I tweeted last week the link to @ECDC_EU evidence review of EU & international evidence on: COVID-19 in children and the role of school settings in transmission. Just finished reading it in full & it's balanced & comprehensive. (1) ecdc.europa.eu/en/publication…
Reiterates finding that children are very unlikely to have severe illness with COVID19 infection. (2)
Shedding of viral RNA thru upper respiratory tract may be of shorter duration in children than in adults. Associated with age, although doesn't appear to be significant difference in levels of viral RNA detected in nasopharyngeal swabs between the two. (3)
We know systematic reviews estimate asymptomatic infection levels in adults ~20%. In children, fewer studies, report ~14.9-18%. Also household attack rates are higher from symptomatic cases than asymptomatic cases (i.e. if you've got symptoms you're more likely to infect!) (4)
Children, esp <14y, appear to be less susceptible to SARSCoV2 which would thus lead to lower prevalence among children and fewer opportunities for onward transmission. Pooled OR of children (<20y) being an infected contact 0.56 compared with adults. (5)
Possibility that child cases are underreported. That said, one study of schools found no significant difference in prevalence among primary school students, lower secondary school students and teachers. However, higher prevalence in those from poorer backgrounds (OR 3.58).(6)
Most school-related clusters were in secondary school settings. But, not proof of transmission in school setting as can be a consequence of community spread & multiple children bringing the infection from the community to the school. (7)
Schools comprise minority of settings for transmission. Strong association with community transmission. Risk of outbreak in school 🔼72% when community incidence 🔼by 5 per 100k. Most outbreak cases linked to staff >> staff-to-student > student-to-staff > student-to-student. (8)
WHO finds that staff-to-staff transmission was the most common and that in school outbreaks the virus is most likely introduced by adult personnel.(9)
Data from occupational registries in Sweden found teachers not at increased risk of infection compared to other occupational groups.(This is similar to ONS reported findings for UK). (10)
Investigations in Germany, France, Ireland, Australia, Singapore and US found no or very low secondary attack rates within school settings. (I think this shows public health measures work!) (11)
Evidence that physical distancing (cohorts, smaller groups, class room distancing) to prevent crowding, esp in older age groups, +safety & hygiene measures (handwashing, respiratory etiquette, cleaning, ventilation, face masks) support transmission-free school environment.(12)
On testing ECDC advise use for SYMPTOMATIC cases as part of active surveillance, contact tracing & early detection. Possibly for screening staff or students in high prevalence settings eg school outbreak. (13)
Important section on impact on children of school closures: interruption of learning, exacerbate disparities, mental health issues, domestic violence, abuse & neglect, food insecurity, worse for children from vulnerable & marginalised groups. (14)
Children with disabilities especially affected - more isolated than others & support services they need may be closed. Also impact on parents/carers, with greater stress, impact on their job security, own mental health, and ultimately safety and security of their children. (15)
Dutch modelling suggest school closure reduces Re by 8% for 10-20yo, 5% for 5-10 yo, & negligible amount for 0-5 yo ie biggest impact on community transmission achieved by reducing contacts in secondary schools, not just on child mixing but curtailing parents social mixing. (16)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The number of COVID19 cases in UK continues to rise, with a trajectory that is worryingly becoming steeper. Hospitalisations up. ICU admissions up. Community transmission & outbreaks widespread. Clearly control of the epidemic in the UK is deteriorating. Deaths will follow. 1/
Worth revisiting @acmedsci 's report in July for their predictions. acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/…
Their predicted real worst case scenario is looking more likely.
Give or take a few weeks, we're in for a difficult winter. What's less clear is just how bad is going to get... 2/
The UK gov has thrown £billions at the problem, hired loads of private consultants & consultancy firms, been given lots of good scientific advice, done national lockdown plus local variants of lockdown lite. Yet it's not working.
3/
The key to better control of the #covid19 pandemic may be in identifying & preventing #superspreading, through backward tracing to identify clusters. Need to rethink our approach.
Contact tracing seeks out where the infection has come from (look for source) & where it is going (contacts of the index who may be susceptible). An assumption is that all infections are equal (i.e. every infected person has a similar chance of infecting someone else).
1/n
So with COVID19, we assume with R0=2.6, 1 infected person infects 2.6 others. But this is an erroneous assumption if superspreading is a key mode of transmission. Some infected persons are more infective!
The problem I think with the current approach to COVID19 is we are approaching it the wrong way round, from the wrong end of the telescope.
1/...
COVID19 is a public health problem that requires a public health approach & solution. Trouble is, we often try to solve public health problems with healthcare solutions from a healthcare perspective.
2/...
If you had cancer, it would be nice to have the best cancer diagnostics & treatments. But wouldn’t it be better not to have had cancer in the first place? What if we eliminated smoking & in doing so prevented thousands of cancers?
Similarly, COVID19 is a preventable disease.
3/
#Masstesting especially of asymptomatic individuals for #COVID19 is NOT a magic bullet solution.
There seems to be a lot of clamour for it but we need to consider not just the utility of testing but also the issues with it.
1/...
A few months back a team of public health researchers @FionaBell19@lliandme@ScHARRSheffield carried out a rapid evidence review on #masstesting. We found the evidence from around the world to be mixed, patchy and limited.
2/...
NO TEST IS PERFECT. PCR tests for COVID19 can’t always tell if it is current infection or past infection, or whether the individual is still infectious or not. Here's where clinical interpretation and judgment is key.
3/...
Adults attending ED with suspected COVID-19 had substantial co-morbidities.
Men more likely to be admitted, have positive COVID-19 testing, require organ support & die.
Reassuringly, children had much lower rates
of admission, COVID-19 positivity, organ support & death .
2/...
Black or Asian adults attending ED tended to be younger than White adults, less likely to have impaired performance status, be admitted to hospital or die, but more likely to require organ support or have a positive COVID-19 test. Comorbidities varied between ethnic groups.
3/..
Currently going round twitter is a worrying @nytimes article that asserts school age children transmit COVID19 as much as adults. It's based on this study from S Korea wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26…
but I reckon the findings aren't that clear cut.
One issue is directionality. Isn't clear whether it's a case of child transmitting to adult or adult transmitting to child. 2ndly, testing protocols weren't explicit (young children tend to be tested less=skews testing data). Age bands too broad, 10 year olds aren't 19 year olds.
The associations were household & not school level. The study authors have extrapolated household level of risk (~11.8%) to school settings. Whereas non household attack rates where only 1.9%. (Unmitigated) school risk probably sits somewhere between the two but at which end?