scholarly journals Model-driven mitigation measures for reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author(s):  
Ryan S. McGee ◽  
Julian R. Homburger ◽  
Hannah E. Williams ◽  
Carl T. Bergstrom ◽  
Alicia Y. Zhou

AbstractReopening schools is an urgent priority as the COVID-19 pandemic drags on. To explore the risks associated with returning to in-person learning and the value of mitigation measures, we developed stochastic, network-based models of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in primary and secondary schools. We find that a number of mitigation measures, alone or in concert, may reduce risk to acceptable levels particularly when community prevalence is low. Student cohorting, in which students are divided into two separate populations that attend in-person classes on alternating schedules, can reduce both the likelihood and the size of outbreaks. Proactive testing of teachers and staff once or twice a week can help catch introductions early, before they spread widely through the school. In secondary schools, where the students are more susceptible to infection and have different patterns of social interaction, control is more difficult. Especially in these settings, planners should also consider testing students once or twice weekly. Vaccinating teachers and staff protects these individuals and—when vaccines block SARS-CoV-2 transmission in addition to symptoms—may also have a protective effect on students as well. Other mitigations, including mask-wearing, social distancing, and increased ventilation, remain a crucial component of any reopening plan.

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (39) ◽  
pp. e2108909118
Author(s):  
Ryan Seamus McGee ◽  
Julian R. Homburger ◽  
Hannah E. Williams ◽  
Carl T. Bergstrom ◽  
Alicia Y. Zhou

Reopening schools is an urgent priority as the COVID-19 pandemic drags on. To explore the risks associated with returning to in-person learning and the value of mitigation measures, we developed stochastic, network-based models of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in primary and secondary schools. We find that a number of mitigation measures, alone or in concert, may reduce risk to acceptable levels. Student cohorting, in which students are divided into two separate populations that attend in-person classes on alternating schedules, can reduce both the likelihood and the size of outbreaks. Proactive testing of teachers and staff can help catch introductions early, before they spread widely through the school. In secondary schools, where the students are more susceptible to infection and have different patterns of social interaction, control is more difficult. Especially in these settings, planners should also consider testing students once or twice weekly. Vaccinating teachers and staff protects these individuals and may have a protective effect on students as well. Other mitigations, including mask wearing, social distancing, and increased ventilation, remain a crucial component of any reopening plan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanmo Li ◽  
Mengyang Gu

AbstractThe COVID-19 outbreak is asynchronous in US counties. Mitigating the COVID-19 transmission requires not only the state and federal level order of protective measures such as social distancing and testing, but also public awareness of time-dependent risk and reactions at county and community levels. We propose a robust approach to estimate the heterogeneous progression of SARS-CoV-2 at all US counties having no less than 2 COVID-19 associated deaths, and we use the daily probability of contracting (PoC) SARS-CoV-2 for a susceptible individual to quantify the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a community. We found that shortening by $$5\%$$ 5 % of the infectious period of SARS-CoV-2 can reduce around $$39\%$$ 39 % (or 78 K, $$95\%$$ 95 % CI: [66 K , 89 K ]) of the COVID-19 associated deaths in the US as of 20 September 2020. Our findings also indicate that reducing infection and deaths by a shortened infectious period is more pronounced for areas with the effective reproduction number close to 1, suggesting that testing should be used along with other mitigation measures, such as social distancing and facial mask-wearing, to reduce the transmission rate. Our deliverable includes a dynamic county-level map for local officials to determine optimal policy responses and for the public to better understand the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 on each day.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110161
Author(s):  
Syahirah Abdul Rahman ◽  
Lauren Tuckerman ◽  
Tim Vorley ◽  
Cristian Gherhes

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen the implementation of unprecedented social distancing measures, restricting social interaction and with it the possibility for conducting face-to-face qualitative research. This paper provides lessons from a series of qualitative research projects that were adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure their continuation and completion. By reflecting on our experiences and discussing the opportunities and challenges presented by crises to the use of a number of qualitative research methods, we provide a series of insights and lessons for proactively building resilience into the qualitative research process. We show that reflexivity, responsiveness, adaptability, and flexibility ensured continuity in the research projects and highlighted distinct advantages to using digital methods, providing lessons beyond the COVID-19 context. The paper concludes with reflections on research resilience and adaptation during crises.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Santana-Cibrian ◽  
Manuel Adrian Acuna-Zegarra ◽  
Jorge X. Velasco-Hernandez

On 23 and 30 March 2020 the Mexican Federal government implemented social distancing measures to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic. We use a mathematical model to explore atypical transmission events within the confinement period, triggered by the timing and strength of short time perturbations of social distancing. We show that social distancing measures were successful in achieving a significant reduction of the effective contact rate in the early weeks of the intervention. However, "flattening the curve" had an undesirable effect, since the epidemic peak was delayed too far, almost to the government preset day for lifting restrictions (01 June 2020). If the peak indeed occurs in late May or early June, then the events of children's day and mother's day may either generate a later peak (worst case scenario), a long plateau with relatively constant but high incidence (middle case scenario) or the same peak date as in the original baseline epidemic curve, but with a post-peak interval of slower decay.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
Amod K. Pokhrel ◽  
Yadav P. Joshi ◽  
Sopnil Bhattarai

There is limited information on the epidemiology and the effects of mitigation measures on the spread of COVID-19 in Nepal. Using publicly available databases, we analyzed the epidemiological trend, the people's movement trends at different intervals across different categories of places and evaluated implications of social mobility on COVID-19. We also estimated the epidemic peak. As of June 9, 2020, Provinces 2 and 5 have most of the cases. People between 15 and 54 years are vulnerable to becoming infected, and more males than females are affected. The cases are growing exponentially. The growth rate of 0.13 and >1 reproduction numbers (R0) over time (median: 1.48; minimum: 0.58, and maximum: 3.71) confirms this trend. The case doubling time is five days. Google's community mobility data suggest that people strictly followed social distancing measures for one month after the lockdown. By around the 4th week of April, the individual's movement started rising, and social contacts increased. The number of cases peaked on May 12, with 83 confirmed cases in one day. The Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed (SEIR) model suggests that the epidemic will peak approximately on day 41 (July 21, 2020), and start to plateau after day 80. To contain the spread of the virus, people should maintain social distancing. The Government needs to continue active surveillance, more PCR-based testing, case detection, contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine. The Government should also provide financial support and safety-nets to the citizen to limit the impact of COVID-19.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e040951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keir Philip ◽  
Andrew Cumella ◽  
Joe Farrington-Douglas ◽  
Michael Laffan ◽  
Nicholas Hopkinson

ObjectivesTo assess the experience of people with long-term respiratory conditions regarding the impact of measures to reduce risk of COVID-19.DesignAnalysis of data (n=9515) from the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation partnership COVID-19 survey collected online between 1 and 8 April 2020.SettingCommunity.Participants9515 people with self-reported long-term respiratory conditions. 81% female, age ranges from ≤17 years to 80 years and above, from all nations of the UK. Long-term respiratory conditions reported included asthma (83%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), bronchiectasis (4%), interstitial lung disease (2%) and ‘other’ (<1%) (eg, lung cancer and pulmonary endometriosis).Outcome measuresStudy responses related to impacts on key elements of healthcare, as well as practical, psychological and social consequences related to the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures.Results45% reported disruptions to care, including cancellations of appointments, investigations, pulmonary rehabilitation, treatment and monitoring. Other practical impacts such as difficulty accessing healthcare services for other issues and getting basic necessities such as food were also common. 36% did not use online prescriptions, and 54% had not accessed online inhaler technique videos. Psychosocial impacts including anxiety, loneliness and concerns about personal health and family were prevalent. 81% reported engaging in physical activity. Among the 11% who were smokers, 48% reported they were planning to quit smoking because of COVID-19.ConclusionsCOVID-19 and related social distancing measures are having profound impacts on people with chronic respiratory conditions. Urgent adaptation and signposting of services is required to mitigate the negative health consequences of the COVID-19 response for this group.


2020 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danilo Euclides Fernandes ◽  
Paulo Roberto Abrão Ferreira ◽  
Gianna Mastroianni Kirsztajn

Abstract It has been speculated that some drugs can be used against SARS-CoV-2. As for antiretrovirals, the follow-up of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak may help to understand the potential protective effect of PrEP against SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to identify associations between oral PrEP use and COVID-19-related symptoms self-reporting. Phone call interviews or digital investigation (through WhatsApp® or e-mail) about oral PrEP regular use, social distancing, exposure to suspected or confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related symptoms. Among 108 individuals, the majority were cisgender, white and gay men. Although most of the individuals engaged in social distancing (68.52%), they kept on taking PrEP (75.93%). Few people have had contact with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 (12.04%), but some had COVID-19-related symptoms the month before the interview (27.78%) including rhinorrheoa (56.67%), cough (53.33%), asthaenia (50.00%) and headache (43.33%). Also, oral PrEP was associated with lower self-reporting COVID-19-symptoms (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.96, P = 0.04; h = 0.92) even after controlling confounders as social distancing, age, body-mass index and morbidities . In our sample, the regular use of oral PrEP was associated with lower self-reporting of COVID-19-related symptoms during the outbreak in São Paulo, Brazil.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 205630512094816
Author(s):  
Ryan C. Moore ◽  
Jeffrey T. Hancock

COVID-19 is a threat to everyone’s health but can be especially devastating to older individuals. To prevent spread of the virus, social distancing has become the norm worldwide. However, with social distancing comes significantly less face-to-face interaction, which may be particularly harmful to older adults given their existing levels of loneliness. While social technologies can be used to provide critical social interaction during this time of necessary physical distancing, older adults tend to either lack access to these technologies or the skills and experience necessary to use them effectively. Once online, older adults face the additional challenge of being outsized targets of misinformation and scams, both of which abound in the context of COVID-19. In this essay, we discuss the challenges faced by older adults in their use of digital media for social connection in the present pandemic, as well as highlight some of the population’s untapped strengths which can be leveraged to help them live prosperous online lives. Finally, we provide recommendations for actions which key stakeholders can take to support older adults in this pursuit.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths ◽  
Robyn Stuart ◽  
Cliff Kerr ◽  
Katherine Rosenfeld ◽  
Dina Mistry ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Following the resurgence of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK in late 2020 and the emergence of the new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, B.1.1.7, a third national lockdown was imposed from January 5, 2021. Following the decline of COVID-19 cases over the remainder of January 2021, it is important to assess the conditions under which reopening schools from early March is likely to lead to resurgence of the epidemic. This study models the impact of a partial national lockdown with social distancing measures enacted in communities and workplaces under different strategies of reopening schools from March 8, 2021 and compares it to the impact of continual full national lockdown remaining until April 19, 2021. Methods We used our previously published model, Covasim, to model the emergence of B.1.1.7 over September 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021. We extended the model to incorporate the impacts of the roll-out of a two-dose vaccine against COVID-19, assuming 200,000 daily doses of the vaccine in people 75 years or older with vaccination that offers 95% reduction in disease acquisition and 10% reduction of transmission blocking. We used the model, calibrated until January 25, 2021, to simulate the impact of a full national lockdown (FNL) with schools closed until April 19, 2021 versus four different partial national lockdown (PNL) scenarios with different elements of schooling open: 1) staggered PNL with primary schools and exam-entry years (years 11 and 13) returning on March 8, 2021 and the rest of the schools years on March 15, 2020; 2) full-return PNL with both primary and secondary schools returning on March 8, 2021; 3) primary-only PNL with primary schools and exam critical years (Y11 and Y13) going back only on March 8, 2021 with the rest of the secondary schools back on April 19, 2021 and 4) part-Rota PNL with both primary and secondary schools returning on March 8, 2021 with primary schools remaining open continuously but secondary schools on a two-weekly rota-system with years alternating between a fortnight of face-to-face and remote learning until April 19, 2021. Across all scenarios, we projected the number of new daily cases, cumulative deaths and effective reproduction number R until April 30, 2020. Results Our calibration across different scenarios is consistent with the new variant B.1.1.7 being around 60% more transmissible. Strict social distancing measures, i.e. national lockdowns, are required to contain the spread of the virus and control the hospitalisations and deaths during January and February 2021. The national lockdown will reduce the number of cases by early March levels similar to those seen in October with R also falling and remaining below 1 during the lockdown. Infections start to increase when schools open but if other parts of society remain closed this resurgence is not sufficient to bring R above 1. Reopening primary schools and exam critical years only or having primary schools open continuously with secondary schools on rotas will lead to lower increases in cases and R than if all schools open. Under the current vaccination assumptions and across the set of scenarios considered, R would increase above 1 if society reopens simultaneously, simulated here from April 19, 2021.Findings Our findings suggest that stringent measures are necessary to mitigate the increase in cases and bring R below 1 over January and February 2021. It is plausible that a PNL with schools partially open from March 8, 2021 and the rest of the society remaining closed until April 19, 2021 may keep R below 1, with some increase evident in infections compared to continual FNL until April 19, 2021. Reopening society in mid-April, with the vaccination strategy we model, could push R above 1 and induce a surge in infections, but the effect of vaccination may be able to control this in future depending on the transmission blocking properties of the vaccines.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257945
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Reinders Folmer ◽  
Megan A. Brownlee ◽  
Adam D. Fine ◽  
Emmeke B. Kooistra ◽  
Malouke E. Kuiper ◽  
...  

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration. The present paper examines this question by means of a set of cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May, June, and July of 2020. Using stratified samples that mimic the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, it seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which variables sustained (or undermined) adherence across this period. For this purpose, we examined a broad range of factors, relating to people’s (1) knowledge and understanding of the mitigation measures, (2) perceptions of their costs and benefits, (3) perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, (4) personal factors, (5) social environment, and (6) practical circumstances. Our findings reveal that adherence was chiefly shaped by three major factors: respondents adhered more when they (a) had greater practical capacity to adhere, (b) morally agreed more with the measures, and (c) perceived the virus as a more severe health threat. Adherence was shaped to a lesser extent by impulsivity, knowledge of social distancing measures, opportunities for violating, personal costs, and descriptive social norms. The results also reveal, however, that adherence declined across this period, which was partly explained by changes in people’s moral alignment, threat perceptions, knowledge, and perceived social norms. These findings show that adherence originates from a broad range of factors that develop dynamically across time. Practically these insights help to improve pandemic governance, as well as contributing theoretically to the study of compliance and the way that rules come to shape behavior.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document