Effectiveness of isolation policies in schools: evidence from a mathematical model of influenza and COVID-19

Epidemiological characteristics of influenza outbreaks in schools in Jiangsu Province, China, 2020-2023 post-COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the epidemic characteristics and influencing factors of school influenza outbreaks in Jiangsu Province, China from 2020 to 2023,following the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform prevention and control strategies.

METHODS

Data on influenza-like illness(ILI) outbreaks from the Chinese Influenza Surveillance Information System and national-level influenza surveillance sentinel hospitals were analyzed. The temporal distribution, school type, virus strains, and outbreak scales were examined using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From 2020 to 2023, 1142 influenza outbreaks occurred in schools, with primary schools(ages 6 to 12) accounting for 71.80%. Most large outbreaks were caused by A(H1N1) and A(H3N2), responsible for 8.99% of total outbreaks. Outbreaks were predominantly reported in the pre-peak periods of B(Victoria) and A(H1N1) circulation, accounting for 86.31% and 92.32% of their respective total outbreaks. No concurrent influenza and COVID-19 outbreaks were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Primary and secondary schools are high-risk settings for influenza outbreaks. A(H3N2) shows higher adaptability and is more likely to co-circulate with other subtypes/lineages, especially A(H1N1), leading to larger outbreaks. B(Victoria)-caused outbreaks are more frequent but smaller in scale. School influenza outbreaks are more likely to occur during the early stages of seasonal peaks, particularly for B(Victoria) and A(H1N1). This suggests that influenza outbreaks in schools may play a crucial role in seeding and accelerating the spread of the virus within the broader community.

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups

Most governments have enacted physical or social distancing measures to control COVID-19 transmission. Yet little is known about the socio-economic trade-offs of these measures, especially for vulnerable populations, who are exposed to increased risks and are susceptible to adverse health outcomes. To examine the impacts of physical distancing measures on the most vulnerable in society, this scoping review screened 39,816 records and synthesised results from 265 studies worldwide documenting the negative impacts of physical distancing on older people, children/students, low-income populations, migrant workers, people in prison, people with disabilities, sex workers, victims of domestic violence, refugees, ethnic minorities, and people from sexual and gender minorities. We show that prolonged loneliness, mental distress, unemployment, income loss, food insecurity, widened inequality and disruption of access to social support and health services were unintended consequences of physical distancing that impacted these vulnerable groups and highlight that physical distancing measures exacerbated the vulnerabilities of different vulnerable populations.

Combinational Recommendation of Vaccinations, Mask-Wearing, and Home-Quarantine to Control Influenza in Megacities: An Agent-Based Modeling Study With Large-Scale Trajectory Data

The outbreak of COVID-19 stimulated a new round of discussion on how to deal with respiratory infectious diseases. Influenza viruses have led to several pandemics worldwide. The spatiotemporal characteristics of influenza transmission in modern cities, especially megacities, are not well-known, which increases the difficulty of influenza prevention and control for populous urban areas. For a long time, influenza prevention and control measures have focused on vaccination of the elderly and children, and school closure. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the public's awareness of measures such as vaccinations, mask-wearing, and home-quarantine has generally increased in some regions of the world. To control the influenza epidemic and reduce the proportion of infected people with high mortality, the combination of these three measures needs quantitative evaluation based on the spatiotemporal transmission characteristics of influenza in megacities. Given that the agent-based model with both demographic attributes and fine-grained mobility is a key planning tool in deploying intervention strategies, this study proposes a spatially explicit agent-based influenza model for assessing and recommending the combinations of influenza control measures. This study considers Shenzhen city, China as the research area. First, a spatially explicit agent-based influenza transmission model was developed by integrating large-scale individual trajectory data and human response behavior. Then, the model was evaluated across multiple intra-urban spatial scales based on confirmed influenza cases. Finally, the model was used to evaluate the combined effects of the three interventions (V: vaccinations, M: mask-wearing, and Q: home-quarantining) under different compliance rates, and their optimal combinations for given control objectives were recommended. This study reveals that adults were a high-risk population with a low reporting rate, and children formed the lowest infected proportion and had the highest reporting rate in Shenzhen. In addition, this study systematically recommended different combinations of vaccinations, mask-wearing, and home-quarantine with different compliance rates for different control objectives to deal with the influenza epidemic. For example, the "V45%-M60%-Q20%" strategy can maintain the infection percentage below 5%, while the "V20%-M60%-Q20%" strategy can maintain the infection percentage below 15%. The model and policy recommendations from this study provide a tool and intervention reference for influenza epidemic management in the post-COVID-19 era.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review

Infectious diseases and human behavior are intertwined. On one side, our movements and interactions are the engines of transmission. On the other, the unfolding of viruses might induce changes to our daily activities. While intuitive, our understanding of such feedback loop is still limited. Before COVID-19 the literature on the subject was mainly theoretical and largely missed validation. The main issue was the lack of empirical data capturing behavioral change induced by diseases. Things have dramatically changed in 2020. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been the key weapon against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and affected virtually any societal process. Travel bans, events cancellation, social distancing, curfews, and lockdowns have become unfortunately very familiar. The scale of the emergency, the ease of survey as well as crowdsourcing deployment guaranteed by the latest technology, several Data for Good programs developed by tech giants, major mobile phone providers, and other companies have allowed unprecedented access to data describing behavioral changes induced by the pandemic. Here, I review some of the vast literature written on the subject of NPIs during the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, I analyze 348 articles written by more than 2518 authors in the first 12 months of the emergency. While the large majority of the sample was obtained by querying PubMed, it includes also a hand-curated list. Considering the focus, and methodology I have classified the sample into seven main categories: epidemic models, surveys, comments/perspectives, papers aiming to quantify the effects of NPIs, reviews, articles using data proxies to measure NPIs, and publicly available datasets describing NPIs. I summarize the methodology, data used, findings of the articles in each category and provide an outlook highlighting future challenges as well as opportunities.