Favorite student emails

[downer]

Interesting discussion.

FWIW from my perspective in Australia, we have a lot of students who work (at least almost) full time and/or have family caring responsibilities. If the timetable were arranged so that all an individual's learning were in blocks, then it would make sense to require them to attend. But I cannot see how we can demand that students attend for poorly timetabled single hour sessions that may interfere with their other responsibilities. Particularly if those sessions do not involve the acquisition of hands on skills.

I just came across an editorial by a U Michigan student on low attendance in regular classes. The student assumes students are staying in their dorm rooms.
https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/are-traditional-college-classes-becoming-obsolete/
This is at Ann Arbor, supposedly an elite university.

[MarathonRunner]

We have a population of faculty who still want to use CV19 as a reason for all remote, all the time.

They have been told in no uncertain terms, return to in-person in the fall, or resign, or retire.

There was cheering from at least some of us on the STEM side of campus. who've been doing f2f all along  (save the 2 mo. initial closures).

Before the pandemic, my university was all about "Develop online courses! We need more online courses!" Now it's "We don't want any online courses! Stop requesting online courses!"

Well, what can we say?  The Plague Year when everything was online taught them to be careful what they ask for.

I see your point about how some still have legitimate concerns regarding face-to-face classes.

Given that even a mild COVID infection carries the risk of long COVID along with increased risk of death, I'm very surprised that academics as a whole are okay with going back to face to face classes. I guess people want to believe COVID is no big deal, even though the scientific evidence shows that an infection can cause dysfunction in multiple organ systems.

[FishProf]

These decisions have to be about balancing risk and reward.  There is more at stake than just avoiding Covid.  At some point, the risk amelioration (vaccines, boosters, stay home if sick) reaches the tipping point.   Risk tolerance depends on a lot of factors, and they are mostly individual-level now. 

We are at an optimization phase now. 

[marshwiggle]

These decisions have to be about balancing risk and reward.  There is more at stake than just avoiding Covid.  At some point, the risk amelioration (vaccines, boosters, stay home if sick) reaches the tipping point.   Risk tolerance depends on a lot of factors, and they are mostly individual-level now. 

We are at an optimization phase now.

Yup. And our ongoing prospects of handling it are based on the reality of an ongoing steady state, like the flu. I don't plan to wear a mask to teach for the rest of my career; I'm up to date with boosters, and take reasonable precautions. I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

[Hegemony]

I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

It would be as well to realize that the risk is greater for many people, even those who may look fine and healthy on the outside. When I last got the flu — despite having a flu shot — it literally nearly killed me. When I arrived at the Emergency Room, they took my vitals and people immediately began running, I mean literally running, in several directions because I was very nearly at a very dangerous point, as a nurse friend explained to me afterwards. And even if I were guaranteed to live through another episode like that, the agony of it is something I'd go a long way not to repeat. Not to mention the look on people's faces and the fear of what was coming next. I overheard one doctor say to another, "We thought we were going to lose her." I'd prefer not to take that gamble again, thank you very much. Which is why I continued to wear a mask, even though I hate the mask. It's why I also feel pretty outraged when people tell me, condescendingly, "But you have to live your life!" Continuing to live my life is exactly what I want, which is why I will continue to take precautions. My own guess is that in the future, as the continuing aftereffects of Covid infection, and multiple Covid infections, become apparent, many people will wish they had erred a little more on the side of caution.

[the_geneticist]

I'm seeing a HUGE increase in students emailing to say "I'll be late to lab" or "I won't be in lab this week" and expect to have no consequences.  Nope, not how this works.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

It would be as well to realize that the risk is greater for many people, even those who may look fine and healthy on the outside.

Of course, but that goes both ways.

Given that even a mild COVID infection carries the risk of long COVID along with increased risk of death, I'm very surprised that academics as a whole are okay with going back to face to face classes. I guess people want to believe COVID is no big deal, even though the scientific evidence shows that an infection can cause dysfunction in multiple organ systems.

For people who are not at increased risk, which also can't just be determined by looking at them,  going back to face-to-face can be done reasonably safely.

Whether people want to go back to face-to-face or not cannot be taken as proof of whether people underestimate, (or for that matter, overestimate),  the risk of covid to themselves, since the risk varies significantly between individuals.

[ciao_yall]

I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

It would be as well to realize that the risk is greater for many people, even those who may look fine and healthy on the outside.

Of course, but that goes both ways.

Given that even a mild COVID infection carries the risk of long COVID along with increased risk of death, I'm very surprised that academics as a whole are okay with going back to face to face classes. I guess people want to believe COVID is no big deal, even though the scientific evidence shows that an infection can cause dysfunction in multiple organ systems.

For people who are not at increased risk, which also can't just be determined by looking at them,  going back to face-to-face can be done reasonably safely.

Whether people want to go back to face-to-face or not cannot be taken as proof of whether people underestimate, (or for that matter, overestimate),  the risk of covid to themselves, since the risk varies significantly between individuals.

How many of the people who were extra concerned about illness after COVID are the same ones who were immunocompromised or otherwise extremely concerned before COVID?

And, if it's a new concern, is it about... new awareness of general risk? Having current symptoms of long COVID? New health problems that arose naturally over time anyway?

Before COVID there was always risk of illness, car accidents, toxic fumes, whatever. One is (almost) always safest, isolated, in one's own home.

So... is there a new line?

[MarathonRunner]

These decisions have to be about balancing risk and reward.  There is more at stake than just avoiding Covid.  At some point, the risk amelioration (vaccines, boosters, stay home if sick) reaches the tipping point.   Risk tolerance depends on a lot of factors, and they are mostly individual-level now. 

We are at an optimization phase now.

Yup. And our ongoing prospects of handling it are based on the reality of an ongoing steady state, like the flu. I don't plan to wear a mask to teach for the rest of my career; I'm up to date with boosters, and take reasonable precautions. I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

The research shows that COVID is far more serious than the flu, affecting multiple organ systems in ways that the flu never has. Some people get lucky. Many don't, and end up with long COVID or dying from heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions, due to the effects COVID has on the body. I'll be wearing a respirator any time I'm in public, including teaching, until we have better air quality and ventilation, and better vaccines and treatments for COVID. I've read the scientific literature, and I know far too many people who have long COVID or who have lost previously, young, healthy family and friends due to heart attacks and strokes after even a mild bout of COVID, to imagine doing anything else. It's not like wearing a mask in public is a huge burden for the majority of individuals (I recognize some find masks difficult or burdensome). COVID is much closer to SARS from 2002-2003 than the flu. Look at the literature on people who experienced SARS back then. The majority are still dealing with the effects of their infections.

[dismalist]

These decisions have to be about balancing risk and reward.  There is more at stake than just avoiding Covid.  At some point, the risk amelioration (vaccines, boosters, stay home if sick) reaches the tipping point.   Risk tolerance depends on a lot of factors, and they are mostly individual-level now. 

We are at an optimization phase now.

Yup. And our ongoing prospects of handling it are based on the reality of an ongoing steady state, like the flu. I don't plan to wear a mask to teach for the rest of my career; I'm up to date with boosters, and take reasonable precautions. I'm not immunocompromised, and when I got covid a year ago it was pretty much like a normal cold or flu.

So it's not that "COVID is no big deal"; it's that it's like many other risks that can't be eliminated without basically becoming a hermit, but can be kept reasonably low by well-established and reasonable precautions.

The research shows that COVID is far more serious than the flu, affecting multiple organ systems in ways that the flu never has. Some people get lucky. Many don't, and end up with long COVID or dying from heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions, due to the effects COVID has on the body. I'll be wearing a respirator any time I'm in public, including teaching, until we have better air quality and ventilation, and better vaccines and treatments for COVID. I've read the scientific literature, and I know far too many people who have long COVID or who have lost previously, young, healthy family and friends due to heart attacks and strokes after even a mild bout of COVID, to imagine doing anything else. It's not like wearing a mask in public is a huge burden for the majority of individuals (I recognize some find masks difficult or burdensome). COVID is much closer to SARS from 2002-2003 than the flu. Look at the literature on people who experienced SARS back then. The majority are still dealing with the effects of their infections.

Human beings are terrible at estimating risk. We can learn, but if we have no experience, and we don't with Covid, we tend to assume the equi-probability of the unknown.

The place to start learning about risk from Covid is from the CDC which calculates death rates from Covid by age group and by co-morbidities. Try to find where one fits in oneself. The risk is not nearly as high as most people think except for the very old and those with comorbidities.

Among the young, the risk is trivial. That doesn't mean that you are seeing things, it just means you are in an unusual situation.

Such facts calm the nerves, but there are wrong ways of calming the nerves. I am wary of the effectiveness of masks, though N95 worn properly perhaps helps.

Be that as it may, effective vaccines have turned all this into a private problem, it is no longer a public problem. Any degree of risk aversion one has is perfectly personal and fine, but it is best decided after one knows the relevant probabilities.

[downer]

I might agree, but this is from the guy who doesn't really think there are any public problems, because free market competition will solve all public problems. So that's a different starting point than everyone else.

[dismalist]

I might agree, but this is from the guy who doesn't really think there are any public problems, because free market competition will solve all public problems. So that's a different starting point than everyone else.

I never said free market competition will solve all public problems. It would solve some of the problems most people call public, though they are not.

Before the advent of effective vaccines, Covid was a public problem; I said after the advent of effective vaccines Covid has become a private problem.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me; I do mind the disagreement with something they haven't read.

[onthefringe]

I might agree, but this is from the guy who doesn't really think there are any public problems, because free market competition will solve all public problems. So that's a different starting point than everyone else.

I never said free market competition will solve all public problems. It would solve some of the problems most people call public, though they are not.

Before the advent of effective vaccines, Covid was a public problem; I said after the advent of effective vaccines Covid has become a private problem.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me; I do mind the disagreement with something they haven't read.

Ok, I have read it (multiple times, and before you asked because I track these things pretty closely). I will simply point out that death is not the only possible negative outcome of covid, and it's WAY harder to get good numbers about non-lethal risks of covid. But what info is out there suggests that fear of death might not be the only thing to consider on a list of reasons one might want to avoid catching covid, or among reasons society at large might worry about covid transmission.

[dismalist]

I might agree, but this is from the guy who doesn't really think there are any public problems, because free market competition will solve all public problems. So that's a different starting point than everyone else.

I never said free market competition will solve all public problems. It would solve some of the problems most people call public, though they are not.

Before the advent of effective vaccines, Covid was a public problem; I said after the advent of effective vaccines Covid has become a private problem.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me; I do mind the disagreement with something they haven't read.

Ok, I have read it (multiple times, and before you asked because I track these things pretty closely). I will simply point out that death is not the only possible negative outcome of covid, and it's WAY harder to get good numbers about non-lethal risks of covid. But what info is out there suggests that fear of death might not be the only thing to consider on a list of reasons one might want to avoid catching covid, or among reasons society at large might worry about covid transmission.

I absolutely agree. Everyone will decide for him or herself how much risk to bear. There is indeed more worry than death, but absence of data does not mean that death data should be ignored. 

Transmission is really a question of property rights. Do we force the anti-vaxxers to vax or do we vax ourselves? As far as I can tell, the vaxxed still transmit, so force is insufficient, though they do transmit less on account they catch it less. Vaxxing oneself is far more effective than having others vax. That's why I can call Covid protection a private good. I'm really doing an informal cost-benefit analysis, a guess, in other words, that it costs me less to vaccinate than to force anti-vaxxers to vaccinate, 'ya know police, riots, the lot. All gotta be paid for.

A significant practical matter to affect the use of force calculus is that Covid hardly affects the young and very young, whereas the vaccines that we force the young to take prevent infection from diseases that particularly affect the young. I saw my daughter suffer from being stuck six times with various vaccs when it was time to go to school. It was worth it in sum to her and others, a choice she could not have made at the age of six. But that's just another cost-benefit analysis.

[Caracal]

The research shows that COVID is far more serious than the flu, affecting multiple organ systems in ways that the flu never has. Some people get lucky. Many don't, and end up with long COVID or dying from heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions, due to the effects COVID has on the body. I'll be wearing a respirator any time I'm in public, including teaching, until we have better air quality and ventilation, and better vaccines and treatments for COVID. I've read the scientific literature, and I know far too many people who have long COVID or who have lost previously, young, healthy family and friends due to heart attacks and strokes after even a mild bout of COVID, to imagine doing anything else. It's not like wearing a mask in public is a huge burden for the majority of individuals (I recognize some find masks difficult or burdensome). COVID is much closer to SARS from 2002-2003 than the flu. Look at the literature on people who experienced SARS back then. The majority are still dealing with the effects of their infections.

It doesn't really make sense to think of Coronaviruses as inherently lethal. Sars was a coronavirus, but so are several extremely common viruses that cause cold symptoms that are rarely anything more than a nuisance. The main reason Covid appears to be far more deadly than these viruses is because it is novel. There was actually a deadly pandemic in the 1880s  that was assumed to have been flu, but when some people looked back at the accounts they found that many of the symptoms sounded a lot like the covid pandemic and that it appears to have been particularly bad for the elderly and there were very few reports of deaths among children, in contrast to flu viruses. Sequencing of one of the endemic coronaviruses viruses puts the time of emergence right in the 1880s time frame. It's possible that this coronavirus, which is now just an endemic virus that causes cold symptoms, emerged in the 1880s and caused a deadly pandemic. Why is this virus just mostly a nuisance now? Because everyone is exposed to it repeatedly in childhood and our immune systems become familiar with it and can quickly deal with it.

Covid is pretty clearly on a similar trajectory because of the combination of infection and vaccination. Covid is still all over the place, but despite new variants, the hospitalization and death numbers were way down last year. We aren't yet at the point where it has just become a nuisance virus, and it still is much more dangerous than the flu, but things are quite different now than they were three years ago. Of course, risk varies and people can make their own calculations and should be accommodating about the calculations others make. For various reasons, I'm still wearing a mask in class.