@DroidsLookingFor - Valid points for sure. Thanks for attaching The Atlantic piece (which allows a few free articles for non-subscribers FYI for fellow non-subscribers). Itâs an interesting read about the best practices that drove their reduced rates. Key seems to be in the testing, quick tracing and isolation. Iâd be curious how the density of a community figures into whether the âtight bubbleâ model is more effective versus the âour community is too bigâ â 87k students in the IU Atlantic case and â20 year olds will still gatherâ background. In The Atlantic piece, there is a link to another article â UC Davis, where they actually expanded their âcommunityâ to include the entire town. I recommend reading.
Iâm seeing 3 main approaches with some positive results: âminimal contact day schoolsâ and then âtight smaller residential bubbleâ and âlarger â 80k â community with quick tracing.â
In a larger community like these, quick tracing seems to be the primary success factor. But âquickâ means within 24 hours of testing (if I understand the articles correctly), and within, say, 3-4 days of potentially being contagious (assuming 2X/week testing they mentioned). In a community of 80k, there may be an element of community dilution that minimizes the cases that come from a 3-4 day lag.
In a tighter, denser community of, say, 1500 people, that 3-4 day lag would, Iâm guessing, infect more effectively (for the virus I mean), as the exposure would theoretically be higher in these much closer quarters. Add in porous day student population for another layer of complexity â enough to bring germs in, but perhaps not open enough to dilute the population/intensity of exposure?
Which then has me wondering:
Could any of these models of potential success could be replicated at Andover?
Or -
Is Andover too big and porous to be a tight bubble (like smaller schools can manage)?
Too residential to follow successful the âday schoolâ models (CDC article, Duke article)?
And too small/intensive to follow successful the IU/Davis models (Atlantic article)?
And the answer is I donât know.
(If true experts are stumped, then certainly I am ill-placed to suggest any wisdom here.)
Maybe Andover is getting it wrong.
Or maybe Andover is wisely understanding that they cannot follow these same protocols and expect similar results because the communities differ in key ways that are critical to success.
Either way, certainly open communication can be had at all times, even when things are uncertain. (and especially in uncertainty!). Frustrating that itâs not happening for sure.
While I agree with you @DroidsLookingFor I think making a year-long agreement that didnât allow for an evolving landscape was probably a mistake. Still, until there is a vaccine, or at least a compelling plan to protect anyone who felt unsafe living/teaching on campus, I support giving people the decision to be remote this spring. I simply know too many people who were young (-ish â 40âs/50âs), healthy and are now dead. Gone. No known health issues that would have identified them as vulnerable. The idea that anyone could accurately identify who they are ahead of time and just make sure that they have the option to stay home while everyone else is forced back on campus is not really feasible, from where I sit.
Looking ahead to next fall, I am optimistic about vaccines being widespread enough that many of these hard questions will be moot.
But, what if they arenât? (what if mutations make vaccine ineffective, or we simply still havenât managed to get distribution under control?)
I mean at a certain point, if this risk is our new normal, then we will have to adjust, do our best to mitigate risks. Life cannot stop forever of course â too many costs. The question is: is now the time to âaccept the risk and move on?â We will not agree on the answer here. I would say not yet. We are THISCLOSE to a vaccinated population.
Iâm reading everyoneâs thoughts with interest, and I appreciate how much I am getting to learn from your perspectives.