New report examines ways to minimize COVID-19 risks when schools reopen

Percent of schools with at least one infectious individual on the first day of school, averaged across the top 20 parameter sets. “A limitation of this analysis is that we do not explicitly model the distribution of school sizes by school type, so may underestimate the risk in high schools, which tend to be larger in size than middle and elementary schools, relative to elementary and middle schools,” the report noted.

The Washington State Department of Health and Public Health – Seattle & King County on Friday released a new report by the Institute for Disease Modeling (IDM) that measures the tradeoffs between minimizing COVID-19 related health risks and maximizing educational benefits for students when Washington’s K-12 schools resume instruction. According to the report, while the educational benefits of in-person learning are well established, there are still significant risks associated with returning to in-person instruction.

According to a Friday Department of Health news release, the report modeled the health risks of resuming in-person instruction assuming a slowly declining epidemic (0.9 effective rate) and using three hypothetical COVID-19 incidence scenarios:

  • A low incidence of 20 cases per 100,000 residents in the 14 days prior to school reopening (20/100,000),
  • A medium incidence of 50/100,000, and
  • A high incidence of 110/100,000.

The scenarios fall within the three incidence rate bands that DOH recently established as benchmarks to guide school districts in their decision-making on resuming in-person instruction.

“What we have found is that there is no ‘zero-risk’ scenario for resuming in-person instruction in Washington state schools,” said Jamie Cohen, a co-author of the IDM report. “But our analysis shows that there are pathways to resuming limited and carefully monitored in-person instruction for younger students. This can happen only if everyone works together to minimize disease transmission in their local communities.”

The IDM report found that if schools resume full-time in-person instruction without public health countermeasures and with high rates of disease incidence in the community (110/100,000), then 17.2 percent of students and 24.2 percent of teachers and staff could attend school while infectious.

Those risks could be substantially reduced if school districts required public health countermeasures including mask-wearing, social distancing, frequent handwashing, the segmentation of students into smaller cohorts and the implementation of rigorous daily symptomatic screening supported by testing, isolation and contact tracing. But even with those strong countermeasures in place, up to 4.1 percent of students and 5.5 percent of teachers could still be infected between September 1 and December 1 if community incidence is high (110/100,000).

Tradeoffs between within-school infection rate and missed in-person school days (due to either scheduled distancing learning, quarantine, or infection).

Of the school reopening scenarios considered in the report, a hybrid instruction plan that would allow children in grades K-5 to receive up to two days of in-person instruction per week on an alternating A/B schedule would minimize health risks while still providing some in-person time for younger learners. Under this plan, students in group A would attend school on Mondays and Tuesdays, students in group B would attend school on Thursdays and Fridays and the school would be cleaned and disinfected on Wednesdays. Students in grades 6-12 would participate in remote learning only.

If such a plan were implemented and transmission rates in the community were low (20/100,000), then the percentage of students infected between September 1 and December 1 could be as low as 0.1 percent, and the percentage of teachers and staff infected could be as low as 0.2%.

This approach would reduce in-person attendance for all students by 83% while allowing the youngest students – who need in-person instruction the most – to receive up to two days of weekly instruction in classrooms.

“The report supports our guidance that full in-person learning is not wise right now given current COVID-19 transmission levels in most Washington communities,” said Lacy Fehrenbach, deputy secretary for COVID-19 response at DOH. “However, it is possible to resume some in-person learning for the children who need it most if we work to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.”

Effective reproductive number over the simulated period of school reopening (Sept. 1​ to Dec. 1​ ), averaged across the top 20 parameter sets, assuming a COVID-19 incidence rate of 50
cases per 100,000 in the 14 days prior to school reopening. Error bars represent the standard deviation of the top 20 parameter sets. “Regardless of infectivity, in all cases, young children are three times less susceptible to infection than adults. We are also not modeling an increase in transmission associated with parents/guardians returning to work when in-person learning resumes,” the report says.

IDM’s first back-to-school report emphasized that efforts to control COVID-19 transmission in the broader community hold the key to whether Washington schools can minimize health risks associated with in-person instruction.

The report’s authors noted that there are important limitations to their analysis. The report’s analysis assumes that parents of students will not be increasing activity in the community or returning to fulltime work settings. The report also assumes that on days when students are engaged in distance learning they will not be interacting with their peers in other settings. The report also did not account for transmission that may be associated with transportation to school and after-school care.

“There are three key messages from this report,” said Dr. Jeff Duchin, Health Officer for Public Health – Seattle & King County.  “First, reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the community is the most important and effective way to reduce the risk to students, teachers and staff and get our children back to school as safely as possible. Second, there will always be some risk for COVID-19 and schools must take comprehensive steps to protect students and staff.  And, third, when community COVID-19 activity decreases sufficiently, resuming in-person education with elementary students first makes most sense.”

 

  1. We gotta get our kids infected on purpose. Models are great, except for the fact they’ve been horrible. Denmark and Sweden (for example) didn’t close schools. Those who can safely get infected should.

  2. I have heard multiple physicians share that sentiment, Matt.

    It is interesting to me that in this report the countermeasures (with masks) are predicted to reduce the infection rate, when in Kansas, where mask usage differed by county, those without a mask mandate had fewer cases than those with a mask mandate. And in our own state, the reinfection rate plummeted back in March, well before widespread mask usage, even falling below the threshold of 1.0 before Inslee’s Stay Home Stay Healthy lockdown took effect.

    Clearly we were healthier before, and what is being done currently is not working. It is time for a change!

  3. The models are wrong. I’ll stick with actual facts and real data, not the made up stuff. We have been lied to all along. This should be alarming to everyone about just how sinister the government and media really are. Too bad so many people believe what they are told.

    Inslee has single handedly killed our state, and yet over a million people still voted for him.

  4. The only study done on cloth masks says they dont work (Vietnam 2015).
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html

    CDC has even put out information indicating that certain cloth masks may even atomize droplets as they pass through the fibers.

    Masks are placebo. Surgeon General says they dont work [medically speaking] but we should all wear them to avoid dangerous encounters with police.

    My business isnt open door so I dont have that hassle. But if I were a coffee shop, I wouldnt shut down if told. I’d create a Union of fellow businesses too and unite on that.

  5. Are we reading the same reports here:
    A Kansas health official says counties with mask mandates reduced coronavirus case numbers, while case numbers remained steady in areas that don’t require face coverings.

    While new confirmed coronavirus cases across Kansas have trended downward, Dr. Lee Norman, the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said Wednesday that COVID-19 case reductions could be attributed to the 15 counties that require masks. Those include Wyandotte, Johnson, Sedgwick and Shawnee.

    Those counties, Norman said, represent about two-thirds of the state’s population and tend to have denser urban populations and a greater proportion of people from underrepresented backgrounds who are more likely to contract the virus and face complications.

    Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article244785837.html#storylink=cpy

    1. June, Infection Rate numbers have very little context. Sweden has actually been criticized for not having enough people with detected antibodies, being that their strategy was to gain herd immunity but too few people got sick. Is infection a failure or a success? The numbers that matter the most are 1) mortality rates, 2) hospital occupancy-over-capacity. Claiming victory on CV-19 without the accounting for the rest of it reminds me of George Bush claiming “Mission Accomplished” back in 2003. Sweden’s Dr. Jonas Hopkins says that anyone not getting coronavirus now will just get it later. My lay [not a doctor] opinion is that it is better to get CV now than this winter.
      https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-which-never-had-lockdown-sees-covid-19-cases-plummet-rest-europe-suffers-spike-1521626

      When I was in high school there was a big emphasis on teaching abstinence in high school health classes. No sex, no STD’s. Would could probably make CV-19 extinct if we imposed strict lockdowns, hand delivered people their food. What’s practical, what is the risk assessment matrix?

    2. Joe said it above: the media is part of the problem. Looking more closely at the charts that Kansas official presented, rather than merely reporting what he said, it is now coming out that the graphs he made comparing counties with and without mask mandates used different scales… Very misleading. After a month, counties with no masks were lower than those requiring masks. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/36666-kansas-health-secretary-used-doctored-data-to-justify-mask-mandates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.