It's time to end the consensual hallucination of fall in-person classes

[mahagonny]

Some teachers just want to zoom from now on because it saves them the trouble and time of commuting. I spent yesterday with one of those. She's trying to get everyone excited about how 'the administration doesn't care about anyone's safety.' I thought of asking 'so you're envisioning that the administration anticipates a  lot of covid deaths caused by face to face teaching, and are planning to then say "so what; but people are learning again"' but I let it go.
Unions are getting a bad (even worse) name over this...https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/02/teaching-unions-have-failed-children/
ETA: As one who belongs to a union that may not strike, I see the potential for union advocacy this way: the union gets the strong support (better pay) of the public by doing things that the public properly sees as meritorious. That's probably because I am ignorant of how the real world works.
OK, I get it. People are scared. But the world must start running again. Why not now?

[Puget]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

[Caracal]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

Well, nothing is completely safe. The goal is to keep schools from being places where there's lots of spread, and that spread results in vulnerable people getting sick, both within the school and in the larger community. There's no one single thing that will do that. Vaccination is the most important thing, both to limit spread, but also to keep most people from being seriously ill. Masks are an easy solution that help a great deal-especially to prevent spread in classrooms. Hepa filters would help too. You also need to allow vulnerable people and people with vulnerable family members  to teach online.

But yeah, it is absolutely workable.

[mamselle]

OTOH:

   https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/7/crimson-jam-postponed-indefinitely/

M.

[Hibush]

OTOH:

   https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/7/crimson-jam-postponed-indefinitely/

M.

Cancelling the block party is probably wise. At my vaccinated and masked campus all the cases this semester have been from parties (think shouting at short range and beer pong) and none from in-person classes.

[Caracal]

OTOH:

   https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/9/7/crimson-jam-postponed-indefinitely/

M.

Cancelling the block party is probably wise. At my vaccinated and masked campus all the cases this semester have been from parties (think shouting at short range and beer pong) and none from in-person classes.

Agree, although I hope schools are trying to do more to move events outside, rather than just eliminate them altogether. A large party with stages and crowding is probably not a great plan, but more spread out events would be safer. A thousand people out on the quad is much better than 50 dorm rooms crammed with 20 people each, and that's what you are going to get if you eliminate organized gatherings.

[histchick]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

Well, nothing is completely safe. The goal is to keep schools from being places where there's lots of spread, and that spread results in vulnerable people getting sick, both within the school and in the larger community. There's no one single thing that will do that. Vaccination is the most important thing, both to limit spread, but also to keep most people from being seriously ill. Masks are an easy solution that help a great deal-especially to prevent spread in classrooms. Hepa filters would help too. You also need to allow vulnerable people and people with vulnerable family members  to teach online.

But yeah, it is absolutely workable.

Agreed.  It's what we did in our state system last year.  This year, though, the numbers have skyrocketed (with below national average vaccination rates, especially in rural areas, and our hospitals are packed.  Our university system's Board of Regents has decided that masks and distancing are things of the past.  Our big question is why we can't require masks and distancing.  But we can't, and we'll be fired if we try to require masks in the classrooms.   

So far, the number of cases among students is higher (four weeks into the semester) than for August 2020-March 2021. 

[Cheerful]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

On testing, not all universities are testing vaxxed students/staff. This will depress official "positivity rates."  Not all universities are doing contract tracing following known cases in classrooms.

[larryc]

We're on the quarter system but in a couple of weeks we are going back to the classroom. We have a vaccination requirement in place for students and employees and masking so I feel reasonably safe.

I keep thinking of a tweet I saw, though. The person said something like "We will normalize large numbers of Americans dying of COVID, just like we normalize large numbers of Americans dying from lack of access to health care and gunshot wounds."

[Puget]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

On testing, not all universities are testing vaxxed students/staff. This will depress official "positivity rates."  Not all universities are doing contract tracing following known cases in classrooms.

Nope, you've got that backward-- positivity rate is the rate among all *tests*, not people, so if you only test higher-risk (unvaccinated) people, the positivity rate will be *higher* not lower. Testing everyone leads to the lowest test positivity rate, and has a high enough impact on the state rates here that they publish the state positivity rate with and without higher ed testing included.

[Cheerful]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

On testing, not all universities are testing vaxxed students/staff. This will depress official "positivity rates."  Not all universities are doing contract tracing following known cases in classrooms.

Nope, you've got that backward-- positivity rate is the rate among all *tests*, not people, so if you only test higher-risk (unvaccinated) people, the positivity rate will be *higher* not lower. Testing everyone leads to the lowest test positivity rate, and has a high enough impact on the state rates here that they publish the state positivity rate with and without higher ed testing included.

No, I don't have it backward.  I see what you're trying to say but will not engage on this further.  Would take too long.  Enjoy your day.

[ciao_yall]

Meanwhile, vaccines reduce one's risk of even getting COVID in the first place. So, let's please be realistic...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/briefing/risk-breakthrough-infections-delta.html

[downer]

Meanwhile, vaccines reduce one's risk of even getting COVID in the first place. So, let's please be realistic...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/briefing/risk-breakthrough-infections-delta.html

This article says that as a vaccinated person. my chances of catching COVID are one in 5000 per day. By my calculation this means that my chances of catching COVID in a year are about 7%.

I'd like to know my chances of catching COVID and becoming symptomatic in the coming year, and my chances of being ill enough that I need to take a day off work or a week off work.

[Puget]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

On testing, not all universities are testing vaxxed students/staff. This will depress official "positivity rates."  Not all universities are doing contract tracing following known cases in classrooms.

Nope, you've got that backward-- positivity rate is the rate among all *tests*, not people, so if you only test higher-risk (unvaccinated) people, the positivity rate will be *higher* not lower. Testing everyone leads to the lowest test positivity rate, and has a high enough impact on the state rates here that they publish the state positivity rate with and without higher ed testing included.

No, I don't have it backward.  I see what you're trying to say but will not engage on this further.  Would take too long.  Enjoy your day.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own math or definitions of terms.
Have a nice day as well.

[Caracal]

And our current 7-day test positivity rate among students is. . .0%. That's right, thousands of weekly tests and not one positive. Across the whole state, the 7-day test positivity rate for higher ed is 0.25%. Why? Almost all have vaccine mandates.
So no, in-person classes are not risky when everyone is vaccinated (and usually masked, but vaccinated is the main thing).
People lose all credibly for promoting effective and sensible measures like these when they keep insisting that nothing but remote is safe.

Well, nothing is completely safe. The goal is to keep schools from being places where there's lots of spread, and that spread results in vulnerable people getting sick, both within the school and in the larger community. There's no one single thing that will do that. Vaccination is the most important thing, both to limit spread, but also to keep most people from being seriously ill. Masks are an easy solution that help a great deal-especially to prevent spread in classrooms. Hepa filters would help too. You also need to allow vulnerable people and people with vulnerable family members  to teach online.

But yeah, it is absolutely workable.

Agreed.  It's what we did in our state system last year.  This year, though, the numbers have skyrocketed (with below national average vaccination rates, especially in rural areas, and our hospitals are packed.  Our university system's Board of Regents has decided that masks and distancing are things of the past.  Our big question is why we can't require masks and distancing.  But we can't, and we'll be fired if we try to require masks in the classrooms.   

So far, the number of cases among students is higher (four weeks into the semester) than for August 2020-March 2021.

A lot of this is just a failure to be honest and open about the risk calculations being made-which makes it hard to make actual reasonable decisions. Schools are back to more normal operating conditions for two reasons. One is that the situation for the last year just wasn't sustainable. It wasn't sustainable for the large majority of students and faculty who struggled with online classes and it wasn't sustainable for on campus students who had to deal with severe restrictions. And yes, it wasn't sustainable for the financial models for lots of colleges. The second big factor is vaccines-which dramatically reduce the risk of severe outcomes and make the personal risk for most of us, far, far lower. We aren't back to more normal conditions because everything is fine. But, I don't see enough acknowledgement that this is what's happening.

The result is often terrible policies that are really based on denying reality. Mask requirements are an acknowledgement that things aren't back to normal and that there are risks in opening things up. Masks are an easy and relatively low cost way of mitigating those risks. Same thing with vaccine mandates. They are about reducing spread, but they should also be about keeping students, faculty and staff from getting really sick and making the costs of in person classes too high. Obviously, schools in some places don't actually have the option to mandate vaccines, but then they should be frank about the risks of those limitations-mostly because it would force them to seriously think about how to incentivize and encourage vaccination, not just among faculty students and staff, but also in surrounding communities which might be impacted severely by spread from institutions.

Same thing with allowing faculty more at risk to stay online and a whole host of other things.