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

[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?

Stop with the hysteria... college students won't die, just their parents when they infect them.

NP. Do you have a child who is a college student?

Are you aware that death isn't the only outcome and that many people who survive are left with permanent, serious damage to hearts, kidneys, lungs? Some left with trauma from being on ventilators?

I guess that's all cool, right, because college students "won't die." If it's your own kid with lifelong organ damage you can at least still say you were right--your kid's not dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Stop with the hysteria... college students won't die, just their parents when they infect them.

NP. Do you have a child who is a college student?

Are you aware that death isn't the only outcome and that many people who survive are left with permanent, serious damage to hearts, kidneys, lungs? Some left with trauma from being on ventilators?

I guess that's all cool, right, because college students "won't die." If it's your own kid with lifelong organ damage you can at least still say you were right--your kid's not dead.

Not OP but I think they were being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

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.

Bingo!!! You’d think this would be common sense but it clearly is not

But ignoring public health interests will also have massive economic consequences. It's not either/or. It's what will the impact be from a wide range of not-very-good choices with very imperfect information that is continually in flux. Look at the models, accept uncertainty; don't assume there is an easy answer and adapt as the data changes. Even economists say if there's a second wave that's worse due to premature relaxing of social distancing the economic consequences will be far more severe than keeping it up until the models are more stable. There's no such thing as "common sense" that adequately makes sense of a complex novel pandemic in a globalized context. That's just wishful thinking.

Don't create strawmen by assuming that public health interests are being ignored by those who advocate opening up. Furthermore, models become more accurate as more data are generated. Don't ignore the new data and allow it to guide policy. Don't assume the "easy answer" is being advocated by those wishing to open up.

And give me a cite to economists stating that a second wave being worse should lead to worse outcomes due to relaxation of social distancing, particularly when the relaxation of social distancing is undefined. That analysis requires a lot of medical expertise for which economists would have little expertise. I think you are making it up.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't open up! I was just saying that these things are all intertwined and NOT answered by common sense and that the data is imperfect and we need to just let the experts make the choices--epidemiologists first economists second, politicians, individual business owners and individuals with "common sense" are way down at the end of the line in who has anything intelligent to say about this. Colleges are going to follow the recommendations best they can--even if they are posturing now to avoid recruiting death spirals. THey are "planning" to be open, they are "hoping" to be open, they are "expecting" to be open, but they will follow whatever their state guidelines recommend. And hopefully the state guidelines will recommend something that is well-informed by a full range of perspectives from epidemiologists to economists.

As for the economist, I was just saying that any economist also acknowledges that IF a second wave was worse that COULD be more disastrous for the economy than continuing to shelter in place. This is just basic acknowledging the uncertainty of the models. They can see more clearly the economic impacts of the current policy of shelter-in-place is since it's already happening. It's much harder to predict how severe a second wave would be--and if it were on the upper end of severity it would be worse on the economy since we would shut down again AND overwhelm our hospital capacity. The more uncertainty, the wider the range of potential outcomes. Could also have better outcomes. My point was to just dismiss that there was facile "common sense" on either side--we should stay close forever or we should open up. It's a tough problem with no easy answers.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges desperately want to re-open. Few can afford the financial hit if classes are online in fall: they will lose tuitions.

If states/localities allow them to open, they will open. They will not be more cautious than governments.

That said, they may well open with changed rules (renting extra space so kids aren't crowded in dorms, alternating live class attendance with Zoom days to reduce classroom crowding, making kids reserve times in cafeterias, etc.)

- Working in higher ed

"Renting extra space so kids aren't crowded in dorms"? Where are you "in higher ed?" My DC's college is in a fairly large city but the area all around it has ZERO properties that would be suitable for rental by the college for housing. The college guarantees campus housing all four years in part because there is just no rental housing anywhere near the campus. Not even a bus ride away. And DC's friends at large universities already have a terrible time finding off-campus housing even in normal times.

Classes taught in lecture halls can be spaced out. SOME classes in smaller rooms can be relocated or done online. But many classes cannot. Are education majors who were supposed to do student teaching assignments just not supposed to go out into schools? Science majors not do labs unless there is enough lab space and equipment that no one ever shares a lab bench or touches the same equipment? Are music students supposed to play in orchestras spread out with several chairs between each musician? (Impossible; that would require stages of vast size--and do we tell players of brass and wind instruments they shouldn't blow into their instruments any more--?) Are theater students supposed to do only monologues, I guess? The crowd on this site will scoff at the last two examples but there are students of many subjects that can't truly distance.

Shifts for dining hall use sounds good but would have to be coordinated with the entire class schedule and who can do that? And will dining hall staff close between shifts to clean the salad bar utensils, the drink dispenser buttons and spigots, the door handles...? It's a nice idea but how workable is it?

I've said it before here--College campuses, if students return this fall, are going to be like retirement homes have been this spring. Hotbeds of new infections. Of course some supposed adults on this thread claim college age adults "won't get sick" from Covid, so bringing thousands of students together into close quarters is fine; let it rip. I'm sure it'll be fine until the first campus outbreak and the first gravely sick student who has no pre-existing conditions...

I want our DC back on campus too. DC loves the school and so do we. But unless a lot changes between now and August, a mass return to any campuses is going to be retirement homes part two, even with good intentions and extra cleaning. I'm not saying, wait for a vaccine. I just don't know why people dont see that campuses are going to have spreading infections.

[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.

This is a very good point that I hadn't thought of before.

I truly just think many colleges are thinking "we'll go under if we keep campus closed this semester, so we have to find a way to bring kids back." It's coming from a financial place, not a public health place. And I think it's going to end in disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges desperately want to re-open. Few can afford the financial hit if classes are online in fall: they will lose tuitions.

If states/localities allow them to open, they will open. They will not be more cautious than governments.

That said, they may well open with changed rules (renting extra space so kids aren't crowded in dorms, alternating live class attendance with Zoom days to reduce classroom crowding, making kids reserve times in cafeterias, etc.)

- Working in higher ed

"Renting extra space so kids aren't crowded in dorms"? Where are you "in higher ed?" My DC's college is in a fairly large city but the area all around it has ZERO properties that would be suitable for rental by the college for housing. The college guarantees campus housing all four years in part because there is just no rental housing anywhere near the campus. Not even a bus ride away. And DC's friends at large universities already have a terrible time finding off-campus housing even in normal times.

Classes taught in lecture halls can be spaced out. SOME classes in smaller rooms can be relocated or done online. But many classes cannot. Are education majors who were supposed to do student teaching assignments just not supposed to go out into schools? Science majors not do labs unless there is enough lab space and equipment that no one ever shares a lab bench or touches the same equipment? Are music students supposed to play in orchestras spread out with several chairs between each musician? (Impossible; that would require stages of vast size--and do we tell players of brass and wind instruments they shouldn't blow into their instruments any more--?) Are theater students supposed to do only monologues, I guess? The crowd on this site will scoff at the last two examples but there are students of many subjects that can't truly distance.

Shifts for dining hall use sounds good but would have to be coordinated with the entire class schedule and who can do that? And will dining hall staff close between shifts to clean the salad bar utensils, the drink dispenser buttons and spigots, the door handles...? It's a nice idea but how workable is it?

I've said it before here--College campuses, if students return this fall, are going to be like retirement homes have been this spring. Hotbeds of new infections. Of course some supposed adults on this thread claim college age adults "won't get sick" from Covid, so bringing thousands of students together into close quarters is fine; let it rip. I'm sure it'll be fine until the first campus outbreak and the first gravely sick student who has no pre-existing conditions...

I want our DC back on campus too. DC loves the school and so do we. But unless a lot changes between now and August, a mass return to any campuses is going to be retirement homes part two, even with good intentions and extra cleaning. I'm not saying, wait for a vaccine. I just don't know why people dont see that campuses are going to have spreading infections.

+1

[Anonymous]

Look what happened on the Teddy Roosevelt: one death and less than 10 hospitalizations. There is a big difference between nursing homes and colleges. In New Jersey, over one half of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. I know math is hard, but get some perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look what happened on the Teddy Roosevelt: one death and less than 10 hospitalizations. There is a big difference between nursing homes and colleges. In New Jersey, over one half of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. I know math is hard, but get some perspective.

Of course the population in nursing homes is different from that in colleges.

But in retirement and nursing homes at least residents could be kept inside their rooms and brought food. Do you think that would work on college campuses? So we should send students to campus and if there's an outbreak, confine them all to their dorm rooms and they study online there? Got it.

On the Roosevelt the population was, one figures, relatively fitter than the average population because, military. Do you think the vastly wide range of college students is going to be at that level of fitness? Should college students with underlying conditions stay home, then?

I know it's hard to see how campuses are not like a naval ship but try to get some perspective.

Oh, and good to know that the math for the closed environment that is the Roosevelt is directly comparable to the as yet unknown math for every college campus. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look what happened on the Teddy Roosevelt: one death and less than 10 hospitalizations. There is a big difference between nursing homes and colleges. In New Jersey, over one half of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. I know math is hard, but get some perspective.

On the Teddy Roosevelt soldiers were stacked 18" apart on bunks running up the wall.

[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?

You seem incredibly naive and angry. Maybe listen again slowly, it is valuable information that was disclaimed 100x over as "no one knows for certain what will happen -- this is their plan though" etc etc,

[Anonymous]

Those that don't want their kids in the 4 year colleges can just withdraw their children from the 4 year colleges and have them live at home and send them to the commuter schools.

At some point life goes on.

[Anonymous]

Maybe have your kid forgo college and send them out on work to apprentice in the trades.

Your kid will be exposed to fewer people and learning life skills.

[Anonymous]

It's a money thing.

Brown's President spoke this week about the SERIOUS financial difficulty facing schools this Fall.

https://www.wpri.com/news/education/colleges-could-permanently-close-if-they-dont-reopen-this-fall-brown-u-president-warns/

“Even before the coronavirus pandemic there were predictions that large numbers of universities and colleges would have to close for financial reasons in the coming decade,” Paxson said in a Zoom interview Sunday evening. “A lot of them were teetering on the brink financially, and this is the kind of thing that if a university or a small college has to go an entire semester without tuition, room and board, I don’t see how they make it.”



I'm not sure Brown is hurting but there are certainly some smaller schools that might find themselves in trouble with Fall's revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what happened on the Teddy Roosevelt: one death and less than 10 hospitalizations. There is a big difference between nursing homes and colleges. In New Jersey, over one half of the deaths occurred in nursing homes. I know math is hard, but get some perspective.

Of course the population in nursing homes is different from that in colleges.

But in retirement and nursing homes at least residents could be kept inside their rooms and brought food. Do you think that would work on college campuses? So we should send students to campus and if there's an outbreak, confine them all to their dorm rooms and they study online there? Got it.

On the Roosevelt the population was, one figures, relatively fitter than the average population because, military. Do you think the vastly wide range of college students is going to be at that level of fitness? Should college students with underlying conditions stay home, then?

I know it's hard to see how campuses are not like a naval ship but try to get some perspective.

Oh, and good to know that the math for the closed environment that is the Roosevelt is directly comparable to the as yet unknown math for every college campus. Thanks!

The Roosevelt is an excellent comparison, because it is the worse case scenario for a college. People are spaced closer, so an infection will be more widespread.
It's true the military is fitter than the average college student. You ask whether the students with underlying conditions should stay home. The answer is yes. Life sucks, but they are part of the vulnerable population.
Sure, practice whatever low-cost social distancing you can do, but don't expect that you can actually stop the spread of the virus forever. It won't happen.