News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

Coronavirus

Started by bacardiandlime, January 30, 2020, 03:20:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

clean

QuoteThere are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

Crazy or not.  Faculty are still exposed to 100% of the class.  Worse, faculty will spend exactly the same amount of time as in pre CV19 days, but then would have to spend a not insignificant amount of time with online duties.  All while still exposing themselves to this illness. 
Alternatively, IF one were cleared to teach 100% in face to face classes, it is a win for all. IF one is unable to teach face to face, but only online, then the faculty has zero exposure to the students, and only has to deal with the online class, and not both.

Currently, I rarely leave the house. For the most part, items are delivered to the house, or with minimal contact take out.  Being forced to return to campus in this environment is not conducive to my continued mediocre health!

Recent articles indicated that the daily death rate is expected to double by June! 
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

marshwiggle

Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.
It takes so little to be above average.

clean

Will the halves not intermix?  Will there be a university policy mandating the the 1/2 of one class (say A-M in the alphabet) not mix with someone else's formula (Males on Monday, Females on Wednesday... ignoring the 'identifies alternative to birth certificate' issues). 
What about those that are married or whose names are different from the university roster like hyphenated names?

And will there be an ID check at the door?
Will there be Odd Even license plate checks to park? 

The bottom line is that IF faculty are then required to enforce these rules, then that takes up even more time away from teaching, research and service!

I suppose that my time is unlimited (if asking the provost's office!) 
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.

Look, seems like a logistical nightmare for teaching, but you're missing the point. The idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread. If this was the plan in isolation it would be inadequate, but it isn't absurd in the context of a university wide plan that would try to keep people further apart in dining halls, residences, the library etc.

Really, I suspect the main idea of this plan would just be to keep classrooms from being so crowded. I'd tend to think that the better way to do that would be to have a significant number of classes (perhaps especially big ones) fully online, which would allow smaller classes to use bigger rooms, allowing for a lot of spacing. That would also have the benefit of allowing faculty and students who are at greater risk, or live with someone at greater risk, to stay online.

marshwiggle

#454
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 04, 2020, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 11:56:02 AM
Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not,  the logic here is off. The risk of being infected almost certainly goes up the more time you spend around an infected person. If a student had the virus and you saw them only one time a week, all other things being equal, you'd be less likely to get it than if you spent two days a week with them.

There are other factors at play too. A student who came once a week, but got sick would be more likely to not be in class while they were pre-symptomatic. It also would allow for more space in the room which would let everyone sit further away. Again, not saying its a good idea, but it isn't crazy.

If you could transport the "Monday" group to a particular residence, with a particular dining hall, with the use of a particular library, AND you could transport the "Wednesday" group to a different residence, with a different dining hall, with the use of a different library, then it might make sense, assuming you could have cleaning and disinfecting of all classrooms at the end of every day.

The point is that there are just too many ways the two groups are going to mingle and/or come into contact with the same surfaces, etc. to make having only half as many in a class make anything more than a marginal difference. (The instructor is just one example of a common point of potential contact, and admittedly not the most likely.) So I'd argue that it is pretty crazy, since it ignores the vast amount of contact that will happen outside the classroom that will be totally unregulated.

Look, seems like a logistical nightmare for teaching, but you're missing the point. The idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread. If this was the plan in isolation it would be inadequate, but it isn't absurd in the context of a university wide plan that would try to keep people further apart in dining halls, residences, the library etc.


But this is the part of the plan that is absurd. How can the university keep them apart in dining halls, residences, and the library? Everyone is going to want to eat around mealtime. Are 50% of students automatically going to eat an hour (or whatever) earlier  or later? Are roommates going to stagger their entering and leaving their rooms to not come into close contact? Are students on a hall going to stagger their times leaving residence in the morning to avoid being crowded together? Are students going to voluntarily look for empty areas in the library to work, even when that's nowhere near the resources they would use for their work?

Crowding happens automatically because lots of people want/need the same resources at the same time. Splitting class atendance maybe will reduce 25% of the close interaction between students. Without Herculean efforts, the other 75% that happens will negate any potential value from that. (And the Herculean efforts will possibly tick people off more than staying home  would have.)

And this is without even considering the greatest close interaction that comes through social gatherings. If anyone believes that can be prevented I have a bridge or two to sell.
It takes so little to be above average.

clean

QuoteThe idea is not to keep one group of students away from another group of students, but to make classrooms less crowded and to limit the number of close contacts students would have. If you have fewer students in all your classes, you'll come into close contact with fewer people. That's the main way C-19 is spread.

You are correct.  You should be demoted to administration!
The goal was stated to make the classrooms less crowded and IF the dean had stopped there, or said what you said, great, but he foolishly said 'to protect the students' health'.  (implying FiretrUCK the faculty!)  Once again, he said too much of the wrong thing and pissed off those whose health were clearly not mentioned as worthy of protecting. 

Anyway, the proposal may indeed reduce classroom crowding, but it certainly comes at the cost of faculty time, effort and energy, and at a non-consequential risk to health!

I dont know IF there is a good solution short of a vaccine!  Until we have an answer, I will do what I need to secure my health. 
Remember:
IF  YOU are not looking out for YOUR health, then NO ONE IS!!  (Certainly not the university that employees you!)
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

Hegemony

Marshwiggle, it's not as if no one in the planning process has thought of these concerns. Yes, the idea is that mealtimes would be staggered — much as on a train, or even in restaurants, you have the 5:00 seating, the 6:00 seating, the 7:00 seating, etc. Library tables would be moved to facilitate spacing, and areas would be patrolled.  The universities are doing a lot to plan it all out. The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.

pigou

I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.

Caracal

Quote from: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.

To be fair to the students, some of that will be tough. Large parties are one thing, but what else does one do in a college dorm except hang out in people's rooms? If you set up rules that nobody is allowed to visit anyone else's room, that would make for a pretty miserable experience. It isn't like there are a lot of other places to hang out in a dorm. I guess there's the outside but that only works when its not really hot or really cold.

secundem_artem

Quote from: Caracal on May 04, 2020, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on May 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
The part that I am most skeptical about is whether students will social-distance themselves in the voluntary ways, e.g. not having parties, not gathering in people's rooms. I think the likelihood that they'll refrain from that is small. But we'll see.

To be fair to the students, some of that will be tough. Large parties are one thing, but what else does one do in a college dorm except hang out in people's rooms? If you set up rules that nobody is allowed to visit anyone else's room, that would make for a pretty miserable experience. It isn't like there are a lot of other places to hang out in a dorm. I guess there's the outside but that only works when its not really hot or really cold.

I have precisely zero faith that I can count on n-thousand students staying 6 feet apart, wiping down surfaces, checking their temperatures if they feel a bit off, or anything else that decreases either their risk or mine.  My strong guess is that we will be face to face come fall, if for no other reason than the alternative is financial suicide.  So if I gotta actually look at the little buggers, I'll be wearing a  mask, staying ≥ 6 feet away from all other carbon based life forms during class periods, and working from home at all other times. From there I'll be happy to meet with any and everybody via Skype Zoom Teams Blackboard Ultra Collaborate WhatsApp Google Hangout or any of a dozen other platforms.
Funeral by funeral, the academy advances

marshwiggle

Quote from: pigou on May 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM
I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.

A couple of questions:

  • What percentage of places that re-open, no matter what the restrictions, will avoid a "serious" outbreak, which I'll define as one where someone winds up in an ICU?
  • If a place re-opens, and someone actually dies of covid, especially a *student, how is the financial fallout from that likely to compare to staying virtual instead?

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?
It takes so little to be above average.

bacardiandlime

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?


I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.
As with coronavirus, there's no way to sue the university, since there's no way of proving the student caught it there (as opposed to, on the bus, in a grocery store, etc).

Cheerful

Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 06:16:37 AM
I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.

Ouch.

Caracal

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM
Quote from: pigou on May 04, 2020, 04:07:10 PM
I suspect much of the decision will come down to whether the federal government will give employers (and colleges) protection against COVID lawsuits. If faculty and students can sue the university if they get infected on campus, it doesn't matter what kind of physical distancing measures are possible. No way any organization would take that kind of risk to re-open.

A couple of questions:

  • What percentage of places that re-open, no matter what the restrictions, will avoid a "serious" outbreak, which I'll define as one where someone winds up in an ICU?
  • If a place re-opens, and someone actually dies of covid, especially a *student, how is the financial fallout from that likely to compare to staying virtual instead?

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?

They do also happen to be the demographic, with the exception of younger kids, which has the lowest rate of mortality by far. For some perspective, my state has had 400 deaths. Exactly zero of them are in people under 25. The CDC counts 42 Covid deaths among people 15-24 in the whole country. (The data lags, by a few weeks, but still)

It will be important to make sure the small number of students with conditions that put them at greater risk have options that will keep them safe, but for most college students, the risk of dying of Covid is really low.

marshwiggle

Quote from: bacardiandlime on May 05, 2020, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on May 05, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

*If a student dies, how many parents will pull their kids immediately? What will that do to the insitution's reputation? What kind of lawsuits will ensue?


I've been aware of undergrads dying of meningitis every now and again, going back to when I was a student. The effect on the institution is nil.
They get a nice bench on the quad with their name on it.
As with coronavirus, there's no way to sue the university, since there's no way of proving the student caught it there (as opposed to, on the bus, in a grocery store, etc).

The difference here is that things were originally shut down to protect people, and now a decision has been made to open up on the assumption that it was safe to do so. Meningitis and flesh-eating disease and things like that are  rare but ever-present dangers. Covid is a specific danger now, and presumably in several months will have a vaccine which will then put it in the same category of rare. Until then, deaths will always be evaluated against the precautions put in place (or not) to prevent them.
It takes so little to be above average.