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

Multiple (5, I heard) Big 10 FB players are dealing with myocarditis. This was a nail in the coffin of their football season.

Do you thin non football players are immune to serious complications?

Are you aware 400+ CHILDREN are hospitalized in Florida with COVID-19?

formerly present wrote:

09090 wrote:

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

Uh huh. Which is why the current positivity rate in NYC and NYS is less than 1%.

Sure Jan

Well yeah once everyone already had it and 32,000 people die, the positivity rate is bound to go down eventually. Good job NY!

I just love it when you talk science AND ivy league… it's when you're most cocksure!

"That's going to make it harder for them to be successful their careers."

Public schools don't give anyone skills to be successful. I don't mean reading and basic arithmetic which can be learned anywhere, like home, within a year or less.

you would think an old white guy who is supposedly educated would be able to see past his privilege and imagine people exist in the world that aren't him but not Rojo

Bra-ket wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "widespread epidemic on campus?" Define that.

I've been away from this site for a few days and it's been delightful. I come back and there is this inane thread by an inane BroJo. Cornell, go for it. Kill a few instructors and campus workers. Maybe some rich kids will have lingering symptoms for months to come, maybe not. They'll generate income, the almighty purpose of all of our existences in this sick society.

At least it will impact rich elites in this case, a silver lining.

What happened at Liberty University when they kept their students on campus this spring?

What an absolutely shocking study. Adopting strict surveillance state protocols like South Korea (I.e. the assumptions of their model) will result in fewer deaths/cases than the free-for-all $h1t show like the US (I.e. what students would be doing/experiencing if they’re remote).... who’d of thunk it?

Rich kids socialize more than anyone and most have likely already had it. My boss’s kids all had it and some of the largest parties I have seen this summer were high school graduation parties where basically none of the kids were wearing masks. I would guess that the infection rate among college aged kids is probably double the general population (probably about 40%).

Bra-ket wrote:

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.

You're pretty bright for 19.

joedirt wrote:

Rich kids socialize more than anyone and most have likely already had it. My boss’s kids all had it and some of the largest parties I have seen this summer were high school graduation parties where basically none of the kids were wearing masks. I would guess that the infection rate among college aged kids is probably double the general population (probably about 40%).

They are also more likely to have insurance, have the ability to quarantine and be healthier

Neo-Marxist academic educators and staff are coming to the realization that proper an full mindwashing of young people requires human contact of some sort. Once fully programmed, they will thenceforth obey all ordained doctrine and take instructions from approved government and media outlets

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 foolish nonsense. If U.S. president and all 56 governors, 50 states plus six territories had all agreed to shut down March 1st for 90 to 120 days, U.S. would have dealt properly with covid-19 as did Austria. Foolish people are trying to reinvent the wheel. Europe got hit with covid-19 before U.S. We know how most European nations handled covid-19. It seems as if those in U.S. want to rebel against what we know has worked in Europe. Now we know who starts these: covid-19 is a hoax threads. Austria shut down, made everyone wear masks and fined significantly those who rebelled.

Q brainwashed a bunch of boomers like you and he’s is pretend

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.

How does this work if it's taking up to 2 weeks for test results in the US?

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.

Yeah I got that. They think they can make campus safer than home. That seems possible. I was responding to a previous comment that seemed to say being in the dorms or in collegetown was less safe than in-person class -- which didn't make sense to me.

At this point I've really given up hope on the US, it's hard for me to even write about it.

Repeater wrote:

How does this work if it's taking up to 2 weeks for test results in the US?

They're running their own testing lab out of the Cornell veterinary school facilities. The modeling apparently uses a 1 day turn around for tests.

David S wrote:

They think they can make campus safer than home. That seems possible. I was responding to a previous comment that seemed to say being in the dorms or in college town was less safe than in-person class -- which didn't make sense to me.

The comparison they make is "being in dorms or college town with less than universal screening and quarantine protocols" vs "being in dorms, college town, and classes with universal screening, contact tracing, and isolation". In the limit being in contact with one person who is contagious is riskier than being in contact with any number of persons who aren't.

The working reports and models are all available from the project homepage here:

herd immunity wrote:

Well yeah once everyone already had it and 32,000 people die, the positivity rate is bound to go down eventually. Good job NY!

You have zero evidence to support this. None.