Do school closures really help reduce the spread of the coronavirus?
A new review study questions how they really help to reduce the disease's spread.
Schools in more than 100 countries, including most in the U.S., are closed to aid in social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, but a new review study questions how much these closures will really help to reduce the disease's spread.
The authors, from University College London, reviewed 16 studies on the effect of school closures during coronavirus outbreaks, and concluded that "evidence to support national closure of schools to combat COVID-19 is very weak." In contrast, the harms of school closures, including high economic costs, are more clear-cut.
Policy makers should be aware of the uncertainty of evidence supporting school closures and may need to consider "other less disruptive social-distancing interventions in schools," the authors wrote in their paper, published online April 6 in the journal The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. These might include keeping schools open only for the children of essential workers, staggering school start times and lunch breaks across different grades, increasing the space between students in classes or closing playgrounds.
Related: 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history
—Coronavirus in the US: Map & cases
—What are coronavirus symptoms?
—How deadly is the new coronavirus?
—How long does coronavirus last on surfaces?
—Is there a cure for COVID-19?
—How does coronavirus compare with seasonal flu?
—How does the coronavirus spread?
—Can people spread the coronavirus after they recover?
Most of the scientific data on the effects of school closures comes from studying seasonal or pandemic flu, and some of this research does show a benefit.
In particular, studies on flu suggest the effects of school closures may be greatest when viruses have a low transmissibility and infect children at higher rates than adults. (When a virus doesn't transmit that easily, school closures by themselves may reduce contact in the population enough to reduce the size of the epidemic.)
But this doesn't seem to be the case for the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which spreads more easily than the flu and causes less severe disease in children than it does in adults, the authors said. (Although it's unclear how big a role children play in spreading the new coronavirus, they may be less likely to spread the disease by coughing and sneezing since they tend to develop mild or asymptomatic cases, the authors said.)
In the new study, the authors reviewed research on the effects of school closures during the SARS outbreak of 2002, as well as research on school closures and social distancing in response to COVID-19. They looked at both studies published in peer-reviewed journals and studies that haven’t yet gone through that process but have been published on so-called preprint websites.
Studies on the SARS outbreak largely found that schools did not play a role in transmission of the virus, and so school closures didn't contribute to control of the outbreak, the authors said.
Recent studies on COVID-19 in China have found that a "package of social-distancing measures" that includes school closures were effective in reducing the size and peak of the outbreak there. But critically, these studies didn't separate the effects of school closures from other social-distancing measures, the authors said, so the true effect is unclear.
The authors found only one study that looked at the effect of school closures separate from other social-distancing measures. This study, which modeled the effect in the U.K. population, suggested that school closures by themselves were predicted to reduce COVID-19 deaths by only 2% to 4%, which was much lower than the effect of other measures, such as isolating infected cases.
'Urgent need' for research
There is an "urgent need" to better study the effects of school closures during COVID-19, as well as how countries that have already shut schools and offices can "safely return students to education and parents to work," the authors said.
More studies are also needed to figure out how big of a role children play in transmitting COVID-19, they said.
"Education is one of the strongest predictors of the health and the wealth of a country's future workers, and the impact of long-term school closure on educational outcomes, future earnings, the health of young people and future national productivity has not been quantified," they concluded.
- The 12 deadliest viruses on Earth
- 11 ways processed food is different from real food
- 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history
Originally published on Live Science.
OFFER: Save 45% on 'How It Works' 'All About Space' and 'All About History'!
For a limited time, you can take out a digital subscription to any of our best-selling science magazines for just $2.38 per month, or 45% off the standard price for the first three months.
Live Science newsletter
Stay up to date on the latest science news by signing up for our Essentials newsletter.
Rachael is a Live Science contributor, and was a former channel editor and senior writer for Live Science between 2010 and 2022. She has a master's degree in journalism from New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program. She also holds a B.S. in molecular biology and an M.S. in biology from the University of California, San Diego. Her work has appeared in Scienceline, The Washington Post and Scientific American.
By Harry Baker
By Sascha Pare
By Ben Turner
By Carissa Wong
By Sascha Pare
It is well established that:
1) children are likely to have asymptomatic infection;
2) asymptomatic people can spread the infection;
3) virus spreads easily in closed quarters.
So you would want to put a crowd of children in close proximity with adults, some of whom may be in high risk group? And who will be teaching these kids when teachers get sick?
I am truly puzzled at the argument presented in this text.
"April FOOL'S Day." There haven't been studies, because they are not needed. It's common sense.
On the bright side (?), parents now get to spend more time with their children!!!!
The argument, evidence, reasoning and logic are so stupid then we have to argue and explain here that it is nonsense. Livescience editors should have done a better job..