SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings: cross-sectional analysis of clusters and outbreaks in England

Definitions

Educational settings included nurseries, preschools, infant schools, junior schools, primary schools, secondary schools, further education colleges, and settings catering to children of mixed age groups, or those of any age with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).⁸ A case of COVID-19 was confirmed if there was a verifiable, laboratory result for a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from an upper respiratory tract sample. Co-primary cases were defined as ≥2 confirmed cases with a common epidemiological link who were diagnosed at the same time, typically asymptomatic siblings diagnosed as part of contract tracing after their parent tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. An outbreak was defined as ≥2 epidemiologically linked cases, where sequential cases were diagnosed within a 14-day period. Within the educational setting, a “bubble” was defined as a group of staff and pupils who stay together, perform all activities together and do not interact physically or socially with other bubbles.⁷ The aim was to isolate individual bubbles if any member of the bubble became unwell, whilst allowing the remaining bubbles to continue to attend the educational setting.

Investigation of clusters and outbreaks

A national meeting was held each day to discuss situations of interest across England, including cases and outbreaks in educational settings. A risk assessment was performed and a decision for extensive testing was made on a case-by-case basis, with a particular focus on situations where wider transmission might have occurred.

Data management and analysis

To monitor situations in educational settings, all potential events reported across England were extracted and updated every day from HPZone and entered into a pre-developed MS Excel template. All situations reported to HPTs in June 2020 were followed up for at least 14 days after the educational settings closed for the summer term. Missing information was obtained from outbreak reports or directly from the local HPT or educational setting as required.

Data are mainly descriptive. To calculate average, weekly regional prevalence of SARSCoV-2 infection, we utilised national daily reports of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results collated by PHE for COVID-19 surveillance. SARS-CoV-2 positive tests performed as part of Pillar II testing in the community were used to estimate regional prevalence and correlated with regional COVID-19 outbreaks in educational settings during June 2020.⁹ Linear regression analysis was used to assess correlation between outbreaks in educational settings and regional population, population density and community COVID-19 incidence in England during June 2020. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were calculated for staff and students attending an educational setting during June 2020, irrespective of whether the infection was acquired within or outside the educational setting. Coprimary cases were counted as separates cases. Educational settings and students were categorised into:¹⁰ early years (nurseries and preschools for < 5 year-olds), primary schools (reception and school years 1 and 6 for 5–11 year-olds), and secondary schools (school years 10 and 12 for 12–18 year-olds). Schools for mixed ages and SEND schools that include children of all ages were not included in the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate estimates. Denominators were obtained from Department for Education (DfE) online reports.¹¹ Student denominators did not include a small proportion of children of key workers or vulnerable children who attended school but were not part of the year groups returning to school in June 2020. Staff attendance was only available for primary and secondary schools and did not distinguish between student-facing or other staff members.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outbreaks was very low across all educational settings, with the highest risk in primary schools (4.8 events/1,000 schools/month), likely reflecting the distribution of educational settings that opened after the lockdown (Table 1). Staff had higher rates of individual SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks than students, albeit with wide confidence intervals. Among students, the rate of individual infections was higher in primary school students but cases in children in early year settings were more likely to be linked to outbreaks.

Single, confirmed cases

The 67 single cases included 30 (45%) students and 37 (55%) staff and occurred mainly in primary schools (45/67, 67%) and early years settings (10/67, 15%) (Figure 4a). None of the children and one staff member was hospitalised with COVID-19 and required intensive care admission for respiratory support. One secondary school teacher died of COVID-19 after acquiring the infection from a household member with confirmed infection who had acquired the infection in the community. The teacher had not attended the school during their infectious period and, therefore, did not have contact with other staff or students within the school. Among 43/48 (90%) cases with available information, the case and contact bubble were excluded from 39 educational settings while four educational settings decided to close entirely because of a perceived risk of onward transmission, although this was contrary to national recommendations. For the remaining five cases (3 staff, 2 children) only the confirmed cases were isolated because they had remained outside the educational setting throughout their infectious period.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4a.

Summary of single confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff and students by the type of educational setting in which they were reported

Co-primary cases

There were 4 co-primary cases involving 10 children (Figure 4b). The co-primary cases lived in the same household, where they most likely co-acquired the infection. Three involved siblings in different primary schools (3, 2 and 2 siblings) and the fourth involved two separate household clusters (2 siblings and 1 child) in a preschool, with no contact links identified between the two households inside or outside the educational setting. All 10 children in the 5 households were asymptomatic and had been tested because they were household contacts of an index case (a parent in 4/5 households), who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after becoming symptomatic. Public health management included exclusion of the contact bubbles. In line with national recommendations, the settings remained open for the rest of the term and no additional cases were identified.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4b.

Summary of clusters involving co-primary cases by the type of educational setting in which they were reported. All co-primary cases were identified in students

Confirmed outbreaks

There were 30 (18%) outbreaks with ≥2 confirmed cases in staff/pupils in primary schools (18, 60%), early years (7, 23%), secondary schools (2, 7%) and SEND schools (3, 10%) (Figure 4c). Affected contact bubbles were excluded from school in all 30 outbreaks and 13 (3%) also decided to close either on an interim basis (to allow for deep cleaning or for exclusion periods to elapse) or for the rest of the term.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4c.

Summary of outbreaks by the type of educational setting in which they were reported, and likely direction of transmission between staff and students attending educational settings

Of the 18 primary school outbreaks, 9 involved staff only (affecting 32 members), including 5 where only two staff members were affected. In three of the remaining 4 staff outbreaks, the source was not identified but the outbreak was propagated through contact between administrative and teaching staff in school. The final staff outbreak was unusual in that 3 of the 4 SARS-CoV-2 positive staff members likely acquired their infections from household members with confirmed COVID-19.

Seven primary school outbreaks involved staff and students. In this small sample of outbreaks the student was most likely the index case in 6 outbreaks. In 5 outbreaks, the child (index case) was identified through ‘test and trace’; i.e. testing of the whole household when parents (healthcare workers in 3 cases) had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Seven staff members in contact with the index cases (3 tested because they became symptomatic) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A seventh outbreak involved potential staff-topupil transmission. A married couple who were staff members at the same school tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after becoming symptomatic. Mass testing was undertaken because of the large number of potential school contacts and 8/74 (11%) additional staff and 3/93 (3%) children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The final two primary school outbreaks involved possible transmission between two primary school children only, although no clear contact between the affected children within the educational setting could be established and acquisition in the household or community cannot be ruled out.

A staff member was identified as the index case in all 7 outbreaks in early years settings. Two outbreaks involved only staff members, including one where 12/16 staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 following community exposures linked to a religious festival. Wider swabbing in two outbreaks identified 9/43 (21%) children, 16/28 (57%) staff and 10/112 (9%) household contacts of staff/students as SARS-CoV-2 positive.

The remaining 5 outbreaks all involved staff members as the most likely index cases, with 19 confirmed cases among staff members and one in a child attending a SEND school, who potentially acquired the infection from a staff member with confirmed COVID-19. Wider swabbing in the SEND school was performed because of the perceived vulnerability of students and identified 6 additional SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in staff members (6/18, 33%) and one in a child (1/12, 8%). All five early ears settings excluded contacts of confirmed cases and two closed for deep cleaning and/or the rest of the term.

Source of infection

The source of infection was not systematically collected for single confirmed cases. The 4 co-primary events involved 10 children who acquired the infection from a household member. The probable transmission direction for the 30 confirmed outbreaks was: staff-tostaff (n=15), staff-to-student (n=7), student-to-staff (n=6) and student-to-student (n=2). Of the 30 student cases involved in an outbreak, the potential source of infection in 27 children included a household contact (n=8), a school staff member (n=17) and another student (n=2). Among 91 staff members involved in an outbreak, where a potential source of infection could be identified, 9 acquired the infection from a household contact and were the likely index case in the outbreak and 52 likely acquired the infection in the educational setting from another staff member (n=46) or another child (n=6).

Risk of infections and outbreaks

England took a cautious approach for opening schools as part of the easing of the lockdown, when community SARS-CoV-2 incidence was low across most regions specially when compared to the peak of the pandemic in mid-April 2020.⁵ Extensive social distancing and infection control measures were implemented for returning staff and students with strict limitations on the number of staff and students in each bubble. In addition, educational settings in regions with high incidence areas remained closed and parents were not required to send their children to school. The low rates of SARs-CoV-19 infection and outbreaks in England are consistent with the experience of other countries that opened their educational settings after lockdown as well as those that kept their preschools and primary schools open throughout the pandemic period, albeit with varying background incidence rates.¹² There are very few reports of widespread infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in preschools and primary schools, especially when compared to other institutions such as hospitals, care homes,^13,14 prisons,¹⁵ and certain workplace settings.¹⁶ We did, however, find a strong correlation between community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and risk of outbreaks in educational settings, even during a period of low SARS-CoV-2 incidence. This is not surprising since increased community transmission provides more opportunities for virus introduction into educational settings.

The potential for spread within educational settings, as observed from the wider swabbing of some schools in our surveillance and from recent reports from other countries,¹⁷ does suggest that school closures may be necessary as part of lockdown in regions with increasing community infection, although given what is known about the detrimental effects of lack of access to education on child development, these should probably be considered only in extremis by comparison with other lockdown measures.¹⁸ Reassuringly, our findings indicated that early detection and isolation of staff and students can prevent progression to an outbreak in most cases, highlighting the importance of the ‘test, track, and trace’ approach.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2

Within the educational setting, the higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 among staff highlights a need to strengthen infection control measures at two levels. Staff members need to be more vigilant for exposure outside the school setting to protect themselves, their families and the educational setting. Within the education premises, stringent infection control measures between staff need to be reinforced, including use of common staff rooms and cross-covering staff across bubbles.

Students, on the other hand, mostly acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection at home, usually from a keyworker or healthcare worker parent. Most children were asymptomatic and only identified as part of contact tracing after their parent developed COVID-19, highlighting the importance of access to rapid testing, reporting and contact tracing for individuals to protect the wider community. Reassuringly, we found very little transmission between the students which is consistent with emerging literature for preschool and primary school students,¹⁹ and, even among the coprimary cases, the siblings did not seed the infection into different bubbles. Additionally, there were very few transmission events between staff and students, especially given the difficulties in maintaining social distancing with younger children and those attending SEND schools.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

The main strength of this study is the public health infrastructure that allows real-time reporting, recording, risk assessment and management of situations across England. The large number of reports of suspected situations highlight the strong historical engagement between educational settings and HPTs. Daily assessment of situations of interest allowed a pragmatic approach to risk assessment, the need for additional investigations and infection control measures.

There are, however, important limitations when considering the generalisability of our findings. Educational settings opened after national lockdown when SARS-CoV-2 incidence was low and only in regions with low community transmission. Settings that opened had stringent social distancing and infection control measures in please and, in addition to school attendance not being mandatory, there were strict protocols for class and bubble sizes, which may not be achievable when schools opening fully in the next academic year (and indeed, updated schools guidance now recognises that bubble size may need to be increased from September to ensure that a full range of activities is feasible). Only 1.6 million of the 8.9 million students nationally attended any educational setting during the summer mini-term.²⁰ Additionally, very few secondary schools opened (and those that did, did so with small class sizes) during the summer mini-term and our results, therefore, are not likely to be generalisable to secondary schools, especially since the risk of infection, disease and transmission is likely to be higher in older than younger children.^19,21 Moreover, each situation was risk-assessed on a case-by-case basis and only a few settings were selected for wider testing. The risk-based approach was considered more pragmatic and allowed objective evaluation of the recommended national approach to isolate affected bubbles by monitoring the educational setting for additional cases.⁷ Identification of additional cases following wider testing highlights the importance of enhanced surveillance to better understand infection and transmission in educational settings. Finally, whole genome sequencing could help determine whether the outbreaks were caused by the same strain or due to multiple separate introductions into the educational setting and will be pursued for a sample of outbreaks where mass testing was undertaken.

Conclusions

In conclusion, re-opening of schools was associated with very few outbreaks after easing of national lockdown in England. SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks were more likely to involve staff members, highlighting a need to improve education and infection control measures for this group. The strong correlation between COVID-19 outbreaks and regional SARS-CoV-2 incidence highlights the importance of controlling the disease in the community to protect the staff and students in educational settings.