Polly van den Berg1, Elissa M Schechter-Perkins2, Rebecca S Jack3, Isabella Epshtein4, Richard Nelson5,6, Emily Oster3,7, Westyn Branch-Elliman4,8,9. 1. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. COVID-19 School Response Dashboard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. VA Boston Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. IDEAS Center, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 6. Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 7. Brown University Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Providence, Rhode Island,USA. 8. VA Boston Healthcare System, Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston, Massachusetts,USA. 9. Harvard Medical School, Department of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking. Thus, our objective was to compare incident cases of SARS-CoV-2 in students and staff in Massachusetts public schools among districts with different physical distancing requirements. State guidance mandates masking for all school staff and for students in grades 2 and higher; the majority of districts required universal masking. METHODS: Community incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 cases among students in grades K-12 and staff participating in-person learning, and district infection control plans were linked. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for students and staff members in traditional public school districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were estimated using log-binomial regression; models adjusted for community incidence are also reported. RESULTS: Among 251 eligible school districts, 537 336 students and 99 390 staff attended in-person instruction during the 16-week study period, representing 6 400 175 student learning weeks and 1 342 574 staff learning weeks. Student case rates were similar in the 242 districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing between students (IRR, 0.891; 95% confidence interval, .594-1.335); results were similar after adjustment for community incidence (adjusted IRR, 0.904; .616-1.325). Cases among school staff in districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were also similar (IRR, 1.015, 95% confidence interval, .754-1.365). CONCLUSIONS: Lower physical distancing requirements can be adopted in school settings with masking mandates without negatively affecting student or staff safety. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking. Thus, our objective was to compare incident cases of SARS-CoV-2 in students and staff in Massachusetts public schools among districts with different physical distancing requirements. State guidance mandates masking for all school staff and for students in grades 2 and higher; the majority of districts required universal masking. METHODS: Community incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 cases among students in grades K-12 and staff participating in-person learning, and district infection control plans were linked. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for students and staff members in traditional public school districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were estimated using log-binomial regression; models adjusted for community incidence are also reported. RESULTS: Among 251 eligible school districts, 537 336 students and 99 390 staff attended in-person instruction during the 16-week study period, representing 6 400 175 student learning weeks and 1 342 574 staff learning weeks. Student case rates were similar in the 242 districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing between students (IRR, 0.891; 95% confidence interval, .594-1.335); results were similar after adjustment for community incidence (adjusted IRR, 0.904; .616-1.325). Cases among school staff in districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were also similar (IRR, 1.015, 95% confidence interval, .754-1.365). CONCLUSIONS: Lower physical distancing requirements can be adopted in school settings with masking mandates without negatively affecting student or staff safety. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.
Authors: Shari Krishnaratne; Hannah Littlecott; Kerstin Sell; Jacob Burns; Julia E Rabe; Jan M Stratil; Tim Litwin; Clemens Kreutz; Michaela Coenen; Karin Geffert; Anna Helen Boger; Ani Movsisyan; Suzie Kratzer; Carmen Klinger; Katharina Wabnitz; Brigitte Strahwald; Ben Verboom; Eva Rehfuess; Renke L Biallas; Caroline Jung-Sievers; Stephan Voss; Lisa M Pfadenhauer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Rebecca B Hershow; Karen Wu; Nathaniel M Lewis; Alison T Milne; Dustin Currie; Amanda R Smith; Spencer Lloyd; Brian Orleans; Erin L Young; Brandi Freeman; Noah Schwartz; Bobbi Bryant; Catherine Espinosa; Yoshinori Nakazawa; Elizabeth Garza; Olivia Almendares; Winston E Abara; Daniel C Ehlman; Keith Waters; Mary Hill; Ilene Risk; Kelly Oakeson; Jacqueline E Tate; Hannah L Kirking; Angela Dunn; Snigdha Vallabhaneni; Adam L Hersh; Victoria T Chu Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jayme P Coyle; Raymond C Derk; William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Theresa Boots; Angela R Lemons; Stephen B Martin; Kenneth R Mead; Steven A Fotta; Jeffrey S Reynolds; Walter G McKinney; Erik W Sinsel; Donald H Beezhold; John D Noti Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: Thomas S Murray; Amyn A Malik; Mehr Shafiq; Aiden Lee; Clea Harris; Madeline Klotz; John Eric Humphries; Kavin M Patel; David Wilkinson; Inci Yildirim; Jad A Elharake; Rachel Diaz; Chin Reyes; Saad B Omer; Walter S Gilliam Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Ronan Lordan; Samantha Prior; Elizabeth Hennessy; Amruta Naik; Soumita Ghosh; Georgios K Paschos; Carsten Skarke; Kayla Barekat; Taylor Hollingsworth; Sydney Juska; Liudmila L Mazaleuskaya; Sarah Teegarden; Abigail L Glascock; Sean Anderson; Hu Meng; Soon-Yew Tang; Aalim Weljie; Lisa Bottalico; Emanuela Ricciotti; Perla Cherfane; Antonijo Mrcela; Gregory Grant; Kristen Poole; Natalie Mayer; Michael Waring; Laura Adang; Julie Becker; Susanne Fries; Garret A FitzGerald; Tilo Grosser Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Yi Zhang; Yudong Tao; Mei-Ling Shyu; Lynn K Perry; Prem R Warde; Daniel S Messinger; Chaoming Song Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Zeynep Ertem; Elissa Schechter-Perkins; Emily Oster; Polly van den Berg; Isabella Epshtein; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Fernando Wilson; Elli Perenchevich; Warren Pettey; Westyn Branch-Elliman; Richard Nelson Journal: Res Sq Date: 2021-07-15