“No evidence” schools spread Covid

[ThePenIsBlue]

This was on BBC news

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

@MissSiri

Agree OP, this is being talked about in the medical profession abroad. I have relatives who work as medical professionals in Europe and the US, evidence is emerging that at least primary schools are not part of the problem.

It's to do with how children carry the virus if they even have it. It's quite likely that closing primary schools for a year was not based on scientific evidence but fear. It could turn out to be quite the public health scandal.

They were not shut for a year, at least not in the UK.

It's quite likely that closing primary schools for a year was not based on scientific evidence but fear

You can't gather scientific evidence before the fact, though. I think it is better to say caution than fear.

Primary schools have not been closed for a year. They’ve actually not been closed at all. Attendance has been restricted for April & May then less restricted June & July. Then open to all Sept to Dec. Then some restrictions Jan & Feb.

You can't gather scientific evidence before the fact, though. I think it is better to say caution than fear.
Yes that's better word, agreed.

So we know that secondary kids were the most infected subset of the population. We know that kids were 7 times more likely to be the first case in a household and more than twice as likely to pass it onto a family member.

What we don’t have, probably due to shitty data collection practices, is a graph that links these two facts together.

Is that it?

Is this article still on BBC news? It is dreadful reporting.

I hate the secrecy that surrounded schools and transmission in schools.

In our school community (open to key worker children only) there have been 12 cases of covid in the past 3 weeks, including a high proportion of staff.
For those with parents on furlough and home schooling there have been none.
For those with parents at work but children home schooling I am unaware of any recent cases.

We have a bubble with a friend who is vulnerable (physical and mental health) and if schools return we may have to stop seeing them to support them as we feel the risk is too high in light of the school outbreaks - when under 1/3 of all pupils are attending and distancing can be implemented.

"Primary schools have not been closed for a year. They’ve actually not been closed at all. Attendance has been restricted for April & May then less restricted June & July. Then open to all Sept to Dec. Then some restrictions Jan & Feb."

This. We've been open the whole time but with some restrictions in the summer term and in this latest lockdown.

A lot of schools have a lot of children in currently. Not only that, you might think they would be high risk children given that their parents are presumably not at home and many will be in the NHS. So at the very least we know that these numbers are compatible with general infections going down 25% a week.

We've been open the whole time but with some restrictions in the summer term and in this latest lockdown.

That depends on the school. My sister's school was shut completely in lockdown 1 . Key worker children had to go to another school in the borough. The legal obligation is to provide a school in the LEA not necessarily your school.

Our primary had 6 out of 420 children in so that's pretty close to being closed.

@Wherediditgo

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.

Absolutely. We're all being played, and hysterical reactions from all sides of each decision, just shows that it's working.

Don't know it has already been mentioned but I saw a news report last week saying something like children are "18 times less likely" to pass the virus on than a middle aged person.

Children 7 times more likely to be the first case in their household and twice as likely to pass it onto another family member, according to SAGE.

They catch it at school and bring it home to their families seems to be the obvious conclusion.

Well the fact that this is being reported now (rather than when the study was done) is a sign that the government are gearing up to open schools whether people like it or not.

The narrative has changed... they are feeding positive school stories to the media.

Now I’m in support of opening schools so see this as a good thing. So you can pull apart and critique the article all you like. The most important thing to take from this is the change in tone and media reporting.

Children are half as likely to get covid and if they do have it, are less likely to transmit it to other people

www.healthline.com/health-news/kids-are-half-as-likely-get-covid-19-as-adults-heres-what-we-know

@pinkhappy yes there may be some schools that were closed but primary schools as a category of establishments have never been closed.

Children are half as likely to get covid

Can't find in the article what age range they are using as 'children'.

What we do know in England is that secondary school children were the most infected subset of the population by far. So if they were half as likely to get covid (although I expect that 'children' doesn't include them) and yet were massively more infected, that points to a HUGE problem with transmission in secondary schools.

Schools were open during the November lockdown, but infection rates came down quite quickly.

Schools weren't open in August when infection rates started to rise after the Summer lull.

I'm not saying schools don't cause infections, but I don't think their impact is as large as some would have you think.

From my own limited friend/family/client circle, those with children don't seem to have been any more prone to covid than those without. Most people I know with it caught it in a care home or hospital. Second place to that are those living in large multi-generational homes (i.e. 3 generations or more), including those without school age children.

@noblegiraffe

Children are half as likely to get covid

Can't find in the article what age range they are using as 'children'.

What we do know in England is that secondary school children were the most infected subset of the population by far. So if they were half as likely to get covid (although I expect that 'children' doesn't include them) and yet were massively more infected, that points to a HUGE problem with transmission in secondary schools.

Not necessarily, it could point to a HUGE problem of teenagers mixing outside school, partying, socialising, ignoring social distancing rules, etc etc. There's nothing to say they caught it during the school day.

Schools were open during the November lockdown, but infection rates came down quite quickly.

Not in school kids. And November lockdown wasn't a success because it was followed quickly by tier 4, cancelled Christmas and here we are.

Remember the Kent variant ran riot through schools.

It would be madness to open schools the same as they were.

Agree with @user1497207191

It’s all anecdotal but it definitely didn’t spread like wild fire in schools round here. Odd child with it (asymptomatic), parents tested positive first. Nobody else in the bubble caught it. Maybe we were lucky as I don’t claim that our school was amazingly safe.

The level of Covid in schools will just reflect what is going on with the community.

Not necessarily, it could point to a HUGE problem of teenagers mixing outside school, partying, socialising, ignoring social distancing rules, etc etc.

Nope, because the infection rate in secondary kids dropped during November half term when they had more time to party.

Odd child with it (asymptomatic), parents tested positive first.

So presumably because the child was asymptomatic, the parents had symptoms, were tested, and then it was discovered that the child was also positive. That is not an argument that the parents caught it first, merely that they were tested first.

Nobody else in the bubble caught it

Children are more likely to be asymptomatic so how do you know?

@noblegiraffe yes you’re right, it could have spread all round the bubble, all asymptomatically and then none of the parents or siblings showed symptoms either so a whole a school of asymptomatic cases...

I think it would be moslty the new variant and then the Christmas effect which caused the steepest rises and the most dangerous because the deaths didn't really start climbing until just before Christmas and then sadly after, as we know, they shot up. Christmas shopping in the weeks leading up too Christmas day too

Children, especially primary, and their parents are not generally the most at risk. So even if infections went up slightly in September, this does not mean deaths and hospitalizations did in relation to that. That's what's important.

Deaths were still in the low hundreds a day at the end of October. They didn't start going up until November and December and then, sadly as we know, really shot up in January