Re: Back to school
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:32 pm
Probably because the media and the Cabinet were so insistent on the need for schools to re-open that to run those stories would be to admit they were wrong.
Do you have a link for other discussionsmediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
Report can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ce-reportsjimbob wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:38 pmDo you have a link for other discussionsmediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
"younger kids don't spread it" seems to have come from "younger kids don't get severe symptoms"; the latter is true, the former seems to have appeared in the public reckon and the government/official channels did nothing to deny it because it suited them to get kids back to school despite knowing perfectly well that they had to go home again at the end of the day.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
Yeah, it does kind of feel like this is a bit of a taboo area as well.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:48 pmMaybe, but then we've had headlines about factory outbreaks, care homes (for obvious reasons), hospitals, sports teams, funerals etc.etc.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:32 pmI guess the difference is 1) the students or at least a lot of them seem to be being taught entirely online, so there was no need for them to go to accommodation except ££££, and 2) the students have been effectively imprisoned in their own rooms/homes. The focus seems be on the wider impact and the motivation behind it rather than the number of cases.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
I'm definitely not saying universities aren't a story, they definitely are. But schools are too.
Likewise with my son in Aberdeen.Nickynockynoonoo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:16 pmOur granddaughter is there. 2nd year so luckily not in halls but even so, eeek!
I thought that just showed the city, but zoom in and it's really clearly just the ward where the Uni sits. Great website though .jimbob wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:42 pmThis is what the arcgis map of Covid-19 case by Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) in England looks like in Devon
Guess where Exeter University is situated
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewe ... 6912ed7076
I thought Ward, but it isn't looking at my area. It is a collection of wards - I don't understand how MSOA is defined. Or whether there's an equivalent COVID-19 map for Scotland or Wales.AMS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:38 amI thought that just showed the city, but zoom in and it's really clearly just the ward where the Uni sits. Great website though .jimbob wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:42 pmThis is what the arcgis map of Covid-19 case by Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) in England looks like in Devon
Guess where Exeter University is situated
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewe ... 6912ed7076
In some places it seems to be a single ward, in others (like my location) it's several. I'd guess they're probably roughly equal population regardless of area.
Thanks for this. Really useful to see some collated data. I think it needs a little further breaking down though with regards to cluster v outbreak and also child v staff.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:56 pmReport can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ce-reportsjimbob wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:38 pmDo you have a link for other discussionsmediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
So if it was 247 Clusters and 1 Outbreak, or 1 Cluster and 247 Outbreaks, our reaction might be significantly different in terms of what it tells us about transmission in schools.A cluster is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within a 14-day period (in the
absence of detailed information about the type of contact between the cases).
An outbreak is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within 14 days, and one
of:
(1) Identified direct exposure between at least 2 of the test-confirmed cases in that setting (for
example under one metre face to face, or spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres) during the infectious period of one of the cases
(2) When there is no sustained local community transmission - absence of an alternative
source of infection outside the setting for the initially identified cases
In week 38, there were 248 confirmed COVID-19 clusters or outbreaks in educational settings.
Hmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:04 pm"younger kids don't spread it" seems to have come from "younger kids don't get severe symptoms"; the latter is true, the former seems to have appeared in the public reckon and the government/official channels did nothing to deny it because it suited them to get kids back to school despite knowing perfectly well that they had to go home again at the end of the day.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
"Data were insufficient to conclude whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children is lower than by adults."badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 amHmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:04 pm"younger kids don't spread it" seems to have come from "younger kids don't get severe symptoms"; the latter is true, the former seems to have appeared in the public reckon and the government/official channels did nothing to deny it because it suited them to get kids back to school despite knowing perfectly well that they had to go home again at the end of the day.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:13 pmPHE have schools as the largest source of outbreaks by a long way in their last report. 248 confirmed clusters (estimates compiled elsewhere for schools with at least 1 case is very nearly 2000). No particular difference in numbers between primary and secondary., so there doesn't seem to be any " younger kids don't spread it" effect. University outbreaks are headline news and yet there's radio silence on the much larger number of school children who have been infected or are isolating.
It would be interesting to see that extra data. However the schools guidelines state that whilst children don't need to distance from others in their bubbles, staff should be distancing from students and each other. There would also be confounding issues where staff can access priority tests whilst children can't and given children's relatively mild symptoms and wider range of non standard symptoms then their cases might fly under the radar.badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:08 amThanks for this. Really useful to see some collated data. I think it needs a little further breaking down though with regards to cluster v outbreak and also child v staff.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:56 pmReport can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ce-reports
the report says:
So if it was 247 Clusters and 1 Outbreak, or 1 Cluster and 247 Outbreaks, our reaction might be significantly different in terms of what it tells us about transmission in schools.A cluster is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within a 14-day period (in the
absence of detailed information about the type of contact between the cases).
An outbreak is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within 14 days, and one
of:
(1) Identified direct exposure between at least 2 of the test-confirmed cases in that setting (for
example under one metre face to face, or spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres) during the infectious period of one of the cases
(2) When there is no sustained local community transmission - absence of an alternative
source of infection outside the setting for the initially identified cases
In week 38, there were 248 confirmed COVID-19 clusters or outbreaks in educational settings.
Yes, primary schools are as much in the mix as any other, but I assume that includes staff as well? So what it tells us about transmission between children is limited somewhat.
(Assuming that we will see "College/University" number shoot up in next week's report given what's on here and being reported at length elsewhere?)
This is also the paper whose data was collated primarily when schools were closed to the majority of pupils too and children's lack of contacts during the time period is memtioned as a potential confounding factor.shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:33 pm"Data were insufficient to conclude whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children is lower than by adults."badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 amHmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:04 pm
"younger kids don't spread it" seems to have come from "younger kids don't get severe symptoms"; the latter is true, the former seems to have appeared in the public reckon and the government/official channels did nothing to deny it because it suited them to get kids back to school despite knowing perfectly well that they had to go home again at the end of the day.
"Preliminary evidence suggests that children have a lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with adults, but the role that children and adolescents play in transmission of this virus remains unclear."
Yes.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:36 pmThis is also the paper whose data was collated primarily when schools were closed to the majority of pupils too and children's lack of contacts during the time period is memtioned as a potential confounding factor.shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:33 pm"Data were insufficient to conclude whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children is lower than by adults."badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 am
Hmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.
"Preliminary evidence suggests that children have a lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with adults, but the role that children and adolescents play in transmission of this virus remains unclear."
Er, thanks. I was quibbling with your suggestion of a conspiracy of silence (Govt/advisers quietly allowing people to think kids don't spread). The way the data is reported shows this is not entirely true:shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:33 pm"Data were insufficient to conclude whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children is lower than by adults."badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 amHmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:04 pm
"younger kids don't spread it" seems to have come from "younger kids don't get severe symptoms"; the latter is true, the former seems to have appeared in the public reckon and the government/official channels did nothing to deny it because it suited them to get kids back to school despite knowing perfectly well that they had to go home again at the end of the day.
"Preliminary evidence suggests that children have a lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with adults, but the role that children and adolescents play in transmission of this virus remains unclear."
But he said: “Susceptibility tells us a little about transmission. You have got to be able to catch the virus to transmit it.” The paper says the existing data does suggest that children and adolescents are much less likely to pass on Covid-19 than they were to pass on flu during the last pandemic.
Viner’s team began the work in spring and published an early pre-print on their initial limited findings. They have since been feeding their data to Sage, the government’s scientific advisory committee, updating advisers and ministers as the evidence has accumulated and contributing to the decisions over opening schools in the UK and overseas.
It's a systematic review and meta-analysis.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:36 pmThis is also the paper whose data was collated primarily when schools were closed to the majority of pupils too and children's lack of contacts during the time period is memtioned as a potential confounding factor.shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:33 pm"Data were insufficient to conclude whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children is lower than by adults."badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 am
Hmmmmm, my experience is a little different. "Younger kids don't spread it" comes from "Younger kids don't spread it as much as older ones and adults". This comes partly from their relative lack of symptoms, and from some of the research and government/official channels actively saying so. Eg. Shamez Ladani on More or Less and elsewhere, such as Prof Viner in the press over the weekend. Full paper here.
"Preliminary evidence suggests that children have a lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with adults, but the role that children and adolescents play in transmission of this virus remains unclear."
Agreed, lots to unconfound and more data needed on this, but it would good if we had more to go on the data they've collected so far...mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:34 pmIt would be interesting to see that extra data. However the schools guidelines state that whilst children don't need to distance from others in their bubbles, staff should be distancing from students and each other. There would also be confounding issues where staff can access priority tests whilst children can't and given children's relatively mild symptoms and wider range of non standard symptoms then their cases might fly under the radar.badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:08 amThanks for this. Really useful to see some collated data. I think it needs a little further breaking down though with regards to cluster v outbreak and also child v staff.mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:56 pm
Report can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ce-reports
the report says:
So if it was 247 Clusters and 1 Outbreak, or 1 Cluster and 247 Outbreaks, our reaction might be significantly different in terms of what it tells us about transmission in schools.A cluster is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within a 14-day period (in the
absence of detailed information about the type of contact between the cases).
An outbreak is defined as two or more test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among individuals associated with a specific non-residential setting with illness onset dates within 14 days, and one
of:
(1) Identified direct exposure between at least 2 of the test-confirmed cases in that setting (for
example under one metre face to face, or spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres) during the infectious period of one of the cases
(2) When there is no sustained local community transmission - absence of an alternative
source of infection outside the setting for the initially identified cases
In week 38, there were 248 confirmed COVID-19 clusters or outbreaks in educational settings.
Yes, primary schools are as much in the mix as any other, but I assume that includes staff as well? So what it tells us about transmission between children is limited somewhat.
(Assuming that we will see "College/University" number shoot up in next week's report given what's on here and being reported at length elsewhere?)
I do know that in some cases whole schools have been tested after an outbreak, presumably to gather this kind of data.
https://www.st-margarets.bury.sch.uk/st ... PiGeaPuJU8
I've seen the letters from this school discussed, they're not the standard PHE ones and give quite a lot of information into the situation at least one school is finding itself in.
No, I don't think closing all the schools now is feasible or desirable. Schools did have to have online learning plans in place by the end of September though, so we are at a point where those plans are ready to be activated.badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:56 pmAgreed, lots to unconfound and more data needed on this, but it would good if we had more to go on the data they've collected so far...mediocrity511 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:34 pmIt would be interesting to see that extra data. However the schools guidelines state that whilst children don't need to distance from others in their bubbles, staff should be distancing from students and each other. There would also be confounding issues where staff can access priority tests whilst children can't and given children's relatively mild symptoms and wider range of non standard symptoms then their cases might fly under the radar.badger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:08 am
Thanks for this. Really useful to see some collated data. I think it needs a little further breaking down though with regards to cluster v outbreak and also child v staff.
the report says:
So if it was 247 Clusters and 1 Outbreak, or 1 Cluster and 247 Outbreaks, our reaction might be significantly different in terms of what it tells us about transmission in schools.
Yes, primary schools are as much in the mix as any other, but I assume that includes staff as well? So what it tells us about transmission between children is limited somewhat.
(Assuming that we will see "College/University" number shoot up in next week's report given what's on here and being reported at length elsewhere?)
I do know that in some cases whole schools have been tested after an outbreak, presumably to gather this kind of data.
https://www.st-margarets.bury.sch.uk/st ... PiGeaPuJU8
I've seen the letters from this school discussed, they're not the standard PHE ones and give quite a lot of information into the situation at least one school is finding itself in.
...or just close all the schools now? Or incorporate a different strategy on school grounds? Is that what you're suggesting?
afaik, they don't match up with wards. Except perhaps by coincidence?