Infection and transmission risks of COVID-19 in schools and their contribution to population infections in Germany: A retrospective observational study using nationwide and regional health and education agency notification data.

School-level infection control measures in Germany during the early Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic differed across the 16 federal states and lacked a dependable evidence base, with available evidence limited to regional data restricted to short phases of the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the (a) infection risks in students and staff; (b) transmission risks and routes in schools; (c) effects of school-level infection control measures on school and population infection dynamics; and (d) contribution of contacts in schools to population cases. For this retrospective observational study, we used German federal state (NUTS-2) and county (NUTS-3) data from public health and education agencies from March 2020 to April 2022. We assessed (a) infection risk as cumulative risk and crude risk ratios and (b) secondary attack rates (SARs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used (c) multiple regression analysis for the effects of infection control measures such as reduced attendance, mask mandates, and vaccination coverage as absolute reduction in case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants per 14 days and in percentage relative to the population, and (d) infection dynamic modelling to determine the percentage contribution of school contacts to population cases. We included (a) nationwide NUTS-2 data from calendar weeks (W) 46-50/2020 and W08/2021-W15/2022 with 3,521,964 cases in students and 329,283 in teachers; (b) NUTS-3 data from W09-25/2021 with 85,788 student and 9,427 teacher cases; and (c) detailed data from 5 NUTS-3 regions from W09/2020 to W27/2021 with 12,814 cases (39% male, 37% female; median age 14, range 5 to 63), 43,238 contacts and 4,165 secondary cases for students (for teachers, 14,801 [22% male, 50% female; median age 39, range 16 to 75], 5,893 and 472). Infection risk (a) for students and teachers was higher than the population risk in all phases of normal presence class and highest in the early 2022 omicron wave with 30.6% (95% CI 30.5% to 32.6%) of students and 32.7% (95% CI 32.6% to 32.8%) of teachers infected in Germany. SARs (b) for students and staff were below 5% in schools throughout the study period, while SARs in households more than doubled from 13.8% (95% CI 10.6% to 17.6%) W21-39/2020 to 28.7% (95% CI 27% to 30.4%) in W08-23/2021 for students and 10.9% (95% CI 7% to 16.5%) to 32.7% (95% CI 28.2% to 37.6%) for staff. Most contacts were reported for schools, yet most secondary cases originated in households. In schools, staff predominantly infected staff. Mandatory surgical mask wearing during class in all schools was associated with a reduction in the case incidence of students and teachers (c), by 56/100,000 persons per 14 days (students: 95% CI 47.7 to 63.4; teachers: 95% CI 39.6 to 71.6; p < 0.001) and by 29.8% (95% CI 25% to 35%, p < 0.001) and 24.3% (95% CI 13% to 36%, p < 0.001) relative to the population, respectively, as were reduced attendance and higher vaccination coverage. The contribution of contacts in schools to population cases (d) was 2% to 20%, lowest during school closures/vacation and peaked during normal presence class intervals, with the overall peak early during the omicron wave. Limitations include underdetection, misclassification of contacts, interviewer/interviewee dependence of contact-tracing, and lack of individual-level confounding factors in aggregate data regression analysis. In this study, we observed that open schools under hygiene measures and testing strategies contributed up to 20% of population infections during the omicron wave early 2022, and as little as 2% during vacations/school closures; about a third of students and teachers were infected during the omicron wave in early 2022 in Germany. Mandatory mask wearing during class in all school types and reduced attendance models were associated with a reduced infection risk in schools.

Heinsohn T ，Lange B ，Vanella P ，Rodiah I ，Glöckner S ，Joachim A ，Becker D ，Brändle T ，Dhein S ，Ehehalt S ，Fries M ，Galante-Gottschalk A ，Jehnichen S ，Kolkmann S ，Kossow A ，Hellmich M ，Dötsch J ，Krause G ... -  《-》

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

In response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings. To assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. We considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings. We included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components. Measures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools. Across all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.  We found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures, including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school). We found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures, where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.   As the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions. Our review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.

Krishnaratne S ，Littlecott H ，Sell K ，Burns J ，Rabe JE ，Stratil JM ，Litwin T ，Kreutz C ，Coenen M ，Geffert K ，Boger AH ，Movsisyan A ，Kratzer S ，Klinger C ，Wabnitz K ，Strahwald B ，Verboom B ，Rehfuess E ，Biallas RL ，Jung-Sievers C ，Voss S ，Pfadenhauer LM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Littlecott H ，Krishnaratne S ，Burns J ，Rehfuess E ，Sell K ，Klinger C ，Strahwald B ，Movsisyan A ，Metzendorf MI ，Schoenweger P ，Voss S ，Coenen M ，Müller-Eberstein R ，Pfadenhauer LM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a primary school setting with and without public health measures using real-world contact data: A modelling study.

Stringent public health measures have been shown to influence the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within school environments. We investigated the potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a primary school setting with and without public health measures, using fine-grained physical positioning traces captured before the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 172.63 million position data from 98 students and six teachers from an open-plan primary school were used to predict a potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in primary school settings. We first estimated the daily average number of contacts of students and teachers with an infected individual during the incubation period. We then used the Reed-Frost model to estimate the probability of transmission per contact for the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron variant (B.1.1.529). Finally, we built a binomial distribution model to estimate the probability of onward transmission in schools with and without public health measures, including face masks and physical distancing. An infectious student would have 49.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 46.1-52.1) contacts with their peers and 2.00 (95% CI = 1.82-2.18) contacts with teachers per day. An infectious teacher would have 47.6 (95% CI = 45.1-50.0) contacts with students and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.48-1.92) contacts with their colleague teachers per day. While the probability of onward SARS-CoV-2 transmission was relatively low for the Alpha and Delta variants, the risk increased for the Omicron variant, especially in the absence of public health measures. Onward teacher-to-student transmission (88.9%, 95% CI = 88.6%-89.1%) and teacher-to-teacher SARS-CoV-2 transmission (98.4%, 95% CI = 98.5%-98.6%) were significantly higher for the Omicron variant without public health measures in place. Our findings illustrate that, despite a lower frequency of close contacts, teacher-to-teacher close contacts demonstrated a higher risk of transmission per contact of SARS-CoV-2 compared to student-to-student close contacts. This was especially significant with the Omicron variant, with onward transmission more likely occurring from teacher index cases than student index cases. Public health measures (eg, face masks and physical distance) seem essential in reducing the risk of onward transmission within school environments.

Yan L ，Talic S ，Wild H ，Gasevic D ，Gasević D ，Ilic D ，Deppeler J ，Corrigan D ，Martinez-Maldonado R ，Trauer J ... -  《-》

Understanding SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variant transmission and vaccine impact in schools and child-care settings in Australia: a population-based study.

Over 214 million students globally have been affected by school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address knowledge gaps on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variants in educational settings we examined virus transmission in schools and early childhood education and care settings (ECECs) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia in relation to mitigation measures, including COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary transmission from children and adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who attended a school (n = 3170) or ECECs (n = 5800) while infectious was investigated over two periods: 1) June 16 to September 18, 2021 (delta outbreak), and; 2) October 18 to December 18, 2021 (delta and omicron; schools only). Close contacts of cases underwent 14 days quarantine and SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing. Secondary attack rates (SARs) were calculated and compared with state-wide notification data, school attendance, and vaccination status. 1187 schools and 300 ECECs had students (n = 1349) or staff (n = 440) attend while infectious. Of 24,277 contacts investigated, most (91.8%; 22,297/24,277) were tested and 912 secondary cases identified. The secondary attack rate (SAR) was 5.9% in 139 ECECs and 3.5% in 312 schools. The risk of becoming a secondary case was higher in unvaccinated school staff (OR 4.7; 95% CI: 1.7-13.3), particularly ECEC staff (OR 9.0; 95% CI: 3.6-22.7) and unvaccinated school students than in vaccinated school staff. SARs were similar for delta (4.9%) and omicron BA.1 (4.1%) in the unvaccinated and higher compared with vaccinated contacts (0.9% and 3.4%, respectively). Increasing school attendance rates raised case incursions and secondary case numbers, but not community-wide infection rates. Vaccination reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates in schools, although less so for omicron than delta variants. Despite higher community-based transmission rates, in-school transmission remained low and stable with high attendance, suggesting that community restrictions, rather than school closures, best mitigated COVID-19 impacts. NSW Government Department of Health.

Koirala A ，Winkler NE ，Quinn HE ，Gardiner E ，Liu B ，Forbes J ，Sharpe C ，van Tussenbroek T ，Wood N ，Macartney K ... -  《-》