Breastfeeding research improves lives and advances health, but faces conflicts


Research shows the breast milk of women who have recovered from COVID-19 offers a source of COVID-19 antibodies.
(Shutterstock)

Meghan Azad, University of Manitoba; Katie Hinde, Arizona State University; Lars Bode, University of California San Diego; Luisa Zuccolo, University of Bristol; Merilee Brockway, University of Manitoba; Nathan C. Nickel, University of Manitoba, and Rafael Perez-Escamilla, Yale University

Breastfeeding and breast milk provide big opportunities to support maternal, infant and population health. This is especially true during the current pandemic because breastfeeding can help alleviate food insecurity, and research shows the breast milk of women who have recovered from COVID-19 offers a source of COVID-19 antibodies.

Breastfeeding saves lives and prevents illness. It is environmentally friendly and profoundly important to children’s long-term development. After all, breast milk is the only food that has evolved specifically to feed humans.

Breastfeeding matters

Beyond supplying nutrition, breast milk provides personalized immune protection and shapes the developing microbiome. Scientists have discovered enzymes, hormones, antibodies and live cells in breast milk, and these bioactive components could hold the key to developing new therapies — not only for COVID-19, but also autoimmune diseases, diabetes and cancer.

Yet, remarkably, we still don’t fully understand the composition of breast milk, or the biological basis for its many health effects. In fact, more scientific papers have been published on headaches than breastfeeding, and more federal research dollars from Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada have been invested to study corn than breast milk.

The act of breastfeeding also supports mother-infant bonding and helps to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in mothers. Unfortunately, most mothers do not even meet their own breastfeeding goals, let alone achieve recommendations of exclusive breastfeeding for six months, followed by 18 months of breastfeeding along with other foods.

This is particularly concerning during this pandemic, when mothers infected with COVID-19 may be separated from their newborns (despite World Health Organization guidance to the contrary) and breastfeeding support is often unavailable because public health visits are being cancelled and lactation services have been suspended in many places.

Tensions abound

Every parent knows that infant feeding is a complex issue, often evoking strong emotions based on personal experience. Difficult or negative breastfeeding experiences can fuel a defensive “breastfeeding denialism” attitude.

A woman with tattoos breastfeeding her infant
Breastfeeding support such as public health visits may not be available during the pandemic.
(Pexels/Anna Shvets)

Conversely, some breastfeeding advocates refuse to acknowledge that for some families, formula is necessary for medical, personal, societal or socioeconomic reasons. These extreme attitudes cause a tense and unproductive environment for researchers working to generate inclusive evidence-based guidance for infant feeding.

Industry partnerships also cause tension in this field because the infant feeding industry frequently violates the World Health Organization code for marketing of breastmilk substitutes, and transgressions have worsened during the pandemic. However, due to lack of funding for breastfeeding research, scientists are often faced with choosing between industry funding or no funding at all.

Unfortunately, these tensions often detract from the energy and resources that breastfeeding advocates, researchers, health professionals and policy-makers could be using to advance their shared goal of supporting maternal and child health.

What can be done

Of course, members of the diverse breastfeeding advocacy and research communities will not always agree — but we should aim to find common ground and work together. There are many stakeholders involved, each with a role to play:

Governments and non-profit funding organizations should acknowledge the importance of breastfeeding and breast milk and invest more resources into this field.

Researchers should build interdisciplinary teams to study breast milk as a biological system and think broadly about “breastfeeding challenges” in the context of complex social systems – including social inequities, parental leave policies, lactation difficulties and donor breast milk.

Companies, researchers and advocacy groups should co-develop a conflict of interest framework for research on breastfeeding and breast milk and reporting of results.

Messaging is key to achieving these goals. All groups need to communicate effectively with each other, and with the health-care, research and public sectors. This means providing or sharing clear resources to convey scientific evidence free of conflict of interest, targeted to each audience, such as fact sheets for policy-makers, engaging videos for the public and infographics for health-care providers.

Stakeholders also need to actively discredit unfounded claims and misinformation, such as unsubstantiated health claims made by infant nutrition companies, or rumours about the transmission of COVID-19 via breastfeeding, when there is no evidence of this occurring.

Looking forward

A woman breastfeeding a baby
COVID-19 has highlighted both the importance and fragility of breastfeeding support systems.
(Shutterstock)

Progress in breastfeeding, breast milk and lactation research is being hampered by tensions among researchers, advocates and industry.

As breast milk scientists, breastfeeding researchers and lactation specialists, we are concerned about these tensions and their potential to impede or delay discoveries in our field. Last year, we held a workshop to discuss these concerns and develop solutions.

Our workshop paper was written before the pandemic, but its recent publication is timely. The pandemic has brought researchers together in ways that seemed impossible before.

Breast milk research that would normally take years has been completed in months with unprecedented efficiency. A global network of human milk banks was established in a matter of days to share information about safe operations during the pandemic. Milk scientists and breastfeeding researchers are meeting monthly with the WHO to speed up the transition from discovery to policy.

We hope these trends will continue beyond the pandemic and become the new standard for doing and sharing research.

COVID-19 has also emphasized both the importance and fragility of breastfeeding support systems, which have suffered considerably due to current restrictions. The pandemic has also highlighted the potential of breast milk to inform new avenues of biomedical research, such as milk antibodies as potential therapeutics.

We hope this added urgency will encourage researchers, advocates, funders and policy-makers to work together to accelerate progress in supporting breastfeeding and breast milk research.The Conversation

Meghan Azad, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health; Canada Research Chair in the Developmental Origins of Chronic Disease, University of Manitoba; Katie Hinde, Associate Professor, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University; Lars Bode, Professor of Pediatrics and Director of Mother-Milk-Infant Center of Research Excellence, University of California San Diego; Luisa Zuccolo, Senior Research Fellow, Health Sciences, University of Bristol; Merilee Brockway, Post-doctoral Fellow, Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba; Nathan C. Nickel, Associate Professor of Community Health Sciences; Co-Director MILC; Associate Director, Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba, and Rafael Perez-Escamilla, Professor of Public Health, Yale University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

COVID19 – should schools close early for Christmas?

Sarah Lewis, Marcus Munafo and George Davey Smith

 

 

We have previously written about the limited risk posed to pupils, teachers and the community by schools being open during the Covid19 pandemic. Schools have now been open for almost a full academic term (3 months), so it is time to take another look at the evidence.

School re-openings have coincided with an increase in Covid19 infection rates across all UK nations. This rise in infection rates was anticipated, given the annual pattern of rising respiratory infections in the autumn term. There was also a rapid increase in Covid19 testing rates as children returned to school and presented with mild symptoms. Rates of positivity among children were very low at first, but a rise was observed over the autumn. This corresponded with an increase in rates among adults, and there seems to be a strong correlation between Covid19 positivity in schools and rates in the local community.

But has transmission of Covid19 in schools driven the second wave? And should schools be closed again to reduce infection in the community?

This post argues that there is little case for closing schools, as

  • Schools don’t seem to drive transmission in the community
  • The risk of the virus to most school children is very low
  • The harms of school closures are wide ranging.
Photo by CDC on Unsplash

Infection rates among children have been low

Since September children with COVID19 symptoms have been asked to stay at home and have a test before returning to school. Tests equating to 10% of the school pupil population were carried out during first half term in Scotland; only 0.2% of pupils tested positive during this period. Similarly high volumes of testing have been carried out in Wales, but only 0.6% of pupils tested positive between 1st September and 9th December 2020. Pupils made up 3.5% of cases in Wales over that period, despite making up 16% of the population.

However, the weekly Covid19 incidence among 12-16 year olds in Wales was similar to the national average for the week ending 9th December 2020, suggesting a change in the age demographic of cases.

Transmission levels in school have been low

It is unclear what proportion of children who tested positive contracted the infection in school – many children have similar social circles both in and out of school. When infections are found in schools, most schools have only 1 or 2 cases within a 2-week period (unless levels in the local community are high). This suggests low levels of transmission in schools.

Children and adults have different symptoms

Comparisons of rates of infection between children and adults should be treated with caution. Cases are diagnosed using recognised Covid19 symptoms, and are influenced by the volume of testing in the community. Younger children seem to be less likely to have symptoms – around 50% of infected children tend to be completely asymptomatic.  They also may have somewhat different pattern of symptoms to adults – fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and changes in sense of smell or taste, but only rarely a cough. Therefore, studies relying on symptoms in children may be unreliable.

Random testing is the best way to find out level of infection

Surveys show that while young adults had the highest levels of infection in September, secondary school pupils now have the highest rates.

Studies which test individuals at random in the community are more reliable indicators of the levels of infection among children compared to adults. The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) infection survey has been randomly testing people from the community since early May. It showed that young adults (school year 11 to age 24) had the highest positivity rates in September. This became more pronounced in early October when universities re-opened to students. By the end of October, rates among secondary school pupils were similar to those in young adults, at around 2%. Secondary school pupils now have the highest rates. Covid19 positive rates among primary school children are about half those in secondary school children and have barely changed since the beginning of the academic year.

Infection rates among teachers

There is no evidence that teachers are more at risk of death from COVID19, and infection rates among teachers do not seem higher than other professions.

ONS data from the first wave of the COVID19 epidemic in the UK showed that teachers were not at increased risk of death from the disease compared to other professionals. Based on ONS data, during October those working in the education sector had an antibody positivity rate of 8.1% (95% CI 5.9-10.8) compared with 6.5% (95% CI 5.9-7.3) among those working in other professions. This suggests perhaps slightly higher infection rates, but this is estimated with uncertainty.

Infection positivity rates – also measured by the ONS survey –  from 2nd September to 16th October showed that teachers were no more likely to test positive than other professions, although again there was a lot of uncertainty in these estimates*.  The Swedish Public Health Agency have linked data on Covid19 infection to occupational data and found no increase in infection rates among teachers, although there was some evidence of an increase in infection rates among teaching assistants, school counsellor and  headteachers. However, infection rates may have been inflated relative to other profession if there is  increased testing among asymptomatic people in the education sector.

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Unsplash

Could infections in schools be driving community infection rates?

The evidence suggests this is unlikely.

Infection rate increases appear to coincide with school openings, but the R-number was increasing in Scotland and England before school openings. Hospital admissions due to Covid19 had also started to rise before this point. In September, positivity rates were initially highest among young adults, not among children of school age, suggesting that perhaps infections among school children were not driving community rates. The ONS data showed infection rates levelling off over October half term, and climbing again among young adults and secondary school children after half term. However, this trend was not as marked in primary school children, and was not observed in adults, even amongst the 35-49 year age group, to which many parents of school aged children belong. Another study of community-based testing – the REACT-1 study – found a greater decrease in infections among younger children compared with older children following the October half term holiday, but again there was a lot of uncertainty in this estimate.

Contact mixing patterns show that people tend to have the most contacts within the same age group, followed by the age group closest to them. Children have more opportunities to pass on the infection to other children and young adults, and are not significantly influencing rates in older adults.

The current R-number in England is currently estimated to be slightly below 1 despite schools being open. This shows that it is possible to drive down infection rates in the community whilst keeping schools open. Furthermore, when everything else but schools are closed – such as in the case of the national lockdown which occurred in England in November, school children will have more contacts than anyone else and schools will contribute to relatively more transmissions in the community even if transmission rates are low overall.

Closing schools is not the answer

Rates have recently fallen among adults in England, despite schools remaining open and secondary school rates increasing. The evidence suggests low levels of virus transmission within schools. First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford recently said that behavioural evidence suggests closing schools could place some children “in even riskier environments”. Children being looked after by their grandparents rather than being in school would be more dangerous in terms of the virus being transmitted to a higher risk group.

Any public health intervention should consider the costs as well as the benefits. We know that school closures have wide ranging adverse consequences for children and families as outlined by UNESCO, and such costs are particularly pronounced for the poorest and most vulnerable children in society. Children:

  • who do not have access to technology to participate in online learning
  • whose parents who do not have the resources or the educational background to help

have been shown to fall further behind following school closures. Evidence suggests that children’s mental health deteriorated during the first lockdown, and that vulnerable children were at greater risk of violence and exploitation. School closures can also cause economic hardship due to parents being unable to work.  This has prompted Robert Jenkins Global Chief of Education at UNICEF to issue a statement over the last few days saying:

“Evidence shows that schools are not the main drivers of this pandemic. Yet, we are seeing an alarming trend whereby governments are once again closing down schools as a first recourse rather than a last resort. In some cases, this is being done nationwide, rather than community by community, and children are continuing to suffer the devastating impacts on their learning, mental and physical well-being and safety”.

If schools being open are not major drivers of transmission in the community (which they don’t appear to be), given that the risk of the virus to most school children is very low, there is very little case for closing them given the potential harm this could cause.

Footnote: Secondary schools in Wales were closed early for Christmas on the 11th December 2020

*(estimates ranged from 0.2% (95%CI=0.07-0.53) for primary school teachers to 0.5% teachers of unknown type (95% CI=0.36-0.69) compared with 0.4% (95%=0.39-0.49) for all other professions)

How has the COVID-19 lockdown affected children born with a cleft lip/palate?

Written by the Cleft Collective Team

Follow the Cleft Collective on twitter.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for many families and there is widespread concern about how the lockdown might have affected children’s health, wellbeing and education. This concern may be even greater for families of children with pediatric health conditions such as cleft lip and/or cleft palate.

The Cleft Collective cohort study, linked to the IEU, is a UK-wide research study of the causes and consequences of being born with a cleft, which is a gap in the lip or roof of the mouth. In response to the COVID-19 lockdown, the Cleft Collective team sent out a questionnaire asking parents about how the lockdown had affected their children’s surgeries and treatments, access to schooling and wellbeing.

The first results are summarised in this infographic, which highlights that many children suffered delays in their surgeries and other health care appointments due to the lockdown. They also struggled with homeschooling, worries and negative emotions.

Through links to the NHS cleft teams and the Cleft Lip and Palate Association charity (CLAPA), the Cleft Collective team are sharing their findings with healthcare professionals to help ensure that children born with a cleft are given appropriate support to help them through this time and to lead happy, healthy childhoods.

The Cleft Collective cohort study is based in the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit and funded by the Scar Free Foundation and the University of Bristol. The video below explains more about the study.

Can we ever achieve “zero COVID”?

Marcus Munafo and George Davey Smith

Follow Marcus and George on Twitter

An important ongoing debate is whether the UK’s COVID strategy should focus on suppression (maintaining various restrictions to ensure the reproduction rate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains at or below 1), or elimination (reducing the number of infections to a sufficiently low level that restrictions could be removed). Independent SAGE has explicitly called for a “zero COVID UK”.

The latter is attractive, in that it brings the promise of a return to normality, rather than the ongoing maintenance of distancing measures, use of face coverings, etc. Independent SAGE has suggested that “a seven day rolling average of one new case per million per day could represent ‘control’” under a “zero COVID” regime. In other words, around 60 to 70 new cases per day across the UK.

But is “zero COVID”, in the context of ongoing large-scale testing, ever likely to be possible?

It’s unclear how accurate COVID19 tests are – which presents a challenge for the aim of reaching ‘zero COVID’.

Knowing how many cases there are in a population requires testing. But even the best tests are not perfect. Unfortunately, it might be difficult to know exactly how accurate COVID tests are – the RT-PCR (antigen) tests for SARS-CoV-2 are likely to be highly specific, but in the absence of an alternative gold standard to compare these against, calculating the precise specificity is challenging

If we assume excellent specificity (let’s say 99.9%), at current levels of daily testing in the UK (74,783 tests per day processed across pillars 1 and 2, as of the 28th July update), that would mean around 75 false positive results per day even if there were no true cases of COVID in the UK. A sensitivity of 98% would mean over 1400 false positives *.

Any call for “zero COVID” needs to consider the impact of false positives on the achievability of the criterion that would constitute this, against a background of high levels of testing. Whilst testing is only one source of information that needs to be interpreted in the light of other clinical and epidemiological data, on their own they will be important drivers of any response.

As cases fall to a low level, perhaps we could reduce levels of testing (and therefore the number of false positives). But, given the high potential for substantial undocumented infection and transmission, it is likely that large-scale testing will remain essential for some time, if only to monitor the rise and fall in infections, the causes of which we still don’t fully understand.

The generic Situationist slogan “be realistic, demand the impossible” is one that many political campaigns for equality and freedom can understand.

But in many concrete situations well-meaning phrases can prove to be meaningless when scrutinised. If attempts to achieve zero COVID before relaxing restrictions leads to a delay in the reopening of schools, for example, that will result in vast increases in future levels of inequality in educational outcomes, and the future social trajectories dependent on these.

As with other endemic human coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 will likely show high variability and fall to very low levels within any particular population for sustained periods; it will not be permanently eliminated on a continental scale, however. Perhaps a better alternative to the setting of laudable but effectively unachievable targets is to recognise this and plan accordingly.

Marcus Munafò and George Davey Smith

* The importance of the sensitivity (and specificity) of tests for COVID antibodies has been discussed here, and the same logic broadly applies to antigen tests.

Are schools in the COVID-19 era safe?

Sarah Lewis, Marcus Munafo and George Davey Smith

Follow Sarah, George and Marcus on Twitter

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-COV2 virus in 2020 has so far resulted in a heavy death toll and caused unprecedented disruption worldwide. Many countries have opted for drastic measures and even full lockdowns of all but essential services to slow the spread of disease and to stop health care systems becoming overwhelmed. However, whilst lockdowns happened fast and were well adhered to in most countries, coming out of lockdown is proving to be more challenging. Policymakers have been trying to balance relaxing restriction measures with keeping virus transmission low. One of the most controversial aspects has been when and how to reopen schools.

Many parents and teachers are asking: Are schools safe?

The answer to this question depends on how much risk an individual is prepared to accept – schools have never been completely “safe”. Also, in the context of this particular pandemic, the risk from COVID-19 to an individual varies substantially by age, sex and underlying health status. However, from a historical context, the risk of death from contracting an infectious disease in UK schools (even in the era of COVD-19) is very low compared to just 40 years ago, when measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough were endemic in schools. Similarly, from a global perspective UK schools are very safe – in Malawi, for example, the mortality rate for teachers is around five times higher than in the UK, with tuberculosis causing more than 25% of deaths among teachers.

In this blog post we use data on death rates to discuss safety, because there is currently better evidence on death rates by occupational status than, for example, infection rates. This is because death rates related to COVID-19 have been consistently reported by teh Office for National Statistics, whereas data on infection rates depends very much on the level of testing in the community (which has changed over time and differs by region).

Risks to children

Thankfully the risk of serious disease and death to children throughout the pandemic, across the UK and globally, has been low. Children (under 18 years) make up around 20% of the UK population, but account for only around 1.5% of those hospitalised with COVID-19. This age group have had better outcomes according to all measures compared to adults. As of the 12th June 2020, there have been 6 deaths in those with COVID-19 among those aged under 15 years across England and Wales. Whilst extremely sad, these deaths represent a risk of around 1 death per 2 million children. To place this in some kind of context, the number of deaths expected due to lower respiratory tract infections among this age group in England and Wales over a 3 month period is around 50 and 12 children would normally die due to road traffic accidents in Great Britain over a 3-month period.

Risks to teachers

Our previous blog post concluded that based on available evidence the risk to teachers and childcare workers within the UK from Covid-19 did not appear to be any greater than for any other group of working age individuals. It considered mortality from COVID-19 among teachers and other educational professionals who were exposed to the virus prior to the lockdown period (23rd March 2020) and had died by the 20th April 2020 in the UK. This represents the period when infection rates were highest, and when children were attending school in large numbers. There were 2,494 deaths among working-age individuals up to this date, and we found that the 47 deaths among teachers over this period represented a similar risk to all professional occupations – 6.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 10.3) per 100,000 among males and 3.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 4.9) per 100,000 among females.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has since updated the information on deaths according to occupation to include all deaths up to the 25th May 2020. The new dataset includes a further 2,267 deaths among individuals with COVID-19. As the number of deaths had almost doubled during this extended period, so too had the risk. A further 43 deaths had occurred among teaching and education professionals, bringing the total number of deaths involving COVID-19 among this occupational group to 90. It therefore appears that lockdown (during which time many teachers have not been in school) has not had an impact on the rate at which teachers have been dying from COVID-19.

As before, COVID-19 risk does not appear greater for teachers than other working age individuals

The revised risk to teachers of dying from COVID-19 remains very similar to the overall risk for all professionals at 12.9 (95% CI 9.3 to 17.4) per 100,000 among all male teaching and educational professionals and 6.0 (95% CI 4.2 to 8.1) per 100,000 among all females, compared with 11.6 (95%CI 10.2 to 13.0) per 100,000 and 8.0 (95%CI 6.8 to 9.3) per 100,000 among all male and female professionals respectively. It is useful to look at the rate at which we would normally expect teaching and educational professionals to die during this period, as this tells us by how much COVID-19 has increased mortality in this group. The ONS provide this in the form of average mortality rates for each occupational group for same 11 week period over the last 5 years.  The mortality due to COVID-19 during this period represents 33% for males and 19% for females of their average mortality over the last 5 years for the same period. For male teaching and educational professionals, the proportion of average mortality due to COVID-19 is very close to the value for all working-aged males (31%) and all male professionals (34%). For females the proportion of average mortality due to COVID-19 is lower than for all working-aged females (25%) and for female professionals (25%). During the pandemic period covered by the ONS, there was little evidence that deaths from all causes among the group of teaching and educational professionals were elevated above the 5-year average for this group.

Teaching is a comparatively safe profession

It is important to note that according to ONS data on adults of working age (20-59 years) between 2001-2011, teachers and other educational professionals have low overall mortality rates compared with other occupations (ranking 3rd  safest occupation for women and 6th for men). The same study found a 3-fold difference between annual mortality among teachers and among the occupational groups with the highest mortality rates (plant and machine operatives for women and elementary construction occupations among men). These disparities in mortality from all causes also exist in the ONS data covering the COVID-19 pandemic period, but were even more pronounced with a 7-fold difference between males teaching and educational professionals and male elementary construction occupations, and a 16-fold difference between female teachers and female plant and machine operatives.

There is therefore currently no indication that teachers have an elevated risk of dying from COVID-19 relative to other occupations, and despite some teachers having died with COVID19, the mortality rate from all causes (including COVID19) for this occupational group over this pandemic period is not substantially higher than the 5 year average.

Will reopening schools increase risks to teachers?

One could argue that the risk to children and teachers has been low because schools were closed for much of the pandemic, and children have largely been confined to mixing with their own households, so that when schools open fully risk will increase. However, infection rates in the community are now much lower than they were at their peak, when schools were fully open to all pupils without social distancing. Studies which have used contract tracing to determine whether infected children have transmitted the disease to others have consistently shown that they have not, although the number of cases included has been small, and asymptomatic children are often not tested. Modelling studies estimate that even if schools fully reopen without social distancing, this is likely to have only modest effects on virus transmission in the community. If infection levels can be controlled – for example by testing and contact tracing efforts – and cases can be quickly isolated, then we believe that schools pose a minimal risk in terms of the transmission of COVID, and to the health of teachers and children. Furthermore, the risk is likely to be more than offset by the harms caused by ongoing disruption to children’s educational opportunities.

Sarah Lewis is a Senior Lecturer in Genetic Epidemiology in the department of Population Health Sciences, and is an affiliated member of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol.

Marcus Munafo is a Professor of Biological Psychology, in the School of Psychology Science and leads the Causes, Consequences and Modification of Health Behaviours programme of research in the IEU, University of Bristol.

George Davey Smith is a Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, and director of the MRC IEU, University of Bristol.

We should be cautious about associations of patient characteristics with COVID-19 outcomes that are identified in hospitalised patients.

Gareth J Griffith, Gibran Hemani, Annie Herbert, Giulia Mancano, Tim Morris, Lindsey Pike, Gemma C Sharp, Matt Tudball, Kate Tilling and Jonathan A C Sterne, together with the authors of a preprint on collider bias in COVID-19 studies.

All authors are members of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol. Jonathan Sterne is Director of Health Data Research UK South West

Among successful actors, being physically attractive is inversely related to being a good actor. Among American college students, being academically gifted is inversely related to being good at sport.

Among people who have had a heart attack, smokers have better subsequent health than non-smokers. And among low birthweight infants, those whose mothers smoked during pregnancy are less likely to die than those whose mothers did not smoke.

These relationships are not likely to reflect cause and effect in the general population: smoking during pregnancy does not improve the health of low birthweight infants. Instead, they arise from a phenomenon called ‘selection bias’, or ‘collider bias’.

Understanding selection bias

Selection bias occurs when two characteristics influence whether a person is included in a group for which we analyse data. Suppose that two characteristics (for example, physical attractiveness and acting talent) are unrelated in the population but that each causes selection into the group (for example, people who have a successful Hollywood acting career). Among individuals with a successful acting career we will usually find that physical attractiveness will be negatively associated with acting talent: individuals who are more physically attractive will be less talented actors (Figure 1). Selection bias arises if we try to infer a cause-effect relationship between these two characteristics in the selected group. The term ‘collider bias’ refers to the two arrows indicating cause and effect that ‘collide’ at the effect (being a successful actor).

Figure 1: Selection effects exerted on successful Hollywood actors. Green boxes highlight characteristics that influence selection. Yellow boxes indicate the variable selected upon. Arrows indicate causal relationships: the dotted line indicates a non-causal induced relationship that arises because of selection bias.

Figure 2 below explains this phenomenon. Each point represents a hypothetical person, with their level of physical attractiveness plotted against their level of acting talent. In the general population (all data points) an individual’s attractiveness tells us nothing about their acting ability – the two characteristics are unrelated. The red data points represent successful Hollywood actors, who tend to be more physically attractive and to be more talented actors. The blue data points represent other people in the population. Among successful actors the two characteristics are strongly negatively associated (green line), solely because of the selection process. The direction of the bias (whether it is towards a positive or negative association) depends on the direction of the selection processes. If they act in the same direction (both positive or both negative) the bias will usually be towards a negative association. If they act in opposite directions the bias will usually be towards a positive association.

Figure 2:  The effect of sample selection on the relationship between attractiveness and acting talent. The green line depicts the negative association seen in successful actors.

 

Why is selection bias important for COVID-19 research?

In health research, selection processes may be less well understood, and we are often unable to observe the unselected group. For example, many studies of COVID-19 have been restricted to hospitalised patients, because it was not possible to identify all symptomatic patients, and testing was not widely available in the early phase of the pandemic. Selection bias can seriously distort relationships of risk factors for hospitalisation with COVID-19 outcomes such as requiring invasive ventilation, or mortality.

Figure 3 shows how selection bias can distort risk factor associations in hospitalised patients. We want to know the causal effect of smoking on risk of death due to COVID-19, and the data available to us is on patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Associations between all pairs of factors that influence hospitalisation will be distorted in hospitalised patients. For example, if smoking and frailty each make an individual more likely to be hospitalised with COVID-19 (either because they influence infection with SARS-CoV-2 or because they influence COVID-19 disease severity), then their association in hospitalised patients will usually be more negative than in the whole population. Unless we control for all causes of hospitalisation, our estimate of the effect of any individual risk factor on COVID-19 mortality will be biased. For example, it would be unsurprising that within hospitalised patients with COVID-19 we observe that smokers have better health than non-smokers because they are likely to be younger and less frail, and therefore less likely to die after hospitalisation. But that finding may not reflect a protective effect of smoking on COVID-19 mortality in the whole population.

Figure 3: Selection effects on hospitalisation with COVID-19. Box colours are as in Figure 1. Blue boxes represent outcomes. Arrows indicate causal relationships, the dotted line indicates a non-causal induced relationship that arises because of selection bias.

 

Selection bias may also be a problem in studies based on data from participants who volunteer to download and use COVID-19 symptom reporting apps. People with COVID-19 symptoms are more likely to use the app, and so are people with other characteristics (younger people, people who own a smartphone, and those to whom the app is promoted on social media). Risk factor associations within app users may therefore not generalise to the wider population.

What can be done?

Findings from COVID-19 studies conducted in selected groups should be interpreted with great caution unless selection bias has been explicitly addressed. Two ways to do so are readily available. The preferred approach uses representative data collection for the whole population to weight the sample and adjust for the selection bias.  In absence of data on the whole population, researchers should conduct sensitivity analyses that adjust their findings based on a range of assumptions about the selection effects. A series of resources providing further reading, and tools allowing researchers to investigate plausible selection effects are provided below.

For further information please contact Gareth Griffith (g.griffith@bristol.ac.uk) or Jonathan Sterne (jonathan.sterne@bristol.ac.uk).

Further reading and selection tools:

Dahabreh IJ and Kent DM. Index Event Bias as an Explanation for the Paradoxes of Recurrence Risk Research. JAMA 2011; 305(8): 822-823.

Griffith, Gareth, Tim M. Morris, Matt Tudball, Annie Herbert, Giulia Mancano, Lindsey Pike, Gemma C. Sharp, Jonathan Sterne, Tom M. Palmer, George Davey Smith, Kate Tilling, Luisa Zuccolo, Neil M. Davies, and Gibran Hemani. Collider Bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity. Interactive App 2020 http://apps.mrcieu.ac.uk/ascrtain/

Groenwold, RH, Palmer TM and Tilling K. Conditioning on a mediator to adjust for unmeasured confounding OSF Preprint 2020: https://osf.io/vrcuf/

Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S and Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004; 15: 615-625.

Munafo MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM and Davey Smith G. Collider Scope: When Selection Bias Can Substantially Influence Observed Associations. International Journal of Epidemiology 2018; 47: 226-35.

Luque-Fernandez MA, Schomaker M, Redondo-Sanchez D, Sanchez Perez MJ, Vaidya A and Schnitzer ME. Educational Note: Paradoxical collider effect in the analysis of non-communicable disease epidemiological data: a reproducible illustration and web application International Journal of Epidemiology 2019; 48: 640-653. Interactive App: https://watzilei.com/shiny/collider/

Smith LH and VanderWeele TJ. Bounding bias due to selection. Epidemiology 2019; 30: 509-516. Interactive App: https://selection-bias.herokuapp.com

 

COVID-19 and community support: Mapping unmet support needs across Wales

Dr Oliver Davis, Nina Di Cara, and the project team 

Follow OliverValerioAlastairNina, Chris Benjamin and Public Health Wales Research & Evaluation on Twitter 

Since the pandemic started, communities have been mobilising to help each other; from shopping for elderly neighbours, to offering to offering a friendly face or other support.  Mutual aid networks have sprung up all over the country, and neighbours who hadn’t previously spoken have been introduced to each other via streetlevel WhatsApp groups. But the degree to which offers of help are matching up with the need for help has been unknown, and this poses a problem for organisations who need to make decisions about where they should target limited resources.   

Screenshot from the https://covidresponsemap.wales/ site.

Ensuring support is available where needed 

Community support can offer a protective factor against adverse events. Some areas are more vulnerable than others, but knowing which areas are most likely to have a mismatch between support needed and support offered is difficult. To address this issue, a collaboration between the Public Health Wales Research & Evaluation Division and the Dynamic Genetics lab, part of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol and supported by the Alan Turing Institute, has mapped these support offers and needs 

Using data from Wales Council for Voluntary Action, COVID-19 Mutual Aid, Welsh Government Statistics and Research, the Office for National Statistics, and social media the project team have created a live map that highlights the areas where further support for communities may be needed. It shows data on support factors, such as number of registered volunteers and population density, against risks, such as demographics, levels of deprivation, and internet access. It aims to inform the responses of national and local government, as well as support providers in Wales. 

The site also provides the links to local community groups identified helping to raise awareness of the support available locally. 

This map is part of an effort to better understand which communities have better community cohesion and organisation. We are keen to find out your views on how this can be more useful, or other community mobilisation data sources which could be included. Please contact Oliver or Nina with your comments: 

Dr Oliver Davis: oliver.davis@bristol.ac.uk  

Nina Di Cara nina.dicara@bristol.ac.uk 

 

Further information 

 

Are teachers at high risk of death from Covid19?

Sarah Lewis, George Davey Smith and Marcus Munafo

Follow Sarah, George and Marcus on Twitter

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic schools across the United Kingdom were closed to all but a small minority of pupils (children of keyworkers and vulnerable children) on the 20th March 2020, with some schools reporting as few as 5 pupils currently attending. The UK government have now issued guidance that primary schools in England should start to accept pupils back from the 1st June 2020 with a staggered return, starting with reception, year 1 and year 6.

Concern from teachers’ unions

This has prompted understandable concern from the  teachers’ unions, and on the 13th May, nine unions which represent teachers and education professionals signed a joint statement calling on the government to postpone reopening school on the 1st June, “We all want schools to re-open, but that should only happen when it is safe to do so. The government is showing a lack of understanding about the dangers of the spread of coronavirus within schools, and outwards from schools to parents, sibling and relatives, and to the wider community.” At the same time, others have suggested that the harms to many children due to neglect, abuse and missed educational opportunity arising from school closures outweigh the small increased risk to children, teachers and other adults of catching the virus.

What risk does Covid19 pose to children?

Weighing up the risks to children and teachers

So what do we know about the risk to children and to teachers? We know that children are about half as likely to catch the virus from an infected person as adults, and  if they do catch the virus they  are likely to have only mild symptoms.  The current evidence, although inconclusive, also suggests that they may be less likely to transmit the virus than adults.  However, teachers have rightly pointed out that there is a risk of transmission between the teachers themselves and between parents and teachers.

The first death from COVID-19 in England was recorded at the beginning of March 2020 and by the 8th May 2020 39,071 deaths involving COVID-19 had been reported in England and Wales. Just three of these deaths were among children aged under 15 years and  only a small proportion of the deaths (4416 individuals, 11.3%) were among working aged people.  Even among this age group risk is not uniform; it increases sharply with age from 2.6 in 100,000 for 25-44 years olds with a ten fold increase to 26 in  100,000 individuals for those aged 45-64.

Risks to teachers compared to other occupations

In addition, each underlying health condition increases the risk of dying from COVID-19, with those having at least 1 underlying health problem making up most cases.   The Office for National Statistics in the UK have published age standardised deaths by occupation for all deaths involving COVID-19 up to the 20th April 2020. Most of the people dying by this date would have been infected at the peak of the pandemic in the UK  prior to the lockdown period. They found that during this period there were 2494 deaths involving Covid-19 in the working age population. The mortality rate for Covid-19 during this period was 9.9 (95% confidence intervals 9.4-10.4) per 100,000 males and 5.2 (95%CI 4.9-5.6) per 100,000 females, with Covid-19 involved in around 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 of all deaths among males and females respectively.

Amongst teaching and education professionals (which includes school teachers, university lecturers and other education professionals) a total of 47 deaths (involving Covid-19) were recorded, equating to mortality rates of 6.7 (95%CI 4.1-10.3) per 100,000 among males and 3.3 (95%CI 2.0-4.9) per 100,000 among females, which was very similar to the rates of 5.6 (95%CI 4.6-6.6) per 100,000 among males and 4.2(95%CI 3.3-5.2) per 100,000 females for all professionals. The mortality figures for all education professionals includes 7 out of 437000 (or 1.6 per 100,000 teachers) primary and nursery school teachers and 17 out of 395000 (or 4.3 per 100,000 teachers) secondary school teachers.  A further 20 deaths occurred amongst childcare workers giving a mortality rate amongst this group of 3.4 (95%CI=2.0-5.5) per 100,000 females (males were highly underrepresented in this group), this is in contrast to rates of 6.5 (95%CI=4.9-9.1) for female sales assistants and 12.7(95%CI= 9.8-16.2) for female care home workers.

Covid-19 risk does not appear greater for teachers than other working age individuals

In summary, based on current evidence the risk to teachers and childcare workers within the UK from Covid-19 does not appear to be any greater than for any other group of working age individuals. However, perceptions of elevated risk may have occurred, prompting some to ask “Why are so many teachers dying?” due to the way this issue is portrayed in the media with headlines such as “Revealed: At least 26 teachers have died from Covid-19” currently on the https://www.tes.com website. This kind of reporting, along with the inability of the government to communicate the substantial differences in risk between different population groups – in particular according to age – has caused understandable anxiety among teachers. Whilst, some teachers may not be prepared to accept any level of risk of becoming infected with the virus whilst at work, others may be reassured that the risk to them is small, particularly given that we all accept some level of risk in our lives, a value that can never be zero.

Likely impact on transmission in the community is unclear

As the majority of parents or guardians of school aged children will be in the 25-45 age range, the risk to them  is also likely to be small. Questions remain however around the effect of school openings on transmission in the community and the associated risk. This will be affected by many factors including the existing infection levels in the community, the extent to which pupils, parents and teachers are mixing outside of school (and at the school gate) and mixing between individuals of different age groups. This is the primary consideration of the government Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) who are using modelling based on a series of assumptions to determine the effect of school openings on R0.

 

Sarah Lewis is a Senior Lecturer in Genetic Epidemiology in the department of Population Health Sciences, and is an affiliated member of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol

George Davey Smith is a Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, and director of the MRC IEU, University of Bristol

Marcus Munafo is a Professor of Biological Psychology, in the School of Psychology Science and leads the Causes, Consequences and Modification of Health Behaviours programme of research in the IEU, University of Bristol.