2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.04.20121434
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of school reopening on the spread of COVID-19 in England

Abstract: Background: In the UK, cases of COVID-19 have been declining since mid-April and there is good evidence to suggest that the effective reproduction number has dropped below 1, leading to a multi-phase relaxation plan for the country to emerge from lockdown. As part of this staggered process, primary schools are scheduled to partially reopen on 1st June. Evidence from a range of sources suggests that children are, in general, only mildly affected by the disease and have low mortality rates, though there is less … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
50
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
6
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other than the previously described base case we performed a number of univariate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings to the underlying assumptions. Specifically, we assume that the current R is 0.7 or 0.9 instead of 0.8 50 ; that the secondary attack rate in the household is 10% or 40% instead of 20% 47 ; that transmission between individuals in the same bubble (but different households) is 10% or 100% of that within a household instead of 50%; that the risk of a household to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 from the community increases with increasing household size instead of being independent; that 50% of bubbles do not adhere to the recommendations but also form bubbles with an additional household rather than perfect adherence; that households including an individual over 70-years-old do not form bubbles; and that the relative susceptibility to infection of children and older adults compared to adults is 79% and 125% while the relative transmissibility is 64% and 290%, respectively 8 , 54 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other than the previously described base case we performed a number of univariate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings to the underlying assumptions. Specifically, we assume that the current R is 0.7 or 0.9 instead of 0.8 50 ; that the secondary attack rate in the household is 10% or 40% instead of 20% 47 ; that transmission between individuals in the same bubble (but different households) is 10% or 100% of that within a household instead of 50%; that the risk of a household to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 from the community increases with increasing household size instead of being independent; that 50% of bubbles do not adhere to the recommendations but also form bubbles with an additional household rather than perfect adherence; that households including an individual over 70-years-old do not form bubbles; and that the relative susceptibility to infection of children and older adults compared to adults is 79% and 125% while the relative transmissibility is 64% and 290%, respectively 8 , 54 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We would highlight that the parameters of α and τ are key in determining age-structured behaviour and are therefore essential in quantifying the role of school children in transmission [29]. We argue that a low τ and a low α are the only combination that are consistent with the growing body of data suggesting that levels of seroprevalence show only moderate variation across age-ranges [30], yet children are unlikely to display major symptoms, suggesting their role in transmission may be lower than for other respiratory infections [31,32].…”
Section: S13 Parameter Inferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other than the previously described base case we performed a number of univariate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings to the underlying assumptions. Specifically, we assume that the current R is 0.7 or 0.9 instead of 0.8 47 ; that the secondary attack rate in the household is 10% or 40% instead of 20% 44 ; that transmission between individuals in the same bubble (but different households) is 10% or 100% of that within a household instead of 50%; that the risk of a household to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 from the community increases with increasing household size instead of being independent; that 50% of bubbles do not adhere to the recommendations but also form bubbles with an additional household rather than perfect adherence; and that the relative susceptibility to infection of children and older adults compared to adults is 79% and 125% while the relative transmissibility is 64% and 290%, respectively 8,50 .…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%