The study conclusions may be misleading as second wave predictions are based on a presumption of no re-introduction of mitigations after the first wave.
CCBYNCOpen access
Rapid response to:
ResearchSpecial Paper
Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions
The study conclusions may be misleading as second wave predictions are based on a presumption of no re-introduction of mitigations after the first wave.
Dear Editor
As a retired GP with no expertise in modelling I was struck by how this paper might mislead on superficial reading. My understanding is that the modelled second wave outcomes are based on all mitigating interventions (social distancing, etc) being stopped after 91 or 120 days, and not being reintroduced. This is implied but not explicitly stated. So the predicted second wave outcomes do not apply to the current situation where mitigations have been reintroduced.
To expert readers this is probably obvious but this paper has potential to cause confusion and I imagine the headline conclusion may be open to misinterpretation.
Rapid Response:
The study conclusions may be misleading as second wave predictions are based on a presumption of no re-introduction of mitigations after the first wave.
Dear Editor
As a retired GP with no expertise in modelling I was struck by how this paper might mislead on superficial reading. My understanding is that the modelled second wave outcomes are based on all mitigating interventions (social distancing, etc) being stopped after 91 or 120 days, and not being reintroduced. This is implied but not explicitly stated. So the predicted second wave outcomes do not apply to the current situation where mitigations have been reintroduced.
To expert readers this is probably obvious but this paper has potential to cause confusion and I imagine the headline conclusion may be open to misinterpretation.
Richard James
Competing interests: No competing interests