Cornell researchers say virtual semester will cause 4 x MORE covid hospitalizations than in-person semester

rojo wrote:

In all of this talk about universities and Covid, I came across a fascinating article from my old employer Cornell.

I can't believe this article hasn't gotten more play nationally. Now it's from early July. Anyone know if Cornell has amended their thoughts since then?

By coincidence I was talking with a Cornell admin about this just today.

Apparently they spent a lot of time looking at the *reality* of their situation: A large number of their students who live off-campus said that they were going to return to Ithaca this fall regardless of whether classes were online or live. And the CUadministration felt that their students were better off attending live classes--and getting mandatory tests every couple/few days--than holing up in Collegetown and getting no tests.

Meanwhile: As noted on another thread Ivy fall sports are cancelled. I find it very very difficult to believe that meaningful "winter" seasons can be started in Jan. or Feb. Maybe aim for the spring sports.

Lockdowns are the worst thing we could have done. Young adults are at almost no risk of serious illness from coronavirus but these lockdowns have cause a massive spike in depression, drug use, drug overdose, suicide, domestic abuse, loss of jobs, loss of homes, starvation, and more.

And kids were already getting a crappy education, now it's much worse online. That's going to make it harder for them to be successful their careers. Also child abuse is rising and going unreported because teachers are the ones that identify it and call the authorities. Kids are also depressed and suicidal. The ones that aren't starving are getting fatter because they never leave the house.

The "cure" at this point is way worse than the disease for 98% of people.

Ithacan wrote:

By coincidence I was talking with a Cornell admin about this just today.

Apparently they spent a lot of time looking at the *reality* of their situation: A large number of their students who live off-campus said that they were going to return to Ithaca this fall regardless of whether classes were online or live. And the CUadministration felt that their students were better off attending live classes--and getting mandatory tests every couple/few days--than holing up in Collegetown and getting no tests.

How could being around more people be better than not being around them?

David S wrote:

How could being around more people be better than not being around them?

The logic is simple - kids are going to socialize regardless so you’d rather have them officially in school so you can be testing them and stop asunotomatic spread . It seems like they would apply to any place where lots of kids live off campus.

The outbreak of COVID in upstate NY was minimal. Ithaca has less than 300 positive cases since the beginning of the outbreak. It may be one of the safest communities in the US for coronavirus right now.

Cornell is an elite school with mostly rich kids attending. Most affluent families have been able to protect themselves from the virus by working at home and going to private vacation homes for summer vacation. The student population will probably have a very low positive rate showing up for the first day of school.

As long as everyone is tested coming in and get tested regularly during the school year, it is a very low risk environment if students adhere to social distancing measures. If there are lots of crowded parties and students are traveling a lot on weekends and breaks, things could very quickly get out of control.

This could not be replicated at a big state school or even a private school in a big city where there is a significant outbreak still underway. The odds would be stacked against the school and it would just be a matter of time before a big outbreak took place. Mississippi's outbreak is due in part to superspreader events at Ole Miss frat parties over the summer.

This goes against the approved narrative and thus not allowed

David S wrote:

Ithacan wrote:

By coincidence I was talking with a Cornell admin about this just today.

Apparently they spent a lot of time looking at the *reality* of their situation: A large number of their students who live off-campus said that they were going to return to Ithaca this fall regardless of whether classes were online or live. And the CUadministration felt that their students were better off attending live classes--and getting mandatory tests every couple/few days--than holing up in Collegetown and getting no tests.

How could being around more people be better than not being around them?

If you look at the parameters for their study the conclusion really is that very aggressive testing, contact tracing, and enforced quarantines of positive cases results in significantly fewer cases than letting a large subgroup of college kids run wild. This should surprise no one.

Their plan is to test every student and faculty member nominally every five days. It's pretty much the South Korea model of containing virus spread but sustained over months. It will be interesting to see how well they pull it off.

rojo wrote:

David S wrote:

How could being around more people be better than not being around them?

The logic is simple - kids are going to socialize regardless so you’d rather have them officially in school so you can be testing them and stop asunotomatic spread . It seems like they would apply to any place where lots of kids live off campus.

This is assuming the students will comply with the testing requirement. Good luck with all the special snowflakes who believe the rules are for other people.

Why can’t you believe it Rojo? It doesn’t fit the leftist narrative, so of course they’ll bury it. You know, those woke people who constantly tell us they believe in “science”.

I've read through the modeling (I'm a student at Cornell) and what troubles me is that they essentially pick the mean values of some parameters and see how a simple infection model plays out. They make assumptions that are nonsensical - since social distancing and masks will be enforced in class rooms no additional contacts are accounted for by going to in person classes and they assume 100% compliance with testing (though an amendment looked at 80 and 60% compliance).

My one question is - what is the probability of a widespread epidemic on campus this fall? This should be one of the most pressing questions but it isn't addressed at all.

I'm not certain that the strategy will fail - Japan and SK used similar measures at the onset of the pandemic but I am highly skeptical of their arrival at these conclusions.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

This is assuming the students will comply with the testing requirement. Good luck with all the special snowflakes who believe the rules are for other people.

Read the article. CU has specific ways laid out to enforce compliance.

And to those who are saying that this is not the approved approach: What's "approved" is to use the best science and data available and to make decisions accordingly. New York has different re-opening protocols/schedules in different areas of the state precisely because different approaches are appropriate in different environments.

With an urban school that can't afford (or claims not to be able to afford) testing and which is located in a city where there's a great deal of community spread, re-opening means a vast increase in positives among students, faculty, and staff. Just one kid coughing for a couple days of classes or parties might lead to hundreds of infections.

There will be large outbreaks on multiple college campuses.

Opening college for in person class is taking a gun, pointing it at your foot, and pulling the trigger.

My kid goes to an major state U/Power5 school. Its going to be a complete clusterffck. Dorms open, "hybrid" schedules. Way too much "in person".

The sensible approach for colleges is ("was" at this point) to make most classes online. A few hybrid/in person. Grad students on campus. Research ops full speed. Dorms cut 50% (or down to one/room). Any campus that does this might get by with minimal damage.

Not doing at least that...good luck.

Why? Everyone will get it within the next year. Do you understand that it us not going away? You will get it and your kid will get it and granny will get it. You can hide for a month but it will do no good. Stop being a denier.

Credibility101 wrote:

There will be large outbreaks on multiple college campuses.

Opening college for in person class is taking a gun, pointing it at your foot, and pulling the trigger.

My kid goes to an major state U/Power5 school. Its going to be a complete clusterffck. Dorms open, "hybrid" schedules. Way too much "in person".

The sensible approach for colleges is ("was" at this point) to make most classes online. A few hybrid/in person. Grad students on campus. Research ops full speed. Dorms cut 50% (or down to one/room). Any campus that does this might get by with minimal damage.

Not doing at least that...good luck.

This is just dumb, kids have minimal risk, the best strategy is to let it rage on campus for a month and keep the kids on campus and their families protected. This should have been done last spring as well if anyone had any sense. Instead college aged kids have been going parties and bars and passing the disease onto there parents instead of the reletive safety of just keeping it on campus. Now for Professors and support staff, they need to treat the college like a its hospital.

The article says that there are a couple of assumptions in the study.

First, that students will go to Ithaca even if they are taking classes virtually.

Second, the study assumes that Cornell will be testing students regularly.

These might be reasonable assumptions for Cornell, but it's hard to be sure. If classes are open virtually then will dorms be open? If not, students might not come back. International students may not be able to return for virtual classes. Is Cornell actually going to be testing students regularly (what's regularly? Weekly?).

Would this study be applicable to other universities?

Ithacan wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

This is assuming the students will comply with the testing requirement. Good luck with all the special snowflakes who believe the rules are for other people.

Read the article. CU has specific ways laid out to enforce compliance.

And to those who are saying that this is not the approved approach: What's "approved" is to use the best science and data available and to make decisions accordingly. New York has different re-opening protocols/schedules in different areas of the state precisely because different approaches are appropriate in different environments.

Please don't use NY state as a reference. They clearly dropped the ball and kicked it way down the road.

rojo wrote:

and stop asunotomatic spread .

Classic.

rojo wrote:

David S wrote:

How could being around more people be better than not being around them?

The logic is simple - kids are going to socialize regardless so you’d rather have them officially in school so you can be testing them and stop asunotomatic spread . It seems like they would apply to any place where lots of kids live off campus.

sad that we just have to assume herd stupidity

"Well people are going to be stupid anyway...so might as well let them be stupid all together at once!"

I feel there is a huge difference between meeting friends outside in groups of 4 or 5 once or twice a week vs cramming 30-300 strangers who would never otherwise meet in one room for a couple hours every single day. I mean...on the surface, from a simple common-sense perspective... it seems extraordinarily stupid.

I wonder how much of this is tied to lost revenue for schools ....lotta empty dorm rooms and meal plans they aren't selling if it's all virtual.

Usually when someone proposes something monumentally stupid that flies in the face of common sense....there's an economic motivation.

It's not "Oh, this is the idea is better".... it's "Oh...well maybe this idea won't be a disaster and could bail us out financially if it actually works"

The kind of move that companies facing bankruptcy make.