Abstract
Background Strategies involving rapid testing have been suggested as a way of reopening schools that minimises absences while controlling transmission. We assess the likely impact of rapid testing strategies using lateral flow tests (LFTs) on infections and absences in secondary schools, compared to a policy of isolating year group bubbles upon a pupil returning a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.
Methods We developed an individual-based model of a secondary school formed of exclusive year group bubbles (five year groups, with 200 pupils per year). By simulating infections over the course of a seven-week half-term, we compared the impact of differing strategies on transmission, absences, and testing volume. We also considered the sensitivity of results to underlying model assumptions.
Findings Repeated testing of year-group bubbles following case detection or regular mass-testing strategies result in a modest increase in infections compared to the policy of isolating year-group bubbles, but substantially reduce absences. When combined these two testing strategies can reduce infections to levels lower than would occur under year-group isolation, although such a policy requires a high volume of testing.
Interpretation Our results highlight the conflict between the goals of minimising within-school transmission, minimising absences and minimising testing burden. While mass and targeted testing strategies can reduce school transmission and absences, it may lead to a large number of daily tests.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work has been supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the MathSys CDT [grant number EP/S022244/1] and by the Medical Research Council through the COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call [grant number MR/V009761/1]. TL, MJK, LD and MJT were supported by MRC through the JUNIPER modelling consortium [grant number MR/V038613/1]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data used to parameterise the study is publicly available and stated within the main manuscript and Sup- 295 porting Information. Code for the study is available at: https://github.com/tsleng93/SchoolReopeningStrategies
