Vaccinations or Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: Safe Reopening of Schools in England

  1. Carolina Cuesta-Lazaro
  2. Arnau Quera-Bofarull
  3. Joseph Aylett-Bullock
  4. Bryan N. Lawrence
  5. Kevin Fong
  6. Miguel Icaza-Lizaola
  7. Aidan Sedgewick
  8. Henry Truong
  9. Ian Vernon
  10. Julian Williams
  11. Christina Pagel
  12. Frank Krauss

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With high levels of the Delta variant of COVID-19 circulating in England during September 2021, schools are set to reopen with few school-based non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In this paper, we present simulation results obtained from the individual-based model, J une , for English school opening after a prior vaccination campaign using an optimistic set of assumptions about vaccine efficacy and the likelihood of prior-reinfection. We take a scenario-based approach to modelling potential interventions to assess relative changes rather than real-world forecasts. Specifically, we assess the effects of vaccinating those aged 16-17, those aged 12-17, and not vaccinating children at all relative to only vaccinating the adult population, addressing what might have happened had the UK began teenage vaccinations earlier. Vaccinating children in the 12-15 age group would have had a significant impact on the course of the epidemic, saving thousands of lives overall in these simulations. In the absence of such a vaccination campaign our simulations show there could still be a significant positive impact on the epidemic (fewer cases, fewer deaths) by continuing NPI strategies in schools. Our analysis suggests that the best results in terms of lives saved are likely derived from a combination of the now planned vaccination campaign and NPIs in schools.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.07.21263223v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.07.21263223: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.07.21263223v1 on medRxiv