Close

Complete Captcha

• 3 years - 72 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 135 Goods vs 57 No Goods

1. Economist
   8344
   

   None of this happy talk is consistent with what we are seeing in similar environments -- meaning indoor, prolonged exposure, limited distancing.
   Retailers have been pretty successful as stemming new infections, but food processing plants, nursing homes and, most recently, reopened churches are seeing big increases in infections.
   If you are in a small, poorly ventilated room with a group of people for over an hour 30 times, I would imagine the risk is nontrivial if you are 50+ or have chronic medical conditions.

   There is obvious mitigation you can pursue. Masks for students, filters, no handshakes, etc. But if 30 hours over a semester this fall, at a distance from students, is too dangerous, then I assume you think the same is true for other workers *currently* working 40 hours per week indoors. I take it you are not offering off Amazon, or any delivered food, or expecting any government services?

   Honestly, the willingness of academics to make a huge sacrifice to educational quality is exchange for a minor health benefit (and again, the health risk of teaching in September is incomparably lower than delivering mail in May) is surely based on the fact that they do not bear the costs. A 50% reduction in salary if we go online, to be able to match tuition at full time online programs? Who supports that? I sure as hell don't.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 3 Vlad !

2. Economist
   8344
   

   For those who want to go online - what local level of transmission do you find acceptable to run in person classes, at least with precautions?

   I gave 1 death per million per day, the wintertime usual flu rate. I am assuming that everywhere will have the ability to test and trace this fall quickly - this is already possible many places and should be straightforward on a campus.

   My argument is not to endanger anyone. It is to have some firm policy based on more than the neurotic worries on individual administrators. If you find the cutoff I propose too lenient, let me know why.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   7094
   

   Universities are pretty much the perfect storm for outbreaks -- large numbers of people converging, sometimes on a small town, from all over the country.

   Because the health risks to students are so small, they will not distance in their personal lives. They have been having parties all summer at my uni. They will likely not be willing to wear masks in class. Will universities enforce this? How?

   OP is concerned about the large number of classes held in small rooms with poor ventilation. That is the meat-packing / nursing home / church scenario. It's not akin to retail where small numbers of shoppers are keeping their distance at Walmart. It is exactly the scenario that is leading to infections in these other settings.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 1 Vlad !

4. Economist
   8344
   

   Universities are pretty much the perfect storm for outbreaks -- large numbers of people converging, sometimes on a small town, from all over the country.
   Because the health risks to students are so small, they will not distance in their personal lives. They have been having parties all summer at my uni. They will likely not be willing to wear masks in class. Will universities enforce this? How?
   OP is concerned about the large number of classes held in small rooms with poor ventilation. That is the meat-packing / nursing home / church scenario. It's not akin to retail where small numbers of shoppers are keeping their distance at Walmart. It is exactly the scenario that is leading to infections in these other settings.

   Test all students on arrival. Test again if they return from any location with an outbreak more than x times your regional level. You have now solved the "coming from all over" problem. The "young people party" problem is constant whether they are home or on campus so I don't see any différential risk from being on campus.

   Also, again, we currently have many people working in places like a grocery store or a restaurant kitchen or a mail sorting facility. You are teaching one hour per week in September. They work forty hours per week in May. Assume ten x lower cases in September than now (which I think is a vast underestimate, but let's use it). Then your risk teaching is 1/400 that of the many people currently working. Let's be realistic about the risk.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 4 Vlad !

5. Economist
   25a6
   

   Test all students on arrival. Test again if they return from any location with an outbreak more than x times your regional level. You have now solved the "coming from all over" problem. The "young people party" problem is constant whether they are home or on campus so I don't see any différential risk from being on campus.
   Also, again, we currently have many people working in places like a grocery store or a restaurant kitchen or a mail sorting facility. You are teaching one hour per week in September. They work forty hours per week in May. Assume ten x lower cases in September than now (which I think is a vast underestimate, but let's use it). Then your risk teaching is 1/400 that of the many people currently working. Let's be realistic about the risk.

   Test on arrival: 'maybe' for college towns.. I'm in the big city and students will be partying all over.

   comparison with restaurant and mail sorting: those workers are likely never in contact with more than 10-20 other other workers max. Someone who teaches undergrads could be in contact with hundreds of students per group.

   comparison with grocery workers: maybe, but there's a much stronger case to be made that those are "essential"

   comparing number of hours per week seems irrelevant

   3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   7094
   

   In the Chronicle of Higher Ed article on liability waivers, a university president said universities needed these to open because outbreaks were inevitable. Hard to square that with the purported risk levels being described above.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   fac5
   

   I am just amazed by the level of risk aversion by some posters in this thread. How do you work up the courage to take a shower in the morning knowing that you could slip and be killed?

   3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 3 Vlad !

8. Economist
   1ade
   

   Life insurance will not raise my kids. They need a healthy and involved dad.

   If you live in fear of this virus despite the extensive data showing it hardly affects people under 50, I can't imagine you're a good influence on your kids. They'll be better off without you.

   I know personally at least two people under 50 affected by the virus. One is my former colleague. He was a healthy 27 old young man who died in April from covid. The other one is my younger brother's 23 year old girlfriend. She was sick with pneumonia for a month (!) to the point that she couldn't walk, eat, and could barely breathe.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

9. Economist
   7094
   

   The admins on our reopening committee are amazed at faculty risk aversion about this. They tell us that over Zoom.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    b00c
    

    There are some cheerful admins in the thread. Who will stay at home hiding behind our faculty backs. Guess what. You will be surprised how many of us value our and our family members' health more than your job security.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

11. Economist
    b00c
    

    Propaganda at its best!

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    81c7
    

    1) You are interested in tail risk. The tail risk of losing 1/3 of your class is much worse than the tail risk of moving to online in October if another major outbreak happens.

    Seems to me the more important tail risk is an outbreak where several students and profs die and many profs are sick enough they won't be able to switch to online and many more test positive so even if they could go online they can rightly say they feel poorly with covid (positive test) and don't go online, and a large fraction of classes can't be finished. We get wrongful death suits and other lawsuits from students. By far more costly than 20% of students going elsewhere.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply

Post <blockquote>Easy to see that: -total lockdown bad -all the way back to normal bad -masks good -social distance good -over 60 or so, be very, very careful But, we still don't know enough about long term consequences to know how lax to be with those under 60ish. There is reason to think the probability of long term complications in the young and otherwise healthy may not be trivially small. That does not justify lockdown forever. But I do think it justifies working remotely if it is easy to do until we know more, since the cost is not that high. So, from a social point of view (not the individual school), is there really any way that face to face passes a benefit-cost test even for those under 60?</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.