Thread by @cricketwyvern

The big news about this NEJM piece is that it’s not really news, being consistent with what we already knew:

when schools are open teachers do not seem to face higher risks relative to other professions whilst school children seem to be at very low risk
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

To that we can add that the suggestion keeping schools shut is an effective strategy for reducing community transmission is based on evidence that is weak & conflicting.

E.g. see this German study for a counter-example.
cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/C…

In contrast, we know with some certainty that the costs of school closures to education, to child well-being & to the economy are enormously high & affect disadvantaged children most.

e.g voxeu.org/article/long-t… & also this by my colleague @ProfETownsend acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ca…

To its credit, the Govt previously recognised the case against shutting schools & rightly kept them open in the last lockdown. So why has @GavinWilliamson changed his mind now?

One issue was a fear that the new variant virus spread relatively fast in children compared to adults.

But now we hear there is “expert consensus that there is no evidence to suggest it spreads particularly more in children”

https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1347612778937389062?s=20

It is not good enough to shut schools on a hunch that it has suddenly become an effective strategy. Where is the actual evidence that the cost-benefit calculation has changed sufficiently to justify shutting schools?

Was the decision to shut schools partly due to intense pressure & lobbying from some members of SAGE, unions and the press?

If so, it was an act of political cowardice. But either way, the decision should be reversed as a matter of urgency. #usforthem