Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Relative change in R 0 from the regular to the holiday period, all contacts (column 3 and 4) and close contacts (column 5 and 6). '*' indicating a significant relative change in R 0.

From: Estimating the impact of school closure on social mixing behaviour and the transmission of close contact infections in eight European countries

    All contacts Close contacts
Country Number of participants in Holiday vs Regular period Total No. Relative Change in R 0 95% Bootstrap CI Relative Change in R 0 95% Bootstrap CI
BE 308/438^ 746 0.83* (0.76, 0.87) 0.90* (0.86, 0.98)
GBˠ 371/597 968 0.87* (0.80, 0.98) 0.83* (0.78, 0.91)
GB† 100/868 968 0.95 (0.89, 1.17) 0.86 (0.82, 1.06)
LU 120/873 993 0.87 (0.85, 1.03) 0.90 (0.89, 1.03)
NLˠ 40/217 257 0.60* (0.56, 0.74) 0.55* (0.49, 0.63)
NL† 39/218 257 0.60* (0.56, 0.74) 0.55* (0.49, 0.63)
NL† 27/230 257 0.51* (0.49, 0.67) 0.51* (0.46, 0.69)
  1. ^ This is a random selection of the Belgian survey, which was the only one registering two days of contacts per participant. Based on the complete Belgian survey published by Hens et al[7], the relative change in R 0 was found to be 0.85, or a 15% reduction in R 0 for holiday versus regular period.
  2. ˠ Holiday period encompasses holiday periods for all regions (GB: 01/04-24/04; NL: 18/02-05/03)
  3. † Holiday period was defined as the holiday period for one of the regions whereas the data from the other region was considered to come from a regular period (GB: 10/04-21/04; NL: 18/02-26/02 and 25/02-05/03, respectively).