Then if transmission is mainly from people being near an infected person, then when strict social distancing was recommended last spring when schools and many businesses closed for at least a period of time, why didn’t the transmission severely slow down?
1 Like
Yes, they did, everywhere there was a strict lockdown, whether in Asia, Europe, Australia, or here in some of our states/regions (Bay area, Northeast, etc.)
Our problem is that we didn’t do it consistently across the country. Viruses moved around with people and attacked where we were most vulnerable. We relaxed once the infection rate locally came down. That isn’t a good strategy against a pandemic.
6 Likes
I’m not sure if you are authentically asking or being difficult, but I suggest you consult various websites like CDC’s, and read science journalism pieces to get the answers to what you are asking.
8 Likes
I live in one of hardest hit areas from the start, masks, shut downs and social distances made a huge difference!
5 Likes
By the way, if we had locked down globally and strictly in the spring for a month or two, we wouldn’t even need the vaccines today. Geopolitics and our own domestic politics, however, were in the way.
3 Likes
Please note that the topic is about Schools & Coronavirus. I know it’s easy to get into discussing details. Just trying to bring it back on course.
Thank you
3 Likes
There is no scientific evidence to support that statement.
1 Like
Take a look at Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, the list goes on.
1 Like
It helps that they could close their borders as islands. People flew in and out of the US on a daily basis.
4 Likes
Yes, we should have stopped all cross-border and intra-border traffic. The state of Victoria where Melbourne, a coronavirus hot spot, is located had a strict lockdown and it brought their case number down to zero.
3 Likes
Taiwan also went through SARS which may be helping with resisitance to C-19.
I wish it were as simple as a strict two month global lockdown to stop a deadly virus but history shows that you need herd immunity, and that is reached either by burning through the population or vaccinating. Some geographic locations might be better than others to lock the virus out but of course that’s not true for every country or continent.
3 Likes
No. Remember what happened to SARS, MERS, and many other viruses? Viruses survive only if they’re allowed to transmit.
That’s true, but Covid-19 appears to be more highly transmittable. It was likely in the NY metro area in December 2019, well before Covid was even on the radar, and at one point 25% of those showing up at NYC hospitals for any reason at all this spring were testing positive. IIRC, SARS and MERS had a higher fatality rate and so as a result wasn’t spreading nearly as fast.
I agree that certain geographies allow for easier lockdown, but you’d need that to hold globally for a 2 month lockdown to be successful. It might not work geographically speaking, let alone geo-politically.
Yes, that’s why we needed a global response as well as a national response. Leaving it to the localities won’t work.
3 Likes
SARS and MERS were not generally as contagious, particularly during the presymptomatic stage of infection. In contrast, a college student infected with COVID-19 could feel perfectly fine while breathing out virus droplets at a crowded indoor party at a fraternity or dorm. Two days later, the student gets a fever and cough and is diagnosed with COVID-19, but that is two days too late for the dozens or hundreds of other students that got infected at the party.
Testing as currently done is no panacea, since the results are usually a few days after the test, so a viral load high enough to test positive (and also probably be contagious) will not be known until the student has had two days to spread virus droplets to others.
These viruses, if they weren’t stopped, would have likely mutated to become more transmittable and less deadly. Viruses, like other organisms, adapt to survive. The less deadly but more transmittable variants would take over. It’s the law of nature.
1 Like
Ventilation is another line of defense – being outdoors is generally a lot less risky than being in an indoor enclosed space, given similar proximity and mask use.
Unfortunately, many classrooms are indoor enclosed spaces with poor ventilation (e.g. no windows). Harsh winter weather in some places makes holding classes outdoors unappealing in many places. It is also likely part of the reason why there is a surge in infections for the winter, as people stop wanting to do things outdoors.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming…
Pitt has announced plans for the spring. All classes are starting remotely on January 19. They are beginning to bring kids back to the dorms on January 29. Students are supposed to shelter in place at home for seven days before traveling and Pitt is paying for all kids to have a mail-in test done by Quest which they are supposed to do while at home. Students are required to have a negative test to move into the dorms. Then, the entire campus is supposed to shelter in place until February 15.
My kid lives off campus and is already there, as are his roommates and friends so I’m not sure how any of this applies to them.
2 Likes
"By the way, if we had locked down globally and strictly in the spring for a month or two, we wouldn’t even need the vaccines today. "
This is what I had assumed would have happened so I initially thought that the transmission would have significantly slowed after a month.
If the courses will be online for the full semester, why should they pay to live in a dorm?