Coronavirus: Schools ‘no more risky than home’ for students and staff

Studies from 131 schools suggest that attending primary school does not put children and staff at greater risk of contracting coronavirus than staying at home.

Tests to find out who already had the virus found similar levels of antibodies in students and teachers.

But, 12,000 adults and children in England were studied in June and early July, when there were very few cases around.

Experts say more study is needed when more children are in school.

For the study, students and staff were tested during the final six weeks of the summer when reception, year 1 and year 6 children may return to school.

Since the lessons began in England and Wales in the last few days, millions of children in the UK have returned to the classroom. Schools in Scotland and Northern Ireland reopened last month.

Schools now look very much at what students were once used to, students are told to stay in their “bubble” groups, adhere to one-way systems and social distances when necessary. Stuart start times have also been introduced, and hand-washing shingles stations and screens have been installed.

The Public Health England scientists who led the study tested positive for the virus on only three people (one child and two staff) – 0.02% of those who committed suicide.

No evidence has been found that any of the three people transmitted the virus to others living or working with them. This reflects previous research by PHE showing fewer cases and outbreaks in schools.

Antibody levels

In a separate sample of 2,100 staff and children tested for antibodies, 10.6% of students and 12.7% of staff were previously found to have coronavirus.

This suggests that children are less likely to get the disease than adults.

But because very few positive cases have been found in children, previous research confirms that they experience mild symptoms, or none at all.

The study found that children and staff who attended school more often were not more likely to test positive for antibodies than those who did not attend school, or those who attended less.

This may indicate that the level of infection in schools only reflects the level of the virus in the communities where people live.

However, some groups were more likely to have antibodies – they were non-white, lived in the same building as a healthcare worker, and had symptoms.

Secondary schools were not included in the chapter, so no conclusions can be drawn about older children.

‘Consolation’

Dr Shameez Ladhani, a consultant epidemiologist at Public Health England, said: “This is the largest study of its kind in the country and suggests that going to preschool and primary school poses no additional risk to staff or students.

“While these results are preliminary, they should be very reassuring to parents who may be worried about their children returning to school.”

Clinical Lecturer and Consultant Pediatrician at Imperial College London Liz Whittaker said it was a “good quality study” but “limited by time” because the coronavirus had very little transmission during the study period.

“It is imperative that such studies continue for the next few months, and more importantly, in secondary school and college ledge settings,” he added.

Professor Ravindra Gupta, a professor of clinical microbiology at Cambridge University, warned that schools would now face two to six times more children, which could change the outcome.

“Schools have less potential for social distance than they were capable of in June. We should not give happiness and false assurances. They should ensure adequate monitoring and testing strategies to bring the infection to schools before it spreads,” he said.

“Children can still go to school if we don’t do regular testing for the virus in schools,” said Professor Gupta, who found children often asymptomatic.

• Will Covid-19 work for good in return ?: Is working from home a long-term solution?
• “We think we’re all strong”: What are the positives of 2020?