RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Model-based evaluation of school- and non-school-related measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.07.20245506
DO 10.1101/2020.12.07.20245506
A1 Ganna Rozhnova
A1 Christiaan H. van Dorp
A1 Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen
A1 Martin C.J. Bootsma
A1 Janneke H.H.M. van de Wijgert
A1 Marc J.M. Bonten
A1 Mirjam E. Kretzschmar
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/08/2020.12.07.20245506.abstract
AB Background In autumn 2020, many countries, including the Netherlands, are experiencing a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health policymakers are struggling with choosing the right mix of measures to keep the COVID-19 case numbers under control, but still allow a minimum of social and economic activity. The priority to keep schools open is high, but the role of school-based contacts in the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 is incompletely understood. We used a transmission model to estimate the impact of school contacts on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to assess the effects of school-based measures, including school closure, on controlling the pandemic at different time points during the pandemic.Methods and Findings The age-structured model was fitted to age-specific seroprevalence and hospital admission data from the Netherlands during spring 2020. Compared to adults older than 60 years, the estimated susceptibility was 23% (95%CrI 20—28%) for children aged 0 to 20 years and 61% (95%CrI 50%—72%) for the age group of 20 to 60 years. The time points considered in the analyses were (i) August 2020 when the effective reproduction number (Re) was estimated to be 1.31 (95%CrI 1.15—2.07), schools just opened after the summer holidays and measures were reinforced with the aim to reduce Re to a value below 1, and (ii) November 2020 when measures had reduced Re to 1.00 (95%CrI 0.94—1.33). In this period schools remained open. Our model predicts that keeping schools closed after the summer holidays, in the absence of other measures, would have reduced Re by 10% (from 1.31 to 1.18 (95%CrI 1.04—1.83)) and thus would not have prevented the second wave in autumn 2020. Reducing non-school-based contacts in August 2020 to the level observed during the first wave of the pandemic would have reduced Re to 0.83 (95%CrI 0.75—1.10). Yet, this reduction was not achieved and the observed Re in November was 1.00. Our model predicts that closing schools in November 2020 could reduce Re from the observed value of 1.00 to 0.84 (95%CrI 0.81—0.90), with unchanged non-school based contacts. Reductions in Re due to closing schools in November 2020 were 8% for 10 to 20 years old children, 5% for 5 to 10 years old children and negligible for 0 to 5 years old children.Conclusions The impact of measures reducing school-based contacts, including school closure, depends on the remaining opportunities to reduce non-school-based contacts. If opportunities to reduce Re with non-school-based measures are exhausted or undesired and Re is still close to 1, the additional benefit of school-based measures may be considerable, particularly among the older school children.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis is a modelling studyFunding StatementThe contribution of CHvD was under the auspices of the US Department of Energy (contract number 89233218CNA000001) and supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01-OD011095). MEK was supported by ZonMw grant number 10430022010001, ZonMw grant number 91216062, and H2020 project 101003480 (CORESMA). MJMB and PBV were supported by H2020 project 101003589 (RECOVER). GR was supported by FCT project 131_596787873. We thank Michiel van Boven from the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, for valuable discussions and continuing advice during the course of this project. We thank Mui Pham and Alexandra Teslya for comments on the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is a modeling study which did not require IRB and/or ethics committee approvals.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data, the R, Stan and Mathematica codes reproducing this study are available at https://github.com/lynxgav/COVID19-schools https://github.com/lynxgav/COVID19-schools