Carnival is advertising cruises for JUNE. That doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do. These entities — corporations and colleges alike — are mostly just worried about their bottom line. My kid will not be a blood sacrifice to the bloated higher education machine.

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.

What’s the alternative? You can’t shelter in place for forever. A vaccine is not guaranteed

Make decisions based on public health experts, not wishful thinking from corporations. For example, you probably shouldn't go on a cruise in August. Similarly, it seems reckless to send kids into dorms, which are basically dirtier cruise ships.

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?

An 80-yo who hasn't seen a patient in 20+ years and a college drop-out oligarch.

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.

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?

Lol the article lays out what the schools are thinking then talks about the medical side and how dangerous schools' plans are. It quotes Bill Gates even. I'm glad you admitted you didn't read the article or I'd be concerned for your reading comprehension skills lol.

The goal with the lockdowns is to avoid overwhelming hospitals (not to completely eradicate the virus, which is impossible). As long as some particular amount of capacity is available, then loosening restrictions is appropriate.

Loosening, of course, should lead to an increase in infection and some corresponding increase in hospitalization, up to some threshold lower than full capacity. The increase in infection is supposed to happen and is not an indication that lockdowns need to resume. Lockdowns only need to resume if hospitalization rates approach some level that is too close to capacity. Right now, states out west are in danger of losing rural hospitals that have no patients. Available capacity is >90%.

States need to determine acceptable hospitalization rates and what rates would make them want to resume lockdown with a sufficient cushion of capacity. Soon they should be able to sort through their data. They might see that the hospitalization rate for college age students is sufficiently low to allow reopening, under restrictions or whatnot.

Wuhan China who originated this virus was able to open up their 8 million person city after 8-10 weeks. Business is getting back to normal with some restrictions particularly on in bound travel to prevent reinfection.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What’s the alternative? You can’t shelter in place for forever. A vaccine is not guaranteed

Anonymous wrote:Time to open. Stop with the drama

+1

There is now a transcript up in the article in OP so it's easier to skim through FYI

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.