What would be a reasonable approach to classroom teaching in the fall?

[PScientist]

The YYG model (https://covid19-projections.com/) predicts that 2.0% of the US population is currently infected and contagious, with a 95% confidence interval from 1.26% to 3.32%.  If that is anywhere close to correct, and if college students are at all representative of the general population, it means there will be an infected student on every floor of every dorm on move-in day.  I don't see how that can possibly end well.

I knew we had a problem, but I had not appreciated that it was quite this bad.

[downer]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

If the virus really is airbourne, then it can pass through ventilation systems. Seems like aerosol transmission is rare but possible.

Shouldn't this issue be resolved before students return to dorms and classrooms?

[Caracal]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

If the virus really is airbourne, then it can pass through ventilation systems. Seems like aerosol transmission is rare but possible.

Shouldn't this issue be resolved before students return to dorms and classrooms?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Ventilation-in-the-context-of-COVID-19.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibpfHpxevqAhXclHIEHWLeCT4QFjAGegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1a8ObvVuQVTL-LY-bh7khNa

conclusion, the available evidence indicates that:
• Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs in closed indoor spaces.
• There is currently no evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2 caused by infectious aerosols distributed
through the ventilation system ducts of HVACs. The risk is rated as very low.
• Well-maintained HVAC systems, including air-conditioning units, securely filter large droplets containing
SARS-CoV-2. It is possible for COVID-19 aerosols (small droplets and droplet nuclei) to spread through HVAC
systems within a building or vehicle and stand-alone air-conditioning units if air is recirculated.
• Air flow generated by air-conditioning units may facilitate the spread of droplets excreted by infected people
longer distances within indoor spaces.

So no. Spread through hvac systems isn't likely at all

[polly_mer]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

If the virus really is airbourne, then it can pass through ventilation systems. Seems like aerosol transmission is rare but possible.

Shouldn't this issue be resolved before students return to dorms and classrooms?

<Caracal once again cites a summary of science activities written for non-scientists as though it were written in stone as physical law instead of knowing enough about the science to apply critical thinking about what's missing in the studies and where the gaps in knowledge exist>

Be skeptical of anything that Caracal (or anyone else) cites that isn't a set of peer-reviewed primary sources with sufficient analysis by the experts to identify the gaps between where the investigation occurred and what the real-life situation might be.  Of particular worry is making grand statements that are unsupported by the current research, even though decisions must be made.

For example, from the PDF itself,

From the reports published to date, it is not as yet possible to clarify the role of physical proximity and direct contact, and the possibility of indirect transmission through contaminated objects and surfaces, or longer distance transmission through aerosols. In addition, there is a potential for publication bias, with fewer communications of negative findings; and confirmation bias, with published studies re-confirming known science. However, the current body of evidence demonstrates the risk of transmission in crowded indoor settings and the importance of combining bundles of prevention measures.

We simply don't know enough right now on many things related to Covid.  Doing science by press release, even when it has the backing of a government agency, is very harmful for all the reasons that folks teaching intro classes in college generally cite about reliability of sources.

[marshwiggle]

People have already talked about the possibility of profs getting sick and having someone else take over their courses, which occasionally happens now. But with covid, there's a real possibility of the second instructor getting sick as well, so a class could have three different instructors over the term. That's a level of chaos I don't even want to think about.

[kiana]

People have already talked about the possibility of profs getting sick and having someone else take over their courses, which occasionally happens now. But with covid, there's a real possibility of the second instructor getting sick as well, so a class could have three different instructors over the term. That's a level of chaos I don't even want to think about.

Yes. We've spent a lot of time working this summer in order to make sure that all of our basics courses (math -- courses where there are multiple sections) had at least a "default" Canvas shell set up for the entire semester. While instructors CAN modify, we've requested that they not deviate too much from the default topic ordering (a lot easier in math) so that if someone else does need to pick up, there's a basic set of materials ready.

Kinda like publisher slides except that (hopefully) these don't suck because our faculty are writing them.

[Caracal]

People have already talked about the possibility of profs getting sick and having someone else take over their courses, which occasionally happens now. But with covid, there's a real possibility of the second instructor getting sick as well, so a class could have three different instructors over the term. That's a level of chaos I don't even want to think about.

I really think this keeps getting brought up because its just a way of expressing anxiety. If that many people are getting sick there won't be any in person classes.

It isn't even that realistic a scenario. COVID is real and dangerous, but most people who get it have mild to moderate symptoms for a week or two and then recover. Only in the most severe cases would it necessitate a permanent replacement instructor.

But none of this is the point. The thing to worry about is that if classes can't operate safely, students and faculty could get sick before they have to shut down, and a small, but significant number of people might get really sick or even die.

[Caracal]

Be skeptical of anything that Caracal (or anyone else) cites that isn't a set of peer-reviewed primary sources with sufficient analysis by the experts to identify the gaps between where the investigation occurred and what the real-life situation might be.  Of particular worry is making grand statements that are unsupported by the current research, even though decisions must be made.


We simply don't know enough right now on many things related to Covid.  Doing science by press release, even when it has the backing of a government agency, is very harmful for all the reasons that folks teaching intro classes in college generally cite about reliability of sources.

What a strange characterization of the document and what I said about it. Should government agencies not release documents for policy makers based on their reading of the evidence?

[marshwiggle]

People have already talked about the possibility of profs getting sick and having someone else take over their courses, which occasionally happens now. But with covid, there's a real possibility of the second instructor getting sick as well, so a class could have three different instructors over the term. That's a level of chaos I don't even want to think about.

I really think this keeps getting brought up because its just a way of expressing anxiety. If that many people are getting sick there won't be any in person classes.

This makes no sense. If institutions decide they're going to offer face-to-face classes, then they're going to happen. People won't be obviously sick before classes start; even if you try to screen before classes begin you can't ensure that no-one will get infected from somewhere else and bring it on campus before they know they're infected. This is by far the most likely scenario.

It isn't even that realistic a scenario. COVID is real and dangerous, but most people who get it have mild to moderate symptoms for a week or two and then recover. Only in the most severe cases would it necessitate a permanent replacement instructor.

All of this assumes that outbreaks will be tiny; i.e. only a few people at a time. Given the experience of people getting infected at parties, etc., it's likely that any outbreak will involve dozens or more people. The bigger the number affected, the more likely some of them will get seriously ill.

But none of this is the point. The thing to worry about is that if classes can't operate safely, students and faculty could get sick before they have to shut down, and a small, but significant number of people might get really sick or even die.

The thing to worry about is that institutions that plan to go face to face are often using a lot of wishful thinking to consider how they can "operate safely".

Here's my prediction, so if I'm wrong you can throw this back at me in a few months. Any place that brings back more than 50% of its students on campus will have an outbreak sometime during the year.

That should be sufficiently falsifiable.

[spork]

[. . . ]

The thing to worry about is that institutions that plan to go face to face are often using a lot of wishful thinking to consider how they can "operate safely".

Here's my prediction, so if I'm wrong you can throw this back at me in a few months. Any place that brings back more than 50% of its students on campus will have an outbreak sometime during the year.

That should be sufficiently falsifiable.

Child who attends Indiana junior high school gets positive test results on first day of classes, other children now in quarantine instead of attending school.

Here is what will happen on a number of college campuses this fall: a large portion of students enrolled in any given course at any given time, let's say 20% or more, will not be in class because they are 1) positive for Covid-19, 2) in quarantine because they came into contact with someone who tested positive, or 3) have one of the usual contagious bugs that cause fever, coughing, etc. As the semester progresses, regular attendance will diminish until face-to-face instruction is a totally obvious exercise in futility. Courses will effectively become 100% online, whether students are living on campus or not.

[polly_mer]

Be skeptical of anything that Caracal (or anyone else) cites that isn't a set of peer-reviewed primary sources with sufficient analysis by the experts to identify the gaps between where the investigation occurred and what the real-life situation might be.  Of particular worry is making grand statements that are unsupported by the current research, even though decisions must be made.


We simply don't know enough right now on many things related to Covid.  Doing science by press release, even when it has the backing of a government agency, is very harmful for all the reasons that folks teaching intro classes in college generally cite about reliability of sources.

What a strange characterization of the document and what I said about it. Should government agencies not release documents for policy makers based on their reading of the evidence?

You left out all the caveats in the document related to what we don't know.  I would hope that policy makers would read all the caveats and then ask for additional information to help reduce uncertainty for the things we don't know but could know if we put effort into the science.

The problem is exactly that people make bad decisions when they focus on a concrete statement with numbers instead of having the whole paragraph of caveats for each statement.  Reading a summary and then picking out the concrete statements is exactly how misunderstandings of the science gets promulgated out in the world.

For example, you've just asserted "most people who get it have mild to moderate symptoms for a week or two and then recover."  That statement comes with a lot of caveats for those who have been reading the discussion among scientists, doctors, and others who have been keeping up with the research.

I point you to https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-its-like-to-survive-covid-19 to see some of the caveats.  I will address some points directly and maybe this will help you understand why I'm so quick to push back on statements that were indeed printed in the general news outlets, but don't include the context or the caveats that are ongoing discussion points among the medical and scientific community.

From the conclusion of the CDC article:

Around 80 percent of people who get COVID-19 will likely experience mild symptoms.

While this may be reassuring to some, that's exactly why the infection is such a threat.

Before you even realize you're sick, you could easily pass it on to people who have a greater chance of developing complications, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19.

From a decision-maker standpoint, 80% being not all that sick sounds great out of context.  However, you then need the follow-up explanation of context of "and that means those folks will go pass along the disease to people who will get really sick and more people will die than if everyone who got it was sick enough to stay in bed.  People who feel really sick tend to stay home.  People who don't feel all that sick just keep on keeping on".

What does "mild to moderate symptoms" mean?  Since few of us are medical doctors, we might be surprised at what the medical folks consider in that category.  As a non-medical professional, when I hear mild to moderate, I think, "runny nose and a preference to sit on the couch watching TV instead of working with probably extra naps", not "it was only the couple trips to the emergency room in the two weeks and I was never admitted to the hospital." 

What does "recovery" mean?  There are increasing numbers of reports that 20-30% of people who "recovered" in the sense of no longer testing positive are still having lung issues, heart trouble, and just a general lack of ability to go about daily tasks.  This is very troubling since many of these people were in good health prior to the infection and never were admitted to the hospital since they only had "mild to moderate" symptoms.

Polio is a relevant example of most people who get it develop no symptoms, few people die from it, and therefore most people recover from it.

Polio is a highly contagious infection caused by the poliovirus. Most people infected with the virus develop no symptoms from it. However, in a small percentage of infected people, the virus attacks nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, particularly the nerve cells in the spinal cord that control muscles involved in voluntary movement such as walking. Permanent paralysis occurs in one out of every 200 cases of polio.

<snip>

Most cases (about three-quarters) are mild. Symptoms appear three to five days after exposure to the virus and include slight fever, headache, sore throat, vomiting, lack of appetite, and a general feeling of illness and discomfort. The symptoms last for 2-5 days and go away on their own.

Reference: https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/polio-a-to-z

With that context and those almost exact words being used for coronavirus, people who know more than what they get from reading the mass media news tend to have additional questions and sigh heavily when the summaries focus on a concrete statement that is absent the context.

Please, please, please read the good science news outlets that have discussion of context instead of just pulling the one concrete statement that seems so clear from a summary document of any kind.

[Caracal]

Be skeptical of anything that Caracal (or anyone else) cites that isn't a set of peer-reviewed primary sources with sufficient analysis by the experts to identify the gaps between where the investigation occurred and what the real-life situation might be.  Of particular worry is making grand statements that are unsupported by the current research, even though decisions must be made.


We simply don't know enough right now on many things related to Covid.  Doing science by press release, even when it has the backing of a government agency, is very harmful for all the reasons that folks teaching intro classes in college generally cite about reliability of sources.

What a strange characterization of the document and what I said about it. Should government agencies not release documents for policy makers based on their reading of the evidence?

You left out all the caveats in the document related to what we don't know.  I would hope that policy makers would read all the caveats and then ask for additional information to help reduce uncertainty for the things we don't know but could know if we put effort into the science.

The problem is exactly that people make bad decisions when they focus on a concrete statement with numbers instead of having the whole paragraph of caveats for each statement.  Reading a summary and then picking out the concrete statements is exactly how misunderstandings of the science gets promulgated out in the world.

For example, you've just asserted "most people who get it have mild to moderate symptoms for a week or two and then recover."  That statement comes with a lot of caveats for those who have been reading the discussion among scientists, doctors, and others who have been keeping up with the research.

I point you to https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-its-like-to-survive-covid-19 to see some of the caveats.  I will address some points directly and maybe this will help you understand why I'm so quick to push back on statements that were indeed printed in the general news outlets, but don't include the context or the caveats that are ongoing discussion points among the medical and scientific community.

From the conclusion of the CDC article:

Around 80 percent of people who get COVID-19 will likely experience mild symptoms.

While this may be reassuring to some, that's exactly why the infection is such a threat.

Before you even realize you're sick, you could easily pass it on to people who have a greater chance of developing complications, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19.

From a decision-maker standpoint, 80% being not all that sick sounds great out of context.  However, you then need the follow-up explanation of context of "and that means those folks will go pass along the disease to people who will get really sick and more people will die than if everyone who got it was sick enough to stay in bed.  People who feel really sick tend to stay home.  People who don't feel all that sick just keep on keeping on".

What does "mild to moderate symptoms" mean?  Since few of us are medical doctors, we might be surprised at what the medical folks consider in that category.  As a non-medical professional, when I hear mild to moderate, I think, "runny nose and a preference to sit on the couch watching TV instead of working with probably extra naps", not "it was only the couple trips to the emergency room in the two weeks and I was never admitted to the hospital." 

What does "recovery" mean?  There are increasing numbers of reports that 20-30% of people who "recovered" in the sense of no longer testing positive are still having lung issues, heart trouble, and just a general lack of ability to go about daily tasks.  This is very troubling since many of these people were in good health prior to the infection and never were admitted to the hospital since they only had "mild to moderate" symptoms.

Polio is a relevant example of most people who get it develop no symptoms, few people die from it, and therefore most people recover from it.

Polio is a highly contagious infection caused by the poliovirus. Most people infected with the virus develop no symptoms from it. However, in a small percentage of infected people, the virus attacks nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, particularly the nerve cells in the spinal cord that control muscles involved in voluntary movement such as walking. Permanent paralysis occurs in one out of every 200 cases of polio.

<snip>

Most cases (about three-quarters) are mild. Symptoms appear three to five days after exposure to the virus and include slight fever, headache, sore throat, vomiting, lack of appetite, and a general feeling of illness and discomfort. The symptoms last for 2-5 days and go away on their own.

Reference: https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/polio-a-to-z

With that context and those almost exact words being used for coronavirus, people who know more than what they get from reading the mass media news tend to have additional questions and sigh heavily when the summaries focus on a concrete statement that is absent the context.

Please, please, please read the good science news outlets that have discussion of context instead of just pulling the one concrete statement that seems so clear from a summary document of any kind.

This exhibits two very persistent irritating habits you have.
1. You respond to what you think people mean rather than what they actually wrote.
2. You take statements out of the context of the thread and then complain that someone didn't add in enough context even when they were responding to a very particular statement. I said in my actual post that the larger context was the more important point.

[polly_mer]

For those who care about science and getting things right, please read https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=132.msg38835#msg38835 and then apply the lessons to https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/02/health/gupta-coronavirus-t-cell-cross-reactivity-immunity-wellness/index.html

For those who like a fun example of what happens when all the facts are correct, but the context is missing try https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html and then look up the same term in Wikipedia.

Why do some many leaders just sound stupid and seem to ignore the experts?  The problem is exactly the assertion that the leaders don't have to listen/read all the context because they are just focused on the concrete without all those details.

I am amused by the assertion being the problem is I actually have a scientific background so I can see the gaps rather than the problem being unreflective repetition of factoids.

There's good science out there even in the mass media for those who actually want to be informed.  Insisting that somehow critical thinking doesn't matter in real life is an educational fail any way one slices it.

Let's do an example of what 80% of people having mild to moderate symptoms really means on a campus to illustrate why the consequences matter more than the bland fact.

Assumptions:

Each section is 20 people including instructor who meet face-to-face.

1000 individuals on campus including students, faculty, and staff.

All the best current real-world info including (1) even with the best PPE medical personnel still catch the virus and (2) many normal people wear less effective PPE and don't wear what they have effectively.

Analysis:

80% mild and moderate cases means 20% severe and worse cases.  In a section, that's a possible average of 4 people in each section with severe or worse because this highly contagious disease will transfer even with moderately effective PPE. 

All the mild/moderate cases missing a week each isn't likely to be just one low attendance week during the term that can be cancelled.  Instead, 80% missing a week or three and 20% missing more time means most of a term with only about half the section attending at any given time.

Bringing in a substitute for the faculty member when that person is out for a couple weeks means another vector to spread to other sections as well as significant learning disruptions for any section that is unique instead of one of several sections haring a syllabus.

That 20% severe or worse rate means 200 severe or worse cases on campus in short order.  That's a big problem in a town with a hospital that only has 40 total beds and possibly zero ICU beds.

For perspective, that 2% polio severity figure is only 20 people on campus.

Sure, one can make the argument that there's no reason to expect 100% infection and that would be true if being infected meant feeling pretty bad almost immediately so that people stayed home for two weeks right off the bat.

But, because people are possibly the most infectious before they show symptoms, many people will continue with their less-than-effective prevention habits, thus ensuring spread once any cases make it into the community.

Caracal asked the question at one point on how to reduce risk.  The list is really simple for those who aren't medical professional, part of the food supply chain, or similar really essential workers:

* Stay home with people who also spend all their time at home.

* Wear a mask effectively for the fewest trips possible to the store and medical care and those are the only trips ever outside the home.

* Wash your hands effectively and sanitize high-contact areas.

There are details and context to make minor amendments, but clearly some people here can't handle the full story and want only a few bulletpoints.

[Caracal]

For those who care about science and getting things right, please read https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=132.msg38835#msg38835 and then apply the lessons to https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/02/health/gupta-coronavirus-t-cell-cross-reactivity-immunity-wellness/index.html

For those who like a fun example of what happens when all the facts are correct, but the context is missing try https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html and then look up the same term in Wikipedia.

Why do some many leaders just sound stupid and seem to ignore the experts?  The problem is exactly the assertion that the leaders don't have to listen/read all the context because they are just focused on the concrete without all those details.

I am amused by the assertion being the problem is I actually have a scientific background so I can see the gaps rather than the problem being unreflective repetition of factoids.

There's good science out there even in the mass media for those who actually want to be informed.  Insisting that somehow critical thinking doesn't matter in real life is an educational fail any way one slices it.

Let's do an example of what 80% of people having mild to moderate symptoms really means on a campus to illustrate why the consequences matter more than the bland fact.

Assumptions:

Each section is 20 people including instructor who meet face-to-face.

1000 individuals on campus including students, faculty, and staff.

All the best current real-world info including (1) even with the best PPE medical personnel still catch the virus and (2) many normal people wear less effective PPE and don't wear what they have effectively.

Analysis:

80% mild and moderate cases means 20% severe and worse cases.  In a section, that's a possible average of 4 people in each section with severe or worse because this highly contagious disease will transfer even with moderately effective PPE. 

All the mild/moderate cases missing a week each isn't likely to be just one low attendance week during the term that can be cancelled.  Instead, 80% missing a week or three and 20% missing more time means most of a term with only about half the section attending at any given time.

Bringing in a substitute for the faculty member when that person is out for a couple weeks means another vector to spread to other sections as well as significant learning disruptions for any section that is unique instead of one of several sections haring a syllabus.

That 20% severe or worse rate means 200 severe or worse cases on campus in short order.  That's a big problem in a town with a hospital that only has 40 total beds and possibly zero ICU beds.

For perspective, that 2% polio severity figure is only 20 people on campus.

Sure, one can make the argument that there's no reason to expect 100% infection and that would be true if being infected meant feeling pretty bad almost immediately so that people stayed home for two weeks right off the bat.

But, because people are possibly the most infectious before they show symptoms, many people will continue with their less-than-effective prevention habits, thus ensuring spread once any cases make it into the community.

Caracal asked the question at one point on how to reduce risk.  The list is really simple for those who aren't medical professional, part of the food supply chain, or similar really essential workers:

* Stay home with people who also spend all their time at home.

* Wear a mask effectively for the fewest trips possible to the store and medical care and those are the only trips ever outside the home.

* Wash your hands effectively and sanitize high-contact areas.

There are details and context to make minor amendments, but clearly some people here can't handle the full story and want only a few bulletpoints.

Poly, experts don't recommend this anymore. You are an engineer, not an epidemiologist and it is pretty apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Again, you are really, really convinced I think this is no big deal and campuses should reopen. I don't think that at all, which is why I wrote it.  fI'm not interested in engaging with someone who is totally incapable of discussing anything in good faith. If you'd like to continue arguing with the straw man version of me on this thread, you can go ahead.

[Stockmann]

....experts don't recommend this anymore....

The three measures recommended by polly are backed by extensive empirical evidence, and for all of them the mechanisms by which they cut down the viral load are well-known. Obviously the take their toll, etc, but there is plenty of evidence of their effectiveness. At a government/societal level, other measures can be taken, but an individual level there is not much else that can be done (apart from things like quitting smoking if you smoke) that I'm aware of.

My employer thankfully will remain essentially online next term. Then again, we're non-residential so my employer doesn't make any money from dorms or meal plans. Being online probably, on its own, actually saves my employer money. There's no way the measures that have been taken to safely reopen HE in China for example would be enforced here, and this is a hotspot so even those measures might not be enough to reopen safely any time soon. If the finances operated differently, I'm sure my employer would throw contingent instructors under the bus and reopen.