Secondary Transmission of COVID-19 in K-12 Schools: Findings From 2 States

Implementation and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions, including mask mandates and ventilation, on SARS-CoV-2 transmission (alpha variant) in primary schools in the Netherlands

There has been a lot of discussion about the role of schools in the transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, where many countries responded with school closures in 2020. Reopening of primary schools in the Netherlands in February 2021 was sustained by various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) following national recommendations. Our study attempted to assess the degree of regional implementation and effectiveness of these NPIs in South Limburg, Netherlands. We approached 150 primary schools with a structured questionnaire containing items on the implementation of NPIs, including items on ventilation. Based on our registry of cases, we determined the number of COVID-19 cases linked to each school, classifying cases by their source of transmission. We calculated a crude secondary attack rate by dividing the number of cases of within-school transmission by the total number of children and staff members. Two-sample proportion tests were performed to compare these rates between schools stratified by the presence of a ventilation system and mask mandates for staff members. A total of 69 schools responded. Most implemented NPIs were aimed at students, except for masking mandates, which preferentially targeted teachers over students (63% versus 22%). We observed lower crude secondary attack rates in schools with a ventilation system compared to schools without a ventilation system (1.2% versus 2.8%, p<0.01). Mandatory masking for staff members had no effect on the overall crude secondary attack rate (2.0% versus 2.1%, p = 0.03) but decreased the crude secondary attack rate among staff members (2.3% versus 1.7%, p<0.01). Schools varied in their implementation of NPIs, most of which targeted students. Rates of within-school transmission were higher compared to other studies, possibly due to a lack of proper ventilation. Our research may help improve guidance for primary schools in future outbreaks.

COVID-19 Vaccines in the Pediatric Population: A Focus on Cardiac Patients

Due to the deleterious global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, tremendous effort has been invested in the development of vaccines against the virus. Vaccine candidates are first tested in adult populations, a number of which have been approved for EUL by the WHO, and are in use across the USA and MENA region. The question remains whether these (or other) vaccines should be recommended to a neonatal, pediatric, and/or adolescent cohort. Incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection are low in pediatric, neonatal, and adolescent patients. Since both overall incidence and severity are lower in children than in adults, safety is an important consideration in vaccine approval for these age groups, in addition to efficacy and a decreased risk of transmission. The following review discusses vaccine immunology in children aged 0-18 years, with emphasis on the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of children, considerations for pediatric vaccine approval, and available vaccines for pediatric cohorts along with a breakdown of the efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages for each. This review also contains current and future perspectives, as well as a section on the cardiovascular implications and related dynamics of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings

Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

SARS-CoV-2 incidence in secondary schools; the role of national and school-initiated COVID-19 measures

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to gain insight into the effect of COVID-19 measures on SARS-CoV-2 incidence in secondary schools and the association with classroom CO₂ concentration and airborne contamination.

METHODS

Between October 2020-June 2021, 18 schools weekly reported SARS-CoV-2 incidence and completed surveys on school-initiated COVID-19 measures (e.g. improving hygiene or minimizing contacts). CO₂ was measured in occupied classrooms twice, and SARS-CoV-2 air contamination longitudinally using electrostatic dust collectors (EDC) and analyzed using RT-qPCR. National COVID-19 policy measures varied during pre-lockdown, lockdown and post-lockdown periods. During the entire study, schools were recommended to improve ventilation. SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated by Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models.

RESULTS

During 18 weeks follow-up (range: 10-22) SARS-CoV-2 school-incidence decreased during national lockdown (adjusted IRR: 0.41, 95%CI: 0.21-0.80) and post-lockdown (IRR: 0.60, 0.39-0.93) compared to pre-lockdown. School-initiated COVID-19 measures had no additional effect. Pre-lockdown, IRRs per 10% increase in time CO₂ exceeded 400, 550 and 800 ppm above outdoor level respectively, were 1.08 (1.00-1.16), 1.10 (1.02-1.19), and 1.08 (0.95-1.22). Post-lockdown, CO_2-concentrations were considerably lower and not associated with SARS-CoV-2 incidence. No SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in any of the EDC samples.

CONCLUSION

During a period with low SARS-CoV-2 population immunity and increased attention to ventilation, with CO₂ levels most of the time below acceptable thresholds, only the national policy during and post-lockdown of reduced class-occupancy, stringent quarantine, and contact testing reduced SARS-CoV-2 incidence in Dutch secondary schools. Widespread SARS-CoV-2 air contamination could not be demonstrated in schools under the prevailing conditions during the study.

COVID-19 outbreak trends in Canada, 2021

Background

In January 2021, the Public Health Agency of Canada launched an outbreak surveillance system, the Canadian COVID-19 Outbreak Surveillance System (CCOSS), with the goal of monitoring incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks across various community settings and complementing case surveillance.

Methods

Seven provinces were included in this report; these provinces submitted weekly cumulative COVID-19 outbreak line lists to CCOSS in 2021. Data includes administrative variables (e.g. date outbreak declared, date outbreak declared over, outbreak identifier), 24 outbreak settings, and number of confirmed cases and outcomes (hospitalization, death). Descriptive analyses for COVID-19 outbreaks across Canada from January 3, 2021, to January 1, 2022, were performed examining trends over time, severity, and outbreak size.

Results

Incidence of outbreaks followed similar trends to case incidence. Outbreaks were most common in school and childcare settings (39%) and industrial/agricultural settings (21%). Outbreak size ranged from 2 to 639 cases per outbreak; the median size was four cases per outbreak. Correctional facilities had the largest median outbreak size with 18 cases per outbreak, followed by long-term care facilities with 10 cases per outbreak. During periods of high case incidence, outbreaks may be under-ascertained due to limited public health capacity, or reporting may be biased towards high-risk settings prioritized for testing. Outbreaks reported to CCOSS were dominated by jurisdictions with the largest populations.

Conclusion

The trends illustrate that COVID-19 outbreaks in 2021 were reported most frequently in community settings such as schools; however, the largest outbreaks occurred in congregate living settings. The information gathered from outbreak surveillance complemented case incidence trends and furthered understanding of COVID-19 in Canada.

Monitoring of COVID-19 in wastewater across the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan

Wastewater-based epidemiology is being used as a tool to monitor the spread of COVID-19 and provide an early warning for the presence or increase of clinical cases in a community. The majority of wastewater-based epidemiology for COVID-19 tracking has been utilized in sewersheds that service populations in the tens-to-hundreds of thousands. Few studies have been conducted to assess the usefulness of wastewater in predicting COVID-19 clinical cases specifically in rural areas. This study collected samples from 16 locations across the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan from June to December 2021. Sampling locations included 12 rural municipalities, a Tribal housing community and casino, a public university, three municipalities that also contained a prison, and a small island with heavy tourist traffic. Samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 N1, N2, and variant gene copies using reverse transcriptase droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (RT-ddPCR). Wastewater N1 and N2 gene copies and clinical case counts were correlated to determine if wastewater results were predictive of clinical cases. Significant correlation between N1 and N2 gene copies and clinical cases was found for all sites (⍴= 0.89 to 0.48). N1 and N2 wastewater results were predictive of clinical case trends within 0-7 days. The Delta variant was detected in the Pickford and St. Ignace samples more than 12-days prior to the first reported Delta clinical cases in their respective counties. Locations with low correlation could be attributed to their high rates of tourism. This is further supported by the high correlation seen in the public university, which is a closed population. Long-term wastewater monitoring over a large, rural geographic area is useful for informing the public of potential outbreaks in the community regardless of asymptomatic cases and access to clinical testing.

When schools were open for in-person teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic - the nordic experience on control measures and transmission in schools during the delta wave

BACKGROUND

Extensive measures to control spread of SARS-CoV-2 have led to limited access to education for millions of children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and access to schools is vital for children and adolescents' learning, health, and wellbeing. Based on high vaccine uptake and low incidence levels, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) decided to start the academic year 2021/22 with schools open for in-person teaching and moderate mitigation measures. We describe trends in SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination coverage among students during the first 12 weeks of the fall semester.

METHODS

In this multinational, retrospective, observational study, we have used surveillance and registry data from each of the Nordic countries to describe vaccine uptake (≥12 years), infection incidence (whole population) and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among students. The study period, week 30 to 41 (Jul 26th - Oct 17th), represents the autumn semester from immediately before school started until fall break. In addition, we collected information on mitigation measures applied by the respective countries.

RESULTS

There were slight variations between the countries regarding existing infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, testing strategies and vaccination start-up among adolescents. All countries had high vaccine uptake in the adult population, while uptake varied more in the younger age groups. Incidence in the school-aged population differed between countries and seemed to be influenced by both vaccine uptake and test activity. Infection clusters among school-aged children were described for Denmark and Norway, and the number of clusters per week reflected the incidence trend of the country. Most events consisted of only 1-2 cases. Larger clusters appeared more frequently in the higher grades in Norway and in lower grades in Denmark.

CONCLUSION

Data from the Nordic countries indicate that vaccination of adults and adolescents, in addition to mitigation measures, enabled full in-person learning. As SARS-CoV-2 infection does not represent a severe medical risk for most children as previously thought, measures targeting this group should be carefully adjusted and kept at a minimum. Our data add to the evidence on incidence and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among students in schools open for in-person teaching, and may be valuable for decision makers worldwide.

School District Prevention Policies and Risk of COVID-19 Among In-Person K-12 Educators, Wisconsin, 2021

Objectives. To assess the rate of COVID-19 among in-person K-12 educators and the rate's association with various COVID-19 prevention policies in school districts. Methods. We linked actively working, in-person K-12 educators in Wisconsin to COVID-19 cases with onset from September 2 to November 24, 2021. A mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for pertinent person- and community-level confounders, compared the hazard rate of COVID-19 among educators working in districts with and without specific COVID-19 prevention policies. Results. In-person educators working in school districts that required masking for students and staff experienced 19% lower hazards of COVID-19 than did those in districts without any masking policy (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.72, 0.92). Reduced COVID-19 hazards were consistent and remained statistically significant when educators were stratified by elementary, middle, and high school environments. Conclusions. In Wisconsin's K-12 school districts, during the fall 2021 academic semester, a policy that required both students and staff to mask was associated with significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 among in-person educators across all grade levels. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(12):1791-1799. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307095).

Examination of SARS-CoV-2 In-Class Transmission at a Large Urban University With Public Health Mandates Using Epidemiological and Genomic Methodology

IMPORTANCE

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, has displayed person-to-person transmission in a variety of indoor situations. This potential for robust transmission has posed significant challenges and concerns for day-to-day activities of colleges and universities where indoor learning is a focus for students, faculty, and staff.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether in-class instruction without any physical distancing, but with other public health mitigation strategies, is a risk for driving SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study examined the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 transmission on a large urban US university campus using contact tracing, class attendance, and whole genome sequencing during the 2021 fall semester. Eligible participants were on-campus and off-campus individuals involved in campus activities. Data were analyzed between September and December 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participation in class and work activities on a campus with mandated vaccination and indoor masking but that was otherwise fully open without physical distancing during a time of ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, both at the university and in the surrounding counties.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Likelihood of in-class infection was assessed by measuring the genetic distance between all potential in-class transmission pairings using polymerase chain reaction testing.

RESULTS

More than 600 000 polymerase chain reaction tests were conducted throughout the semester, with 896 tests (0.1%) showing detectable SARS-CoV-2; there were over 850 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified through weekly surveillance testing of all students and faculty on campus during the fall 2021 semester. The rolling mean average of positive tests ranged between 4 and 27 daily cases. Of more than 140 000 in-person class events and a total student population of 33 000 between graduate and undergraduate students, only 9 instances of potential in-class transmission were identified, accounting for 0.0045% of all classroom meetings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the data suggested that under robust transmission abatement strategies, in-class instruction was not an appreciable source of disease transmission.

School Masking Policies and Secondary SARS-CoV-2 Transmission

OBJECTIVES

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, masking has been a widely used mitigation practice in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) school districts to limit within-school transmission. Prior studies attempting to quantify the impact of masking have assessed total cases within schools; however, the metric that more optimally defines effectiveness of mitigation practices is within-school transmission, or secondary cases. We estimated the impact of various masking practices on secondary transmission in a cohort of K-12 schools.

METHODS

We performed a multistate, prospective, observational, open cohort study from July 26, 2021 to December 13, 2021. Districts reported mitigation practices and weekly infection data. Districts that were able to perform contact tracing and adjudicate primary and secondary infections were eligible for inclusion. To estimate the impact of masking on secondary transmission, we used a quasi-Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 1 112 899 students and 157 069 staff attended 61 K-12 districts across 9 states that met inclusion criteria. The districts reported 40 601 primary and 3085 secondary infections. Six districts had optional masking policies, 9 had partial masking policies, and 46 had universal masking. In unadjusted analysis, districts that optionally masked throughout the study period had 3.6 times the rate of secondary transmission as universally masked districts; and for every 100 community-acquired cases, universally masked districts had 7.3 predicted secondary infections, whereas optionally masked districts had 26.4.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary transmission across the cohort was modest (<10% of total infections) and universal masking was associated with reduced secondary transmission compared with optional masking.

Test-to-Stay After Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a test-to-stay program for unvaccinated students and staff who experienced an unmasked, in-school exposure to someone with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Serial testing instead of quarantine was offered to asymptomatic contacts. We measured secondary and tertiary transmission rates within participating schools and in-school days preserved for participants.

METHODS

Participating staff or students from universally masked districts in North Carolina underwent rapid antigen testing at set intervals up to 7 days after known exposure. Collected data included location or setting of exposure, participant symptoms, and school absences up to 14 days after enrollment. Outcomes included tertiary transmission, secondary transmission, and school days saved among test-to-stay participants. A prespecified interim safety analysis occurred after 1 month of enrollment.

RESULTS

We enrolled 367 participants and completed 14-day follow-up on all participants for this analysis. Nearly all (215 of 238, 90%) exposure encounters involved an unmasked index case and an unmasked close contact, with most (353 of 366, 96%) occurring indoors, during lunch (137 of 357, 39%) or athletics (45 of 357, 13%). Secondary attack rate was 1.7% (95% confidence interval: 0.6%-4.7%) based on 883 SARS-CoV-2 serial rapid antigen tests with results from 357 participants; no tertiary cases were identified, and 1628 (92%) school days were saved through test-to-stay program implementation out of 1764 days potentially missed.

CONCLUSION

After unmasked in-school exposure to SARS-CoV-2, even in a mostly unvaccinated population, a test-to-stay strategy is a safe alternative to quarantine.

Spatial distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools, South Korea

Identification of geographical areas with high burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in schools using spatial analyses has become an important tool to guide targeted interventions in educational setting. In this study, we aimed to explore the spatial distribution and determinants of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among students aged 3-18 years in South Korea. We analysed the nationwide epidemiological data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in schools and in the communities between January 2020 and October 2021 in South Korea. To explore the spatial distribution, the global Moran's I and Getis-Ord's G using incidence rates among the districts of aged 3-18 years and 30-59 years. Spatial regression analysis was performed to find sociodemographic predictors of the COVID-19 attack rate in schools and in the communities. The global spatial correlation estimated by Moran's I was 0.647 for the community population and 0.350 for the student population, suggesting that the students were spatially less correlated than the community-level outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. In schools, attack rate of adults aged 30-59 years in the community was associated with increased risk of transmission (P < 0.0001). Number of students per class (in kindergartens, primary schools, middle schools and high schools) did not show significant association with the school transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In South Korea, COVID-19 in students had spatial variations across the country. Statistically significant high hotspots of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students were found in the capital area, with dense population level and high COVID-19 burden among adults aged 30-59 years. Our finding suggests that controlling community-level burden of COVID-19 can help in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in school-aged children.