“No evidence” schools spread Covid

[ThePenIsBlue]

This was on BBC news

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

The infection rate in secondary school kids went down during November half term. Despite the insistence that its kids' behaviour out of school that's risky, the data simply doesn't support it. Being in school is more of a risk in terms of infection transmission for teenagers than being out of school and having parties and hanging around street corners.

The drop in infection rates in secondary kids since schools closed for Christmas is astonishing. It has had the biggest drop in infection rates for any age group. The reduction in transmission due to not being in school is incredible and really should be paid attention to when re-opening. The conditions they were opened in before Christmas were clearly mad.

"Cases also plummeted in November when schools stayed open."

Cases went down when schools closed for half term, back up again after half term, and then down again at Christmas.

We haven't had an explanation yet why a) all the people shielding have got another 6 weeks of it (at least) and b) suddenly nearly twice as many people have to shield.

Of course, the government is gearing up to open schools and needs to compensate for a possible surge in infections.

Wait - there's...no...evidence...schools...spread...covid....

@Nme8961

"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.

We also have variants now that are much more infectious. that have spread since schools were last running in December.

We have no clear plan what the government is planning to do within schools to address the increased risk of infection.

Apart from say that schools are safe.

We haven't had an explanation yet why a) all the people shielding have got another 6 weeks of it (at least) and b) suddenly nearly twice as many people have to shield.

The people were added now because the data analysis finished on the QCovid project and they were able to state based on the findings who is at more risk and need to shield based on updated understanding of who was actually badly affected last year.

They couldn't add them to the list with only a couple of weeks of shielding left so there's been an ad-hoc extension and it will be reviewed again later, is my bet.

Actually, I have another idea.

The government was very keen to get all 4 priority groups jabbed by 15th Feb.

But then it looked as though more people needed to be added to the shielding group.

So they chose to do that on Feb 16th so their figures still added up.

If so, I'm still not clear why the rest of us need to shield for longer.

You mean you don't know why you have to shield when you've been jabbed?

I thought the new shielders were being added to group 6 so wouldn't affect the Feb deadline.

Lots of us already shielding got a message last night extending the shielding period from Feb 21st to March 31st.

At the same time, lots of other people who were not previously shielding got messages that after all this time they were now required to shield. (presumably because of the new algorithm).

I have been trying to work out what is the thinking behind these developments.

Also, group 6 haven't been shielding; the people who are now thought more vulnerable could have been added to Group 6 without being told to shield, surely.

I think the need to shield for longer is that hospitals are still very full, and it is possible that some in the shielded category (eg the immune suppressed and those with haem malignancies) might not mount as good a response to the vaccine as the general population

If they can establish the extent of effect on transmission by then, and reinstate cohabitants of the most vulnerable to group 6 (where they were in November, but paused from that pending further evidence) then it could well be considerably safer and perhaps possible to move from shielding to ordinary lockdown rules (a bit like what happened last June)

I think it just took a long time to assess all the data to identify the risk factors and then the individuals involved. If the results came earlier they would have been asked to shield earlier. When announcing 2m extra for priority 4 the government could have easily extended the deadline by a week to cover the extra headcount without looking like any target was missed. Arguably it would have been easier in the final rush.

As far as shielding after a vaccine:

1. 22 days to build immunity, longer for some very elderly or otherwise immune compr
2. Few servings

Dd (16) is Group 6. She could get the Pfizer vaccine but we have no idea when. When in school she sits shoulder to shoulder with unmasked classmates and Yr12 sit on the floor, unmasked, at break/lunchtime.

At the moment she is in contact with 4 people. We get a click and collect once a week and wipe the shopping.

At school (NOR 1600) she is in contact with 40 different unmasked classmates (one room doesn’t even have an opening window) + 6 unmasked teachers + all the Yr12 classmates they are in classes with + the ones on the buses+ their siblings+ their parents + their parents workmates ......must run into thousands.

Pull the other one. Of course she knows she is far more at risk at school. She’s not stupid. She is, however, extremely anxious about going back to school.

Sorry, random word at the end in early posting... should say
2) Few people have had a second vaccine for full immunity
3) Real life transmission and incidence of mild disease age still being assessed, too early to let people take risks
4) This is the group most likely to have lower immunity from all vaccines, not worth the risk of finding out you were the 5% while cases are still relatively high
5) If vaccinated people start going "I'm fine and can do what I like" then it risks high transmission from those who are still a transmission risk, lower general acceptance of rules and a deep sense of unfairness for those later in the vaccine queue.