Abstract
Background Social distancing measures, including school closures, are being used to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission in many countries. Once "lockdown" has driven incidence to low levels, selected activities are being permitted. Re-opening schools is a priority because of the welfare and educational impact of closures on children. However, the impact of school re-opening needs to be considered within the context of other measures. Methods We use social contact data from the UK to predict the impact of social distancing policies on the reproduction number. We calibrate our tool to the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK using publicly available death data and Google Community Mobility Reports. We focus on the impact of re-opening schools against a back-drop of wider social distancing easing. Results We demonstrate that pre-collected social contact data, combined with incidence data and Google Community Mobility Reports, is able to provide a time-varying estimate of the reproduction number (R). From an pre-control setting when R=2.7 (95%CI 2.5, 2.9), we estimate that the minimum reproduction number that can be achieved in the UK without limiting household contacts is 0.45 (95%CI:0.41-0.50); in the absence of other changes, preventing leisure contacts has a smaller impact (R=2.0,95%CI:1.8-2.4) than preventing work contacts (R=1.5,95%CI:1.4-1.7). We find that following lockdown (when R=0.7 (95% CI 0.6, 0.8)), opening primary schools in isolation has a modest impact on transmission R=0.83 (95%CI:0.77-0.90) but that high adherence to other measures is needed. Opening secondary schools as well as primary school is predicted to have a larger overall impact (R=0.95,95%CI:0.85-1.07), however transmission could still be controlled with effective contact tracing. Conclusions Our findings suggest that primary school children can return to school without compromising transmission, however other measures, such as social distancing and contract tracing, are required to control transmission if all age groups are to return to school. Our tool provides a mapping from policies to the reproduction number and can be used by policymakers to compare the impact of social-easing measures, dissect mitigation strategies and support careful localized control strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and discussions from the members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) for useful comments and discussions. Funding: EBP is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Evaluation of Interventions at the University of Bristol, MJK is supported by NIHR grant MEMVIEER NIHR200411, LD is supported by The Alan Turing Institute EPSRC EP/N510129/1, and MRC grant MC/PC/19067.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used for the paper are publicly available.
