Just saw this. First indication I have seen of what many are anticipating.....
Attachments
Images (1)
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yep a few weeks ago I really thought the fall and stuff would be ok. Now I actually think we will have a full lockdown of schools again and no sports. Just based of how society has gone into full panic of thinking we can't do literally anything until a vaccine arrives, even if that takes a long time. I'm mentally and financially trying to prepare my family for another 365 days of no school (homeschool) and major recession/depression financially coming. I could see this being a precursor to many colleges closing and a massive revamping of education as we know it.
Could be a massive revamping of college athletics as well. Potentially.....at least at some schools.
Another school, this one ACC, Louisville. Athletic dept placed 46 on a 60 day furlough and cut 40 positions.
Kudos to Purdue for coming out strong. President statement committing to fall semester with some measures in place. Cited how low risk it is for young people. I suspect they may be shamed to reversing this decision though or if opposition mounts to a point more schools decide to close.
It could be a massive revamping of how people live their lives. Many may not be as well off as they once were. Some will be struggling to get off the deck.
The age of a person will depend on how they come back. Imagine thinking of retiring in a few years and you get wiped out.
@James G posted:Kudos to Purdue for coming out strong. President statement committing to fall semester with some measures in place. Cited how low risk it is for young people. I suspect they may be shamed to reversing this decision though or if opposition mounts to a point more schools decide to close.
Daniels (Purdue President) is a remarkable leader and figured out how to freeze tuition at Purdue for the last 8 years (who else can say that?) by eliminating as much administrative waste and fat as possible, and by increasing enrollment. And, he got the university to buy an on-line college a few years ago, ahead of the curve...NKA Purdue Global.
He is a former governor of Indiana but stepped out of public office to spare his family the concomitant indignities. Would probably make a great national leader.
Additionally, Purdue, that never wins anything, has one of a handful of truly sovereign athletic departments in the country.
@James G posted:Kudos to Purdue for coming out strong. President statement committing to fall semester with some measures in place. Cited how low risk it is for young people. I suspect they may be shamed to reversing this decision though or if opposition mounts to a point more schools decide to close.
I read the article. It seems like it could be a sensible approach. We shall see.
Missouri has also said they will have on campus instruction for fall. The article I read said it would be hard to justify a return to class and not have sports in some fashion.
@James G posted:Kudos to Purdue for coming out strong. President statement committing to fall semester with some measures in place. Cited how low risk it is for young people. I suspect they may be shamed to reversing this decision though or if opposition mounts to a point more schools decide to close.
Quoting from the Purdue President's message:
At least 80% of our population is made up of young people, say, 35 and under. All data to date tell us that the COVID-19 virus, while it transmits rapidly in this age group, poses close to zero lethal threat to them.
CFR for age 20-44 is 0.1-0.2%, hospitalization rate is 14.3-20.8%. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm
Wikipedia has Purdue undergrads at 32,600, total students 43,400, both numbers a couple years old.
Half that number infected is 22-44 dead, and 3100-4500 hospitalized. Even 10% infected is 2-4 dead and 300-450 hospitalized. These numbers get way worse when you consider the possibility of spreading the virus to more vulnerable populations (like most of the adults working at Purdue).
In a world where robust testing and contact tracing is available (and August seems optimistic for that), it might be possible to manage college classroom contact, but I can't imagine how you manage dorms (look at how the meat packing plants, or cruise ships, or USS Roosevelt work for close living quarters/contact).
Without a treatment or vaccine, regular crowded environments are just not going to be manageable without substantial changes to the normal way of doing things. Maybe if we could really get a handle on things in the wild before the fall, but our current trajectories of dealing with things don't really look like it's going to go that way.
@jacjacatk agree I don't think there will be any physical school until fall 2021
I'm just a little confused; you cite a CDC report through March 16, but this one from from March 30 has a hospitalization rate of people age 19-25 as 2.5%:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm
If I understand your numbers, that might mean that if half the students were infected, 540 students hospitalized. I didn't see a CFR, but I assume it's also lower. Plus, all sorts of studies are now showing that far more people have been infected than have been tested, which would push those rates further down. I assume that Purdue and others are making determinations based on there being more and more data of that sort.
The question will be, how many people would not send their kids back to residential college under those conditions? By August, I'm sure there will be even more data about risk factors, testing, treatments, etc. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
They don’t have the infection rates right, so this really means nothing right now. California is showing that 20-40x the numbers they recorded have antibodies...and that’s just those who have been tested for antibodies.
@anotherparent posted:I'm just a little confused; you cite a CDC report through March 16, but this one from from March 30 has a hospitalization rate of people age 19-25 as 2.5%:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm
If I understand your numbers, that might mean that if half the students were infected, 540 students hospitalized. I didn't see a CFR, but I assume it's also lower. Plus, all sorts of studies are now showing that far more people have been infected than have been tested, which would push those rates further down. I assume that Purdue and others are making determinations based on there being more and more data of that sort.
The question will be, how many people would not send their kids back to residential college under those conditions? By August, I'm sure there will be even more data about risk factors, testing, treatments, etc. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
The page you cite has hospitalization rates per 100K people in the population, the one I had was percentage of a group of already hospitalized people by age group (apparently projected from a sample of 2449). Neither of which is directly the percentage expectation of being hospitalized.
If there are 2.5 in the target demo hospitalized for every 100,000 people, that's about 8375 people (based on US pop of 335 million, which is just a rough guess on my part). Out of about 880,000 diagnosed cases so far, that would be a little under 1%, which would make more sense. And fits better with a fatality rate of 0.1-0.2%.
All of this is based on month old numbers, and no real idea of what the actual infection rate is though, so the hospitalization rate stuff is basically a WAG (you'd think there'd be some actual data somewhere on this, but I can't find it).
The fatality rate stuff stands though, and the real issue here is that the virus is way more transmissible than the flu, and there's no built in immunity to it, so if you get 50,000 people together it's going to end up being extremely hard to keep them from spreading it amongst themselves if anyone gets infected. And the fatality rate appears to be an order of magnitude greater than flu pretty much across the board.
So 50,000 people exposed to the flu leads to way fewer than 50,000 infected (due largely to herd immunity from vaccine), and maybe 1 in 10000 infected college-age people die from it. 50,000 people exposed to corona probably gets at least 5-figure infection numbers in a college-kids in dorms and classrooms environment and 1 in 1000 of those will die (and maybe 5-10 times that many end up in the hospital). So we go from <1 expected death from flu at Purdue every year to 10 or 20 or more expected deaths from Corona.
Are we OK with sacrificing 1 kid out of every 5000 in college? 2? 10?
Sidenote, way too many people in the US don't get the flu vaccine. We've got like a 20% infection rate per year, which is just stupid. Which probably means we'd get more like a 70% rate with Corona (and I'm way underestimating infections at Purdue above) in an environment where we treated it as lackadaisically as we do flu and had no vaccine. Keep in mind that we're only going to keep deaths in the US in ~3 months to the numbers from a really bad year-long flu season (if we're lucky) by putting 85% of the population on lockdown for several months.
What are the infection and death rates of the students that don’t return for the fall semester. Probably pretty close to the same. Basically, all you are doing is Having the kid getting sick at home instead of at school.
But you must first understand how the death rates are calculated: https://week.com/2020/04/20/id...aths-are-classified/
@2020txcatch posted:But you must first understand how the death rates are calculated: https://week.com/2020/04/20/id...aths-are-classified/
That is outstanding! I don't think death rate at this point should be used as a statistic on determining how the country operates. Too much playing with those numbers. Initially, it certainly was important. Hospitalizations and infections seem to be much more unbiased and accurate.
@TerribleBPthrower posted:That is outstanding! I don't think death rate at this point should be used as a statistic on determining how the country operates. Too much playing with those numbers. Initially, it certainly was important. Hospitalizations and infections seem to be much more unbiased and accurate.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...-missing-deaths.html (use incognito mode to bypass the paywall).
There are substantially more deaths per day around the world than the historical averages, and that difference is probably a better estimate of Covid than any direct count given the lack of testing availability. And that's with shutdowns that are likely reducing accidental deaths (primarily via auto accidents) in a number of places.
All of this simply shows that the data is still so incomplete. In fact, there are now 50,000 deaths; on March 30, there were 5,000. However you count them, that's a 10-fold increase. Hospitalization and infection numbers might seem "unbiased," but given that hardly anyone is being tested, and that many people don't go to a doctor even when they are sick, they are less informative than death rates. So, no-one has any idea how many people have been sick and contagious.
As for risk factors: again, the numbers are very low for people aged 19-45. But, that is a big age range; have they broken it down further, to get 19-25? Do they have a sense of what specific factors are contributing to hospitalizations in those age groups? (obesity? heart problems? cancer?) I think that eventually (and hopefully sooner rather than later) they will have more of that sort of data, that could enable individuals to make better decisions about whether or not to go back to in-person classes. Widespread and fairly accurate antibody tests, for example. If they can demonstrate that healthy people ages 19-25 have an extremely low chance of coronavirus complications, that would be different than if they show otherwise. It will be interesting to see what Purdue does, in a state with very little testing to date.
It definitely impacts sports, because, of course, the question would be, what happens if one person on a team gets sick? Do you shut everything down? Or, do you make the decision that that you will do what you normally do for, let's say, something highly infectious like a stomach flu? What did happen to football teams in the H1N1 year 2008? That one had no vaccine in August, and college-age people were particularly likely to get it.
The death rate data impacted by the shutdown has just been coming in for the last week or so. The shutdown data needs to be viewed at 2 to 3 weeks from the date of shutdown to see the actual impact. Its pretty clear that the shutdowns have had an impact on the reduction of hospitalization and death.
I don't think you can use death rate though as a reason to keep schools closed in the fall. What chances do you think college age kids will be in total isolation in the fall? They will be exposed whether they are at home or at school. The chances at school may be slightly higher, but depending where they live it could actually be lower at the school.
I'm as paranoid as anyone about this, given we live adjacent to one of the early national hot spots. But I could definitely argue it made more sense for my son to stay in college in central NY than come home to Westchester given case loads this spring. Even with that, the cases in Westchester amount to 2.74% of the population of 949K. The death count is aprox 962. So about .01% of the population, aprox 25% which have come from nursing homes. I can't imagine a circumstance in which large games are played this Fall. But I can see colleges attempting to return under specific conditions given the preliminary data.
Attachments
Images (1)
Colleges (and schools in general) are massive wells for transmission of every kind of pathogen. Take people from all over, mix together in close quarters, send them out into the world every day. The reason stay at home works, is because it drastically reduces the number of different people you come in contact with on a given day, and that's even if the college/school-age kids are skirting some of the rules.
Moreover, the risk isn't even primarily about the kids. I teach middle school. Someone is sick all the time, and there's generally no way to avoid being exposed. I have 150ish kids in a confined classroom over the course of a day, and so does every other teacher. If one kid in that school has Covid, it's gonna be like being on the Diamond Princess and everyone will have it before anyone realizes anyone's even been sick. And every one of those now sick kids will take it home. And then their parents will take it to work.
The real data to look at will be the end results of what happens with the USS Roosevelt or other similar groups. That's what you can expect with colleges without adequate testing and the ability to track and trace/isolate.
If you want to wait until there is no risk, we will be a completely bankrupt nation with the majority hoping that bankrupt nation will feed them. Doesn’t work. At that point why go to college? There won’t be any jobs.
@jacjacatk posted:Colleges (and schools in general) are massive wells for transmission of every kind of pathogen. Take people from all over, mix together in close quarters, send them out into the world every day. The reason stay at home works, is because it drastically reduces the number of different people you come in contact with on a given day, and that's even if the college/school-age kids are skirting some of the rules.
Moreover, the risk isn't even primarily about the kids. I teach middle school. Someone is sick all the time, and there's generally no way to avoid being exposed. I have 150ish kids in a confined classroom over the course of a day, and so does every other teacher. If one kid in that school has Covid, it's gonna be like being on the Diamond Princess and everyone will have it before anyone realizes anyone's even been sick. And every one of those now sick kids will take it home. And then their parents will take it to work.
The real data to look at will be the end results of what happens with the USS Roosevelt or other similar groups. That's what you can expect with colleges without adequate testing and the ability to track and trace/isolate.
None of this is remotely feasible without testing/tracing. My wife is grade school teacher so know exactly what you are talking about. Without that we're stuck living in this situation until a vaccine which is obviously not sustainable for a year or longer. I remain optimistic that the combination of testing, tracing, some forms of treatment will help get us there by the Fall. The world is united on this front. For the non-conspiracy theory folks out there (hopefully all of you!) here's a full assessment of where we stand currently from Bill Gates: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Pandemic-Innovation
My wife is a teacher, and I agree about the increased passing of colds and viruses. This year was one of their worst years with kids being sick. There were actually a couple elementary schools in the county that shut down for a week to disinfect. And this was back in November or December.
My personal opinion though is that once they look at the data and the risk factors, colleges will be back in school. At least some or most of them. That age group is the least vulnerable, most won't be going home everyday to transmit to other family members, and a large percentage have probably already been infected. Add in the possible financial failure rate of of the schools if they don't bring kids back to campus. It may be their only option to avoid collapse. Heck, they may collapse anyway.
I want to thank the posters that have hijacked this thread and turned it into yet another debate about Covid19 issues. If you want to talk (incessantly) about that let me invite you to start your own new thread. Please!!
I think the combination of infectiousness and mortality/severity of this virus is in the absolute worst sweet spot for a pandemic, and we're going to discover that as we ease restrictions we get more outbreaks, even with substantial track and trace. It may be the case that this will be less problematic in the summer months, which might actually make things worse in the fall if we get complacent about it.
Since we seem hellbent on reopening things without the ability to really do the level of statistical work it will take to damp flareups right now, we might well find out experimentally in the next few weeks, I guess. As Fauci pointed out kind of early on, if it doesn't look like you're overreacting to a pandemic, you're probably not reacting drastically enough, and if your reactions work, it will always look like it wasn't as bad as it really was after the fact. That's mostly a result of people being bad at math, both literally and the effectively inherent human inability to properly assess non-linear risk (this is why grad schools for biostatistics and epidemiology exist, I suppose).
@adbono posted:I want to thank the posters that have hijacked this thread and turned it into yet another debate about Covid19 issues. If you want to talk (incessantly) about that let me invite you to start your own new thread. Please!!
@anotherparent posted:It definitely impacts sports, because, of course, the question would be, what happens if one person on a team gets sick? Do you shut everything down? Or, do you make the decision that that you will do what you normally do for, let's say, something highly infectious like a stomach flu? What did happen to football teams in the H1N1 year 2008? That one had no vaccine in August, and college-age people were particularly likely to get it.
I repeat my question: does anyone remember what happened in 2008-9? I don't know what they did for sports teams, I do remember that there were handwashing signs and sanitizing wipes everywhere on college campuses.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandem...ndemic-timeline.html
Doesn't note any specifics with regards to colleges, but does note school closings (my recollection is of secondary schools).
There's this for the following year, after the vaccine existed, https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/institutions/.
And this, again about secondary schools, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3352...ses-more-schools-us/.
Of note, even without mass closures, the number deaths was an order or two of magnitude lower.
There's this, https://www.espn.com/college-f...ews/story?id=4498040, which does a nice job of illustrating why taking the decision out of the hands of coaches might not be a terrible plan.
They played. And 78.K attended the National Championship.
Attachments
Images (1)
I hope no college would put the decision to play in the hands of the coaches. I don't know whether there will be college football, but there will be colleges with students on campus.
@baseballhs posted:
They played. And 78.K attended the National Championship.
They played, with students running fevers (and therefore infectious) in games.
There won't be college if the professors and other employees on campus are too sick to be there for the 19-25 year olds. It's not just about the kids on campus. It's about who else gets exposure from them.
I really dont give a rip nor want to hear what Bill Gates has to say about this. Not sure when he got his MD or became an expert on medical matters
How many professors have already had it? How long will they be sick for if they get it? How many won't teach in person no matter what? All things to consider, but there will be on campus classes unless the entire faculty (or a large percentage) bands together and says they aren't going to do it. I could see that happening. I could also see them realizing over half the faculty has already had it.
@edcoach posted:I really dont give a rip nor want to hear what Bill Gates has to say about this. Not sure when he got his MD or became an expert on medical matters
That's fine, by all means don't read it. I provided as a resource for others who may not share your opinion. But Gates clearly knows about the topic and the information is assembled from the foremost experts in the world. Will leave it at that.
@baseballhs posted:If you want to wait until there is no risk, we will be a completely bankrupt nation with the majority hoping that bankrupt nation will feed them. Doesn’t work. At that point why go to college? There won’t be any jobs.
People do need to go back to work. The federal government created guidelines. Has everyone forgotten those guidelines don’t include rushing back to normal life? It will be with caution. The one thing I haven’t seen mentioned in threads is something my cousin, a doctor who specializes in virology brought up in a conversation. No one has any idea if and what long term damage is caused internally by having COVID, especially lungs, heart and kidneys. Until there a vaccine there’s going to be caution. I would like to see back to normal in the fall. I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen.
If Dunkin opened tomorrow I’d be sitting in the corner. But I’m not in any hurry to return to my home ten miles north of Boston. I don’t want to take an unnecessary risks.
It is Interesting when you detach from something how different things look. 2 things I have learned in life that always hold true.
1. most people don’t grasp the simple concept of supply and demand, they think they understand but have very little ability to implement it or even realize it until the opportunity is gone.
2. never underestimate how stupid people can be.
carry on.
Let's get this thread back on track....
https://247sports.com/Article/...l-January-146448255/
I think the NCAA putting off the one time transfer rule until January as opposed to the original schedule date in May sends a clear message that nothing is more important than the upcoming Football season. Without it (NCAA football season), college sports as we know it will likely end. It leaves several problems for most other sports and especially Spring sports (i.e. baseball) relative to the viability of the upcoming seasons. Reduced budgets could mandate less travel, alteration of conference schedules, and perhaps collapse of some programs. Man, I hope not.
I sure hope cooler heads prevail. I spent the first 50 years of my life not fully appreciating FDR's famous quote "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". But boy I get it now.