Not all college students are in the low risk demographic.
What about the 50 year old who was made redundant and attending college to improve their career prospects. They might have a heart condition that puts them at a high risk of complications. Or the single mother of a child with severe health problems. She doesn’t want to bring the virus home to her child.
College should be an engine of self investment for all, so should be safe and accessible for all not just the young healthy without responsibilities.
So what is the solution? I support mandatory masking and vaxxing for college kids but don’t think that they should have to suffer through another year of sub-par on-line schooling (and that isn’t because I’m going to be personally affected as my kids are still in HS). That’s not even to touch upon the massive upsurge in mental health issues among kids in this age group. A friend of a friend’s kiddo is at a top 10 and said it was so terrible for his mental health that he will drop out/take a leave if they go remote again.
Before the pandemic online college students had full time jobs and lived in their own homes or with roommates.
Mental health shouldn’t be tired to having a luxury residential college experience. That’s not even the norm way of life for the young adult age group as a whole. Go to any supermarket it’s young mid teenagers and twenty somethings working there full time or around school. That’s how to get that vital human interaction out of the school setting, work.
Pretty hard to have a job when your university institutes a shelter in place and/or precludes you from leaving campus. You clearly are not aware of the severe restrictions many of the residential colleges placed on their students last year nor their impact on students’ mental health. It is not remotely comparable to deciding to sign up for online classes while you’re working and living at home.
So, it is ok for kids to work in a supermarket where they are coming into contact with the general public, but it isn’t ok for them to attend class in-person?
Exactly . . . not to mention the cost difference. Residential students getting an on-line education aren’t paying an on-line price. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to spend 20/30/40/50 thousand in tuition to sit in front of a computer screen to get their education.
Working in a supermarket doesn’t have that inherent party culture of a residential college. At work you go in, work your shift, maybe go out for one beer after work, then go home. The lectures themselves aren’t necessarily risky but the socialising activities around that is.
I too find the stereotypes of the unvaxxed unhelpful. It is unlikely the 73% of young black NYC residents, who are unvaxxed, meet the descriptions provided above. Nor do my company’s employees-a tech company, reasonably well educated, younger than average, half unvaxxed.
Some scientists are saying that even with 90-95% vaccination rate, herd immunity isn’t likely to be achievable due to Delta and breakthrough infections.
Seeing as my teenager works in a supermarket I’m well aware of what it entails. During his 5 hour shift hundreds of people come in and out. Most are unmasked. Whether that is less risky than being at college (where, at many schools, vaccine rates are high), we have no way of knowing. Also, your supposition that kids who are working (not mine as he’s a HS student) aren’t partying or attending crowded social events doesn’t seem to be based on fact. In any case what’s your solution? Shut down all residential schools?
If the Delta variant’s R0 is 7, then the immunity rate needs to be 86% or higher to get herd immunity. Since immunity from vaccination (with current vaccines) or prior infection (with earlier variants) is probably below 86%, then even 100% vaccination or prior infection will not produce herd immunity.
Can we keep the conversation focused on colleges please? Let’s keep the medical stuff to the Inside Medicine thread.
On another note, I believe the new Amherst restrictions truly will be just for the first few weeks of the term. The policies announced last week were much more moderate, and there hasn’t been any new data in the past two weeks that would imply more restrictions were needed. What it feels like more than anything is a last-minute panic attack, especially considering the timing of this message (the night before first-years move in). The first-years moved in and began orientation today, with all activities still in-person. None of Amherst’s peer institutions (in NESCAC or the Five College Consortium) have starting regulations this strict.
I also wonder if part of their worry (and the reason for especially strict regulations the first few weeks) is because (at the beginning of August) they decided not to send out pre-arrival tests (like they did last year) and regret that now. I remember I was shocked when I saw that they were not doing them again, because that seems like a fairly easy way to prevent COVID-positive students from showing up on-campus.
Barnard requires proof of negative test within 7 days prior to move in, test on campus day of move in and no one allowed in dorms for move in except the student. Weekly testing required of all students.
Pre-arrival testing does have some holes. A student may get tested a few days before arriving, but could pick up an infection after testing, or could have picked up an infection soon enough before testing that the viral load was not high enough to test positive. Or the test could give a false positive or false negative.