Colleges and Universities almost universally plan to be open in the fall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janet Napolitano basically announced the UCs will all be online only next year. UC San Diego already announced they will be.

I don't think a single college has said they would be "online only" thus fair. Almost all seem to be on campus with an online option. Not sure why this is so hard of a concept for people to understand, it's the direction they all seem to be going.

I don't think any wanted to announce before deposit day 5/1. I think they will also wait for wait listers as long as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if colleges and universities open on time this fall, they’re not going to stay open for the whole academic year. A second wave of infections is inevitable.

Frankly, I think we’re going to see a record number of schools close permanently in the coming year.

Please provide a cite for this, oh man of science. After all, apparently one side of this debate is driven by science and the other is not.

Look it up yourself. It will take you 10 seconds. Is that too much work for you?

Inevitable? That's a mighty high standard for forecasting models. But you're the "scientific expert."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janet Napolitano basically announced the UCs will all be online only next year. UC San Diego already announced they will be.

I don't think a single college has said they would be "online only" thus fair. Almost all seem to be on campus with an online option. Not sure why this is so hard of a concept for people to understand, it's the direction they all seem to be going.

Yeah, with “online option” meaning all but the courses that absolutely can’t be done online, will be online. It’s not like there will be equal numbers of face to face and online sections and students will get to pick which one they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if colleges and universities open on time this fall, they’re not going to stay open for the whole academic year. A second wave of infections is inevitable.

Frankly, I think we’re going to see a record number of schools close permanently in the coming year.

Please provide a cite for this, oh man of science. After all, apparently one side of this debate is driven by science and the other is not.

Look it up yourself. It will take you 10 seconds. Is that too much work for you?

Inevitable? That's a mighty high standard for forecasting models. But you're the "scientific expert."

Sheesh. You’re strung tighter than a bridge cable. Chill out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janet Napolitano basically announced the UCs will all be online only next year. UC San Diego already announced they will be.

I don't think a single college has said they would be "online only" thus fair. Almost all seem to be on campus with an online option. Not sure why this is so hard of a concept for people to understand, it's the direction they all seem to be going.

Yeah, with “online option” meaning all but the courses that absolutely can’t be done online, will be online. It’s not like there will be equal numbers of face to face and online sections and students will get to pick which one they want.

Your source being?

[Anonymous]

It’s enormously complicated. Liability fears must be the key factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That guy has so many facts wrong, I had to stop reading. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE VIRUS IS GOING TO DO. It may start coming back in a couple of weeks with all the dumsh*t states reopening. Look at Germany - they started easing social distancing and now the number of cases is starting to tick up again.

No one - except Tony Fauci and Bill Gates - seems to be able to wrap their brain around how different and how serious this virus is. Sure, you can reopen colleges and dorms, but how many seriously ill and dead college students, professors, and food service workers will you accept? One, two, ten, twenty? And say you have an outbreak at the University of Mississippi - do they have enough medical capacity to handle 5000 sick students?

Well of course cases are going to start ticking up again once you ease social distancing, I’m sure the Germans knew that would happen. But they have decided to stop destroying their economy over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good op-ed by the president of Brown in Sunday NY Times. She explains how and why colleges should reopen in the fall. Thoughtful approach from a top college president, who also has public health expertise.

The point of her essay was that colleges must reopen because they need the tuition money, otherwise too many schools will go under. Then she set out a plan of testing, tracing and isolating. But the problem is that any school which needs fall tuition money to stay afloat isn't going to have the extra money and resources to enact such a plan.

Who would do the testing, tracing, and isolating? This isn’t something that can be left to the colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That guy has so many facts wrong, I had to stop reading. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE VIRUS IS GOING TO DO. It may start coming back in a couple of weeks with all the dumsh*t states reopening. Look at Germany - they started easing social distancing and now the number of cases is starting to tick up again.

No one - except Tony Fauci and Bill Gates - seems to be able to wrap their brain around how different and how serious this virus is. Sure, you can reopen colleges and dorms, but how many seriously ill and dead college students, professors, and food service workers will you accept? One, two, ten, twenty? And say you have an outbreak at the University of Mississippi - do they have enough medical capacity to handle 5000 sick students?

Well of course cases are going to start ticking up again once you ease social distancing, I’m sure the Germans knew that would happen. But they have decided to stop destroying their economy over it.

+1 the purpose of social distancing was never to restrict number of cases, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I almost think it's more of an optimistic outlook to think colleges won't open. If they do, it will be putting their financial interests over public health.

I really object to the Public health vs financial interests argument. The economy includes public health interests.

I agree. All the more reason colleges shouldn't go back.

It’s why they should.

If everything reopens to save the economy then we have a huge second wave, that just hurts the economy more.

I'm in a risk category, but even I want the economy to open back up because so many people will be homeless or not have food. You can't possibly think they will keep the economy closed continuously through fall.

If we had a national social welfare plan we would be coping better. Not perfectly, but better. Instead we have the states competing with each other and handling state by state issues that could have been handled centrally -- such as by a military "quartermaster" type of program for supplies, with a temporary income for those who need it. Instead we got "let the states get their own supplies" and $1200 one-time checks, which are not an income. And fat-walleted companies getting approved for funds intended to help small businesses. And so on. The result will be reopening followed by resurgence of the virus and far worse economic and health outcomes than we've already seen so far.

I'd love to say that science will save the day because I know doctors and researchers are working as fast as they can; however, I have no confidence that once there is a treatment drug and/or vaccine, the administration will know how to get it out to everyone, everywhere, quickly. They'll leave it to states and to insurance companies and people will miss out.

You don’t think the government spending three trillion dollars on this constitutes social welfare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life goes on. After an 8 week period during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu the flu died off. People moved on with their lives.

This is wildly, laughably wrong. The Spanish flu had 3 major waves in the US starting in 1918 and continuing until 1920. The second -- which came as restrictions were being relaxed -- killed most people, but people were still dying from the Spanish flu in 1920.

Killed "most people"? Yes, the second wave was more deadly, but estimates for the total of Spanish flu deaths in the US are 0.5 to 0.8 percent of the population.

DP. When an illness's mortality percentages include your own child, they become far less objective. I'm guessing you don't have a college age kid right now who is possibly returning to a campus that could become an outbreak hotspot. Which is pretty much any campus, as far as we know right now. Go on, talk about how "numbers, not fear" should always rule. Objectively true. But still not something that gets far with anyone who has a college student right now. I'm sure the families of the 60,000 people killed by Covid so far would find statistics about their loved ones' drop-in-the-bucket deaths less than calming.

College age kids aren’t dying from this, unlike the Spanish Flu which killed many young people as well as old.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused. How can colleges decide that they will be open in the fall? Isn’t it the state government that decides for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor. Our college is saying it plans to be open, with residential students, offering in-person classes as long as the governors/health advisors agree. They are also telling us profs that it will NOT be normal even if in person, that we will likely have to teach on-line and that we should have our classes ready for closure at any time. So, they are assuming all will be fine, but preparing for that to change. It's just reality.

You ready to put your life on the line to teach these students in person, professor?

The ignorance is astounding. This professor would not be putting her life on the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s enormously complicated. Liability fears must be the key factor.

Waivers from college students/families who attend and employees who want to work.
Plus it seems nearly impossible to determine source when virus is out there.

There might be a need for a wider (govt) approach to this risk, though, for all businesses.

[Anonymous]

Of course they have to reopen. The risk to the college age cohort is truly negligible (a statistical nothing despite all the fear mongering) and no one sane is going to pay tuition for distance college. The whole point is to be there - the “college experience” . . .