Read on Twitter
Lots of people talking about this Lancet study on impact of school closures and COVID today https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2352-4642%2820%2930095-X
It& #39;s">https://www.thelancet.com/action/sh... a good review of what we know. However, it is getting a bit mangled by some in the press...
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Down pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Down pointing backhand index">
It& #39;s">https://www.thelancet.com/action/sh... a good review of what we know. However, it is getting a bit mangled by some in the press...
My reading is that there are three key findings:
1) There is a lack of evidence (this is useful to know)
2) Economic costs of school closures likely to be high (this is obvious)
...
1) There is a lack of evidence (this is useful to know)
2) Economic costs of school closures likely to be high (this is obvious)
...
3) "Available evidence is consistent with a broad range of impacts of school closures, from little effect on reducing transmission through to more substantial effects"
Unfortunately, this has been badly misreported...
Unfortunately, this has been badly misreported...
BBC quote a sociologist (?!) saying "This is an important study that confirms what many of us suspected, namely that the public health benefits of school closures were not proportionate to the social and economic costs" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52180783">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
NO! It confirms that we DON& #39;T KNOW the benefits. Hence, we also don& #39;t know whether the benefits are proportionate to the costs, or not...
TES headline: school closures "likely to have only a limited impact on virus spread" https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-how-do-we-re-open-schools-safely">https://www.tes.com/news/coro...
Problem here is the word "likely". Lancet: "previous coronavirus outbreaks...provide limited information about the effectiveness of school closures" & "Modelling studies of SARS produced conflicting results". The evidence is too weak to claim any particular consequence is likely
Even worse, New York Times headline: "School closures will have little impact"
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/06/world/asia/06reuters-health-coronavirus-schools.html
Sorrrrry,">https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2... WHAT?!
...
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/06/world/asia/06reuters-health-coronavirus-schools.html
Sorrrrry,">https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2... WHAT?!
...
The main finding from the review being cited in the press is the modeling work from Ferguson et al at Imperial that school closures alone will reduce deaths by 2-4%.
But note that...
But note that...
1) This is deaths. The reduction on peak ICU bed demand of school closures alone in their model is 14-23%. Page 9 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf">https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...
2) This is school closures ALONE. Clearly, if other things remain open, then the transmission would continue via other routes, and closures would not be very effective. Ferguson argues they make sense in combination with other measures e.g. household quarantine
3) The 2-4% figure is predicated on closures triggered between 1000-3000 cumulative ICU cases. These findings just do not apply to e.g. September 2020 school openings.
To repeat, the Lancet study is useful. But the press (and maybe a university press office somewhere) have done a bad job translating it. Interpreting research accurately is critical when policy decision are literally a matter of life and death.
If anybody thinks I have misinterpreted any of the research here, let me know and I will delete/correct as appropriate.
