Read on Twitter
@Folkhalsomynd today released an updated reported on relative risk and school employees, finding that teachers were not at increased risk compared to the rest of society. To their credit they addressed some of the earlier criticism, like failing to adjust for age and sex.
They also did two separate analysis, one for the period from 13 March until the end of June, and the other for the entire period of 13 March until 19 October. The latter includes the 9 weeks of school holidays, and without doing analysis, it's clear holidays decreased risk.
I'm not actually sure what the point of this study was and why FHM did it though?
FHM has claimed earlier that children don't spread the disease. This study would actually seem to *refute* that, with primary teachers just as likely to be infected as other groups
FHM has claimed earlier that children don't spread the disease. This study would actually seem to *refute* that, with primary teachers just as likely to be infected as other groups
High school teachers - who went to distance education - far *less* likely to be infected, as I pointed out was clear in their last paper.
Interestingly, nearly every school employee *outside* of teachers *was* more likely to be infected. Headmasters about double!
Interestingly, nearly every school employee *outside* of teachers *was* more likely to be infected. Headmasters about double!
Clearly there's some interesting dynamics going on there that require further research, but also just as clearly, schools *are* a point of spread, at *least* as much as the rest of society, which contradicts the claim that children don't spread the virus.
Tegnell's rhetoric on that has changed over time though, from "children don't spread it" to (again today) "children aren't a driving force"
This is very much fixated on "influenza thinking", where children *are* the main driving force.
This is very much fixated on "influenza thinking", where children *are* the main driving force.
In this pandemic, it appears there is no single "driving force", so you can make the same claim about any group.
We're encouraging people to work from home, but not school students or teachers,
We're encouraging people to work from home, but not school students or teachers,
and this study does little more than confirm that schools are *at least* as likely as any other workplace to spread the virus - and thus take it back in to the households were people are working from home.
Nobody has suggested closing schools as a magic bullet, but we need to do all we can to limit the spread, and schools remain a source of spread. This doesn't necessarily mean close them down, but clearly there are things we can do with schools to contribute to decreasing R.
The paper is available below. I'd note outside the title pages and almost non-existent references it's only 5 pages, so it's only a summary. I hope people don't start citing this as if it's a peer-reviewed published paper, as happened with the last one.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/7ff1da2c3d7140809558ddae46735aa1/forekomst-covid-19-olika-yrkesgrupper-skolan.pdf
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/7ff1da2c3d7140809558ddae46735aa1/forekomst-covid-19-olika-yrkesgrupper-skolan.pdf
