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
https://forward.ny.gov/percentage-positive-results-county-dashboard.
32K died in NY State. 23K of those were in NYC. They hit their peak deaths early.
There are probably more "science minded" students at a research university like Cornell (esp in the hard sciences). Could improve their chances slightly. People understand and believe in the science behind mask wearing, social distancing and what "borne by air" actually means in terms of relative transmission risks.
Also wealth and socio-economic status is definitely a factor with COVID19 cases (i.e.people with less money generally suffer greater...part of that of course is related to housing density/location and access to health care and money for quality food/diet and leisure time for exercise etc).
So you have a lot of wealthy kids coming in from all around the world and all US states coming back to Ithaca. Collegetown (and even the dorms) are probably a lot different from when I was there 10 years ago, but another big consideration is Greek life/social life:
About 25%-30% of the students are in frats/sororities (or at least were when I was there) and those frat parties can get pretty rowdy and big....perfect for a "super spreader" type of event.
I don't see why the online classes are such a big deal (barring labs)..at least for the first few months in the Fall. I took online classes there 10 years ago and skipped a lot of "in person/in class" lectures anyway!
BuffaloBob wrote:
What happened at Liberty University when they kept their students on campus this spring?
Well Liberty got hit with a lawsuit.
https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/students-sue-liberty-university-over-covid-19-responseLooks like a dozen students from this March report
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nearly-a-dozen-liberty-university-students-sick-with-coronavirus-symptoms-after-falwell-reopened-campusLuv2Run wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
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.
What is meant by regular testing? And who pays for that?
There are quick result tests that use saliva or urine and give you results in 15 min without needing a lab or a nurse. You could give every student enough of these to be able to self test a couple of times a week. Nasal swab tests should be done as much as possible, but in conjunction with quick tests could be done every other week. That would effectively catch positives in time to isolate and stop outbreaks. S. Korea largely missed the outbreak thanks to a very early and aggressive testing/tracing/isolation program. It really can be done and be done effectively.
Cornell is one of the last places on earth to be concerned about the costs of testing. Most students come from rich families and can afford it. The few who cannot can easily be covered through funds from the university. Cornell can get good pricing by purchasing quick tests in bulk and getting exclusive deals with labs for swab tests.
VA Runna wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
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.
Existing cases has nothing to do with this. All it takes is one person in a community. Northern states were hit hard in the beginning, now the cases are down. Southern states were down in the beginning, now they're going up. Remember when Gov Desantis was praising himself for not shutting down the state during spring break and now look at him, he looks like an idiot. Same with Gov Kemp in Georgia. If you don't keep a consistent steady state of social distance guidelines / mask requirements, cases either fluctuate up and down or worse, they keep going up.
My point is that you can consider this option in a place like Ithaca where the outbreak is almost nonexistent and it is a very small town that is pretty isolated from major metro areas. The odds of having virus transmission start outside of the university would be extremely low in Ithaca. If you are then hyper vigilant on testing/isolation and the students practice reasonable social distancing measures outside of class (no big parties, limit travel outside of Ithaca, etc.), you have a very controllable situation. Proactive testing can make a huge difference. FL and GA just sat back and let the positive cases pile up. If the administration at Cornell follows the practices of places like S. Korea, there is no reason to expect outbreaks to get out of control.
Of course, this could all go wrong very quickly. As an above post note, rich kids are a holes and could completely screw this up by taking a big spring break trip to Cancun and come back loaded with the virus or by going into NY over the weekend and going to a rave.
talent go wrote:
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.
This is a defeatist attitude and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if people believe it to be true. The reality is we could essentially eradicate the virus in a few weeks if we actually locked down and stopped the transmission of the virus. We've failed thus far because we've refused to go all-in, but it becomes fairly simple when everything comes to a halt and we actually prioritise properly. We could have been back to normal lives with a recovering economy in May but the political will to see the bigger picture hasn't been there.
i get it, rojo. you're one of those republicans who want to reopen the country and don't give a damn about people's lives. you don't have to spam your pro-covid or anti-vaporfly threads anymore. we get it.
CGBatch wrote:
talent go wrote:
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.
This is a defeatist attitude and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if people believe it to be true. The reality is we could essentially eradicate the virus in a few weeks if we actually locked down and stopped the transmission of the virus. We've failed thus far because we've refused to go all-in, but it becomes fairly simple when everything comes to a halt and we actually prioritise properly. We could have been back to normal lives with a recovering economy in May but the political will to see the bigger picture hasn't been there.
There are several issues with your stance. First off a 3 weeks shutdown is not enough to stop the virus. You need about 6 weeks of severe lockdown. Even then it does not completely stop is no country, even ones on an island Like New Zealand have stopped.
There are certain aspects that cannot be shutdown. You have to keep food and water on peoples tables and people's toilets flushing or there will be a public health crisis far beyond the virus. Plus medical professionals still need to go out to treat sick people. So the idea that the virus will be controlled by a 3 week shutdown is a total fantasy since there are too many people that must keep going without society descending into chaos and those individuals will still pass the virus around themselves and back to their families and throughout multi-family housing complexes with connect HVAC.
The other key issue is the total failure to recognize the economic and health costs of shutdowns or even these phased business closures. It is not a zero-cost situation. There are always viruses and other risks and the threat needs to rise to a certain level in order for the cost of the viral impact to warrant a shutdown. COVID is not even close to the level where the damage done by the virus warrants shutdown. The average loss of life expectancy if you get Covid is 1-2weeks, not even close to worth this extended shutdown(not to mention our actions have not signidficantly reduced this toll). Even a countries with much lower spread face lasting economic repercussions. They count on visitors from other countries for trade, tourism, ect. The rest of us can reach herd immunity but South Korea cannot accept visitors from the outside until there is an effective vaccine or all their work to control the virus was for naught. This will cause lasting damage. The best path any country took is Sweden's. They have been able to return to normal life without concern with minimal shutdowns and no more deaths per capita than the US will have a month or two from now.
It is not a defeatist attitude to say we should not be making damaging efforts to stop COVID. It is an honest assessment of how bad the virus measured up with the damages of measures to take to counteract it. More of our leaders needed to have the courage to actually look at the facts and not give in to people's hysteric instincts.
Ithaca is in Tompkins County, and there have been 234 cases to date and 0 deaths in the county.
DC Runner 9 wrote:
What about this? Huh???
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/12/hundreds-colleges-walk-back-fall-reopening-plans-and-opt-online-only-instruction
And what about this????!!!!
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/keep-campus-closed-what-higher-ed-too-afraid-sayDC Runner 9 wrote:
DC Runner 9 wrote:
What about this? Huh???
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/12/hundreds-colleges-walk-back-fall-reopening-plans-and-opt-online-only-instructionAnd what about this????!!!!
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/keep-campus-closed-what-higher-ed-too-afraid-say
Yikes!
How much mention will this story get in this week's podcast?
Penn was one of the schools that pushed for a hybrid model initially, meaning in our case a fraction (maybe half) of students back on campus, but classes mostly online. Seemed sensible to me. For various reasons, not all students can return (international travel, visa issues, risk factors etc), so you need to offer classes online anyways. I'd have preferred more in person classes that are recorded for online access, but logistics are an issue (you need a lot of big lecture rooms to allow for some distancing).
Now the Admins reversed course and almost no students are allowed on campus. Pretty sad. Believe it or not, testing bottlenecks are a major issue. It can't be about money, we have enough. I know from multiple people who recently got tested here that results were only available more than two weeks later. It just boggles the mind. I don't know who is to blame, but we can all agree that it is unacceptable that five months into the pandemic testing is still not working the way it should, that's just outrageous.
Wigins, I thought you knew at least some basic science? People (even without showing active symptoms of being sick/infected) undoubtably can spread COVID19.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235 Lots more evidence to support this.
Bad Wigins wrote:
rojo wrote:
stop asymptomatic spread .
What asymptomatic spread?
Bad Wigins wrote:
rojo wrote:
stop asymptomatic spread .
What asymptomatic spread?
It’s spelled asunotomatic
Bad Wigins wrote:
rojo wrote:
stop asymptomatic spread .
What asymptomatic spread?
THIS asymptomatic spread!
https://imgur.com/a/W9ZZ7rVPrimo Numero Uno wrote:
CGBatch wrote:
This is a defeatist attitude and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if people believe it to be true. The reality is we could essentially eradicate the virus in a few weeks if we actually locked down and stopped the transmission of the virus. We've failed thus far because we've refused to go all-in, but it becomes fairly simple when everything comes to a halt and we actually prioritise properly. We could have been back to normal lives with a recovering economy in May but the political will to see the bigger picture hasn't been there.
There are several issues with your stance. First off a 3 weeks shutdown is not enough to stop the virus. You need about 6 weeks of severe lockdown. Even then it does not completely stop is no country, even ones on an island Like New Zealand have stopped.
There are certain aspects that cannot be shutdown. You have to keep food and water on peoples tables and people's toilets flushing or there will be a public health crisis far beyond the virus. Plus medical professionals still need to go out to treat sick people. So the idea that the virus will be controlled by a 3 week shutdown is a total fantasy since there are too many people that must keep going without society descending into chaos and those individuals will still pass the virus around themselves and back to their families and throughout multi-family housing complexes with connect HVAC.
The other key issue is the total failure to recognize the economic and health costs of shutdowns or even these phased business closures. It is not a zero-cost situation. There are always viruses and other risks and the threat needs to rise to a certain level in order for the cost of the viral impact to warrant a shutdown. COVID is not even close to the level where the damage done by the virus warrants shutdown. The average loss of life expectancy if you get Covid is 1-2weeks, not even close to worth this extended shutdown(not to mention our actions have not signidficantly reduced this toll). Even a countries with much lower spread face lasting economic repercussions. They count on visitors from other countries for trade, tourism, ect. The rest of us can reach herd immunity but South Korea cannot accept visitors from the outside until there is an effective vaccine or all their work to control the virus was for naught. This will cause lasting damage. The best path any country took is Sweden's. They have been able to return to normal life without concern with minimal shutdowns and no more deaths per capita than the US will have a month or two from now.
It is not a defeatist attitude to say we should not be making damaging efforts to stop COVID. It is an honest assessment of how bad the virus measured up with the damages of measures to take to counteract it. More of our leaders needed to have the courage to actually look at the facts and not give in to people's hysteric instincts.
A solid well thought out post.
NJ fan wrote:
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.
You are both stupid and selfish.
The point of lockdowns is not - and never has been - for the benefit of young and/or healthy people. The intent was/is to slow the infection rate across all demographics to protect the more vulnerable parts of the population so that the burden on the healthcare system could be suppressed to a more manageable level.
Stupid and selfish people have the blood of the elderly and vulnerable on their hands. Because of their defiance, people have died. You might even be personally responsible for inadvertently passing it on to someone who passed it on to a vulnerable person who is now dead because of your selfishness.
This is why America - even when adjusting for differences in testing and coronary accounting practices - has been the worst hit in the developed world.
Too many stupid and selfish people in America.
U Penn faculty wrote:
Penn was one of the schools that pushed for a hybrid model initially, meaning in our case a fraction (maybe half) of students back on campus, but classes mostly online. Seemed sensible to me. For various reasons, not all students can return (international travel, visa issues, risk factors etc), so you need to offer classes online anyways. I'd have preferred more in person classes that are recorded for online access, but logistics are an issue (you need a lot of big lecture rooms to allow for some distancing).
Now the Admins reversed course and almost no students are allowed on campus. Pretty sad. Believe it or not, testing bottlenecks are a major issue. It can't be about money, we have enough. I know from multiple people who recently got tested here that results were only available more than two weeks later. It just boggles the mind. I don't know who is to blame, but we can all agree that it is unacceptable that five months into the pandemic testing is still not working the way it should, that's just outrageous.
I can see Penn, located in a major urban location, making a different decision than Cornell, located in a small town (I looked up the population and Ithaca is really small!--31K).