“No evidence” schools spread Covid

[ThePenIsBlue]

This was on BBC news

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

First there was "no evidence" that COVID was spread via aerosols and we were told keeping 2 metres and washing our hands would be enough to keep it from spreading.

Then there was "no evidence" that masks were protective. We were told the general public wearing masks could make the problem worse.

Then there was "no evidence" that children could spread COVID. We were told this was why schools are safe to often without any of the precautions required in every other public mixing space.

"No evidence" is a very convenient way of suggesting something isn't true, even if what it really means is that no one has bothered to study it.

The government should have a lot of data on outbreaks in school and the degree to which schools impact on spread. They had an entire term to gather data. I would find it extremely difficult to believe that there is no evidence that schools will fuel the spread if they open as they are when a) they now admit children do catch and spread COVID efficiently and b) there is an even more contagious variant sweeping the country.

Thing is since schools have closed infection rates and deaths are down so logically school must be high risk.
However in my daughter's secondary school there have been a handful of cases since September and none in my son's nursery despite the fact that rates in our area are still pretty high.
So I don't know.

This is such bull crap anyway - if schools don't spread Covid, how are we explaining cases in school children dropping during half term in October, then rising again immediately afterwards? What is this, if it's not evidence? I cannot think of any other explanation for the dip - not because of a lack of imagination, but because there isn't one.

So schools are safe. Covid knows not to spread in schools, kids can mix freely in schools but they shouldn't see one other friend in the park outside of school to reduce the transmission.
If schools are so safe and there's no transmission of covid within schools why has the guidance been updated today to CEV children should not attend school. When schools went back in September this was not the guidance for CEV, many schools were understanding and parents did not send their CEV children back but others were just following the guidance which said at the time it was safe for them to attend.
To me this feels like an experiment now hence not getting the CEV children back in at all this time around. It was apparently safe for them in September but not now despite the fact children don't get and spread covid

Very irresponsible reporting. “No evidence” is not the same as “proven to be untrue”. The idea that you can catch covid from supermarkets, hospitals, public transport, pubs, restaurants, gyms etc but not schools is ludicrous. Of course covid is passed around in schools! They’re not magic.

What mitigation measures are people proposing? Teacher vaccinations? Masks in classrooms? Staggered returns, or blended learning, with pupils in 1 or 2 days a week? And when would these measures not be necessary any more? What level of community transmission is acceptable?
I'm not saying I don't think we should have them - I certainly do - but I'm not clear what people who advocate for continued school closures as they are at the moment are proposing should be the way forward.

@sproutsandparsnips

What mitigation measures are people proposing? Teacher vaccinations? Masks in classrooms? Staggered returns, or blended learning, with pupils in 1 or 2 days a week? And when would these measures not be necessary any more? What level of community transmission is acceptable? I'm not saying I don't think we should have them - I certainly do - but I'm not clear what people who advocate for continued school closures as they are at the moment are proposing should be the way forward.

Personally I would like a blended learning part time approach to reduce contacts my child would have and to allow for social distancing among the older children rather than them all sat on top of one another. I appreciate social distancing is not possible between younger children. This would be temporary more as part of a phased return to monitor the figures within schools (and actually collect and study some evidence) with a view to a full return after Easter if the data stacks up (schools are not contributing to a rise in community transmission and then to monitor as we increase to full capacity) and to have allowed more people to have their vaccine.

In Scotland they seem to be having a full p1-p3 return next week if I am correct but no return for the rest until at least 15th March. Is it not better that all children have some education than some children have all.

It doesn't really matter to me though as mine won't be returning (CEV) but those are measures that would make me feel safer to return CEV child and siblings as it is decreasing the amount of people we are directly and indirectly connected with. It won't be risk free but no option is risk free right now.

@sherrystrull

At my primary school there is a large proportion of children who are looked after by grandparents before and after school. The majority of these are in their 50's and 60's.

At my school all the TAs except one (who is late 40s) are in their 50s and 60s.

Gallbladderpain - that seems a sensible approach and one I had thought about - maybe blended approach until Easter so all children could have time in school and then if all well and vaccinations going well, all in after Easter. Thank you.
PS hope your name is not representative of your current state......

@sproutsandparsnips

Gallbladderpain - that seems a sensible approach and one I had thought about - maybe blended approach until Easter so all children could have time in school and then if all well and vaccinations going well, all in after Easter. Thank you. PS hope your name is not representative of your current state......

Thankfully not ! It was created a long time ago to ask the question about gallbladder pain and I didn't revert back (was long overdue a name change anyway !) I now await gallbladder surgery at some stage in the future when i reach the end of the ever growing waiting list

Research looked at sick days within schools as compared to the wider community. But other research also shows that children and teens are very likely to be asymptomatic. So surely it's precisely the point that evidence is unlikely to be visible within schools, or have I missed something? Did the research account for that?

@Flaxmeadow

The primary school thing is also not helped by the fact that many children have Covid with few symptoms, but can still pass it on.

But they are far less likely to pass it on ecen if they do have it and far less likely to pass it on to an elderly person.

Primary school childrens parents are generally young and also, like anyone else, would be avoiding seeing grandaprents or older populations most at risk.

The old virus. The new mutation is more infectious to everyone and more likely to kill you [30%] Or you might get long covid. In Scotland all the early years go back. Nursery and P1-3. There are no extra mitigations. Nothing. Media silence. Very little about safety and the fact that the Scottish Government are clearly using the little kids as guinea pigs. Good luck for English schools when you open. Gaslighting by the press. Choose the narrative to suit the argument for schools go back. So tired of it.

@Boeufsurletoit

Research looked at sick days within schools as compared to the wider community. But other research also shows that children and teens are very likely to be asymptomatic. So surely it's precisely the point that evidence is unlikely to be visible within schools, or have I missed something? Did the research account for that?

Exactly. Many children esp in Primary are asymptomatic.

We all caught cv after Xmas, when my kids went to school. Kids had to isolate as a kid in youngest dc's group tested positive. 3 of us got varying degrees of the illness, within a couple of days of each other. Incubation time would suggest youngest child brought it back to us, but had absolutely no symptoms. Mind you, neither did I initially- until the fever and leg pain kicked in.

Isn’t this evidence? According to data from December, 12-16 year olds were 7 times more likely to be the first person in their household to be infected and hence to infect everyone else. If they aren’t getting the virus from school, where are they getting it from? Bearing in mind they weren’t supposed to be mixing outside school in December. 30 people in an enclosed space will always cause transmission, surely?assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948617/s0998-tfc-update-to-4-november-2020-paper-on-children-schools-transmission.pdf
I’ve copied the relevant section below:
This analysis shows that children and young people are more likely to bring the virus into the household than those aged 17+. They are also less likely to catch the virus within the household. This is consistent with previous analysis of household transmission (14 October).
• External exposure shows how likely someone is to be the first case in
their household. Young people (aged 2-16) are much more likely than those aged 17+ to be the first case in their household. In particular, those aged 12 to 16 are nearly 7 times as likely to be the first case in their household, compared to those 17+.
• Transmissibility shows how likely someone is to pass the virus on within the household, if they are the first positive case. The analysis shows that 2 – 16 year olds are more than twice as likely to pass on the virus within their household compared to people aged 17+

Before the lockdown, secondary school aged student had the highest incidence of COVID out of any age group. The idea that these students were not catching or spreading their COVID at school is actually laughable. Of course if you aren't looking for evidence, you won't find it.

@Boeufsurletoit

Research looked at sick days within schools as compared to the wider community. But other research also shows that children and teens are very likely to be asymptomatic. So surely it's precisely the point that evidence is unlikely to be visible within schools, or have I missed something? Did the research account for that?

I don't know how they can even say that sick days are a suitable measure of infection. The government instructed schools not to differentiate between sick, self isolating, CEV, tested positive, awaiting test results, feeling anxious about Covid or anything else and to just code all of the eventualities as attendance not required, which is not a sick day.

We weren't allowed to ask for evidence of any of these, either, so somebody could say 'they're self isolating because they're a contact' when they actually had it.

If the data provided to the researchers is unreliable in the first place, any conclusions are automatically useless.

Bearing in mind they weren’t supposed to be mixing outside school in December.

That's the crux of the matter. They may not have been "supposed to be mixing outside school" but plenty were in/out of their friends houses, socialising, having parties, etc. (And still are even in the current harsher lockdown). My neighbours across the road have a couple of teenagers, and it's been like a revolving door throughout covid, with no reduction in comings/goings at all.

@Nme8961

Before the lockdown, secondary school aged student had the highest incidence of COVID out of any age group. The idea that these students were not catching or spreading their COVID at school is actually laughable. Of course if you aren't looking for evidence, you won't find it.

Of course they were probably catching/spreading it at school, but they'd also be catching and spreading it outside school too. The figures won't show the split between in and out of school. Sharing cigarettes, snogging, sharing bottles/cans, etc., is likely to cause covid to spread more than sitting next to someone in a classroom.

"That's the crux of the matter."

Sorry, it isn't at all "the crux of the matter." Why would teenagers be any more likely to pass COVID around outside of school after sitting in classrooms together all day? They are in school for 7 hours a day in tightly packed classrooms with no distancing and poor ventilation.

Your observations regarding your neighbour's teens lends further support for the idea that schools open without any precautions is in fact "the crux of the matter" -- because despite some families/children not following lockdown rules around socialising, cases have plummeted since schools were shut.

"Sharing cigarettes, snogging, sharing bottles/cans, etc., is likely to cause covid to spread more than sitting next to someone in a classroom."

Not really, at the start of the pandemic they thought COVID was spread primarily through droplets, but now we know that COVID is airbourne and is easily spread simply by breathing the same air as someone who is infected. Hundreds to 1000+ students sitting in the same building and breathing down the same cooridors is really all that it takes.

Teenagers have all sorts of close contact during the school day anyway. They are often touching/hugging/sharing drinks in the corridors during breaks etc. They aren't supposed to be, but of course they do.

Why are people always so determined to suggest that someone's covid was probably caught somewhere other than school.

Even when looking at the person's movements and they place they were most likely to have has sustained close contact was a school classroom we have posters who will always suggest it was caught elsewhere - outside, passing a random person in a street, from someone who had no symptoms in a shop, etc.

I caught covid during the autumn term. Although I'd not shielded and hidden away the only place I had had close contact in the days before was school, other than with dh - who had no symptoms, had not come into contact with anyone with symptoms, and his work had no active cases at the time and only have ever had 3 positive cases in the whole time they've been open. I'd seen people after my symptoms started (wasn't intentional) and before I was likely to have caught it but only from a distance and mainly outdoors, wearing a mask. Oh and the fact that approx 75% of the school staff, several parents and children also tested positive around the same 6 weeks.

But oh no, it couldn't possibly be from school. Much more likely to be from dh apparently. 🤷‍♀️

If someone says they caught covid in a supermarket or in a hospital virtually no one questions it. So why do they question schools?

Because children don't spread disease and schools have better measures in place than supermarkets. And everyone knows how compliant teenagers are.

@Nme8961

"That's the crux of the matter."

Sorry, it isn't at all "the crux of the matter." Why would teenagers be any more likely to pass COVID around outside of school after sitting in classrooms together all day? They are in school for 7 hours a day in tightly packed classrooms with no distancing and poor ventilation.

Your observations regarding your neighbour's teens lends further support for the idea that schools open without any precautions is in fact "the crux of the matter" -- because despite some families/children not following lockdown rules around socialising, cases have plummeted since schools were shut.

Cases also plummeted in November when schools stayed open.

"Why are people always so determined to suggest that someone's covid was probably caught somewhere other than school."

It's bizarre -- I think it's because the opening of schools has been presented to us as an "all or nothing" dichotomy with no sensible middle ground. Of course what would make the most sense would be to invest in sending children back to schools with adequate safety measures in place (as has been done in virtually every other area of society) but as this hasn't been done the general public seems to be grasping at straws to convince themselves children can't catch or spread a virus .

These ridiculous articles that come out claiming there's "no evidence" to suggest COVID spreads in school is ridiculously misleading and seems to be used to manipulate the public into following instructions to send children back to school when it suits the agenda.

If they wanted, I'm sure they could also publish articles stating that there is "no evidence" that 52 year old women shopping at Waitrose is likely to contribute to the spread of COVID, just because no one has studied that particular scenario.

Of course logic would dictate that anyone at any shop could spread COVID so we take precautions accordingly -- but somehow we are expected to believe it's different for schoolchildren