The Experience of 2 Independent Schools With In‐Person Learning During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
BACKGROUND
In 2020, US schools closed due to SARS‐CoV‐2 but their role in transmission was unknown. In fall 2020, national guidance for reopening omitted testing or screening recommendations. We report the experience of 2 large independent K‐12 schools (School‐A and School‐B) that implemented an array of SARS‐CoV‐2 mitigation strategies that included periodic universal testing.
METHODS
SARS‐CoV‐2 was identified through periodic universal PCR testing, self‐reporting of tests conducted outside school, and contact tracing. Schools implemented behavioral and structural mitigation measures, including mandatory masks, classroom disinfecting, and social distancing.
RESULTS
Over the fall semester, School‐A identified 112 cases in 2320 students and staff; School‐B identified 25 cases (2.0%) in 1400 students and staff. Most cases were asymptomatic and none required hospitalization. Of 69 traceable introductions, 63 (91%) were not associated with school‐based transmission, 59 cases (54%) occurred in the 2 weeks post‐thanksgiving. In 6/7 clusters, clear noncompliance with mitigation protocols was found. The largest outbreak had 28 identified cases and was traced to an off‐campus party. There was no transmission from students to staff.
CONCLUSIONS
Although school‐age children can contract and transmit SARS‐CoV‐2, rates of COVID‐19 infection related to in‐person education were significantly lower than those in the surrounding community. However, social activities among students outside of school undermined those measures and should be discouraged, perhaps with behavioral contracts, to ensure the safety of school communities. In addition, introduction risks were highest following extended school breaks. These risks may be mitigated with voluntary quarantines and surveillance testing prior to reopening.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250065: (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: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations: Our report has 2 major limitations. First, our data reflect the experience of 2 schools that were able to invest substantial financial, logistical and organizational resources in a testing program. We recognize that these resources are not available to the vast majority of institutions. However, our goal was to assess the …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.26.21250065: (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: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations: Our report has 2 major limitations. First, our data reflect the experience of 2 schools that were able to invest substantial financial, logistical and organizational resources in a testing program. We recognize that these resources are not available to the vast majority of institutions. However, our goal was to assess the experience of these schools and the importance of regular testing in safely returning children to school. The second major limitation is the adaptive testing protocol used over the 4-month period, in which the protocol changed in real time based on availability of testing resources. The schools initially began with less frequent testing than recommended in settings with a high risk of transmission13. Modeling results showed that school transmission might have gone undetected with the lower frequency of testing. However, when less expensive and easier-to-implement pooled saliva testing became available, each school increased its testing frequency. This design, wherein each round of testing was used to decide how frequently to repeat the screening process, was sufficient to confirm the risk of introductions and school transmission. Our modeling estimates are limited, since the number of outbreaks was small and we were only able to identify one generation of infection. Therefore, our estimate of R0 is an upper bound. Nevertheless, we found that our R0 estimates were consistently substantially below 1, indicating that in-school transmissions did not...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
-
