggywaspushed write in! Get Tim on the case!

Maybe the government should be getting schools to report properly then so there can be "some evidence" either way.