I’m hearing the word “endemic” being tossed around as though it means “less dangerous”, which it does not. All it means is that we lost and that it’s here to stay.
If you’re reading the preprints on omicron, the news does not suggest breathing a sigh of relief; it suggests that this virus is capable of nasty mutations, not all of which will land, but that it’s energetically turning the dials as we develop resistance. Omicron’s a champion replicator: early data suggests that if it’s “mild” in non-naive populations, it’s not because it’s a gentle version of covid, but because it destroys its host cells in the upper respiratory tract so fast that it doesn’t have time to get anywhere else in numbers that would do much to someone with a good antibody response. An overshoot, in other words. But It’s a very large virus with a lot of room for mutation, and the virologists are, with reason, worried about what happens if it evolves the ability to enter cells by non-spike mechanisms or to avoid the antibodies we have. Studies from last year involved T-cell suppresion in a group of patients with severe covid.
We have enough trouble with stable endemic pathogens: TB, iirc, kills a million people a year. Malaria stunts entire societies. This despite the development of well-known “ways to live with it.” An unstable and dangerous endemic pathogen is not a good thing to have.
U.S. health officials on Monday cut isolation restrictions for Americans who catch the coronavirus from 10 to five days, and similarly shortened the time that close contacts need to quarantine.
But I have to say, the ProJo has it wrong. Harvard is ALSO not going remote for the spring semester. They are remote for winter break only (meaning people/professors working on campus during winter break are remote); they return to on-campus on January 21 and spring semester classes begin as planned on January 24. Normal undergrads are not affected by the early January weeks of “remote”.
ETA: But they are requiring booster shots for spring (a good thing, in my opinion).
This is being totally ignored. Now that the CDC has lowered isolation and quarantine requirements, the belief that Omicron is less severe is going to gain further ground among the masses (with most media outlets stoking the “it’s less severe!” fire.
Not a surprise to most but VT just announced that the booster will be required within 14 days of eligibility (first 2 vaccines were mandated as well prior to the start of Fall 2021 semester). Additionally, a negative antigen or pcr test result at least 72 hours prior to return to campus (testing also provided on campus but if positive, they won’t be able to move back into on campus housing until going through isolation period - VT does not provide quarantine housing, so families have to make their own arrangements). Continued weekly testing of students & employees with unvaccinated exemption status. Continued wearing of masks in dining halls, classrooms, library and other indoor public spaces. Not required in residence halls.
I also saw on the the news that NC State will require negative Covid tests in order to return to campus (I don’t believe they have a vaccine mandate there but do require regular testing for the unvaccinated). Guessing that the UNC system will follow suit.
Yeah, I strongly prefer teaching in the classroom and am glad I’m no longer teaching over Zoom.
On the other hand, the switch from in-person conferences to virtual conferences has saved me a massive amount of time and money over the past couple of years. I’m going to miss that for sure.
UNC has already required a negative covid test within 72 hours of returning to school, and strongly suggesting both vaccination and a booster, but not mandating.
It’s so difficult. I mean, IANA biochemist/virologist/geneticist etc., but I do have enough scientific background and biochem/cell bio/genetics to wade through and probably miss key points of papers. I’ve also put nearly 25 years into that background. I don’t know how people who don’t much follow the news, let alone get scientific trade journals delivered to their houses, are supposed to make heads or tails of what’s going on, especially given how thoroughly fractured all media are now, the tiny proportion of popular science news written or delivered by people who know what the words mean, and what seas of misinformation the actual info’s floating around in.
A lot of people are going to get sick and stay sick for a long time; a lot of people are going to die because they can’t get near the hospital treatment they need; a lot of people are going to say they heard it was mild, like a cold, and that you can’t stay cooped up forever, etc.
Me, I just hope my temp crown cement holds for a while. We’ll also be using this stock of Binax tests sparingly over the next month or so, because word is hospitals around here are running out of tests, and I just heard the word “reagent” in a public-health context for the first time in a while.
Oh, I think almost everyone prefers teaching in-person. It’s just a question of the “want to teach in-person” vs “want own/others’ internal organs to work properly” hierarchy.
I have colleagues who’ve had miserable covid years and were hell-bent on going in-person to conferences in terrific locations this winter…all virtual now. My own feelings about conferences are mixed…I’m very much a “go to the bar and meet people” sort of conference-goer, and really important introductions happen there. I’ll also try to make the most of the trip by going to the local symphony, museum, have dinner with local friends, do whatever there is to do – Detroit was a revelation that way. On the other hand, I’d already cut way back on travel to reduce GHG emissions, and I’ve actually found that if the zoom/gather/etc. conference organizers allow people time to talk, rather than just scheduling everything at some breakneck pace and cramming the time full of activities, it’s really not that far off in terms of experience. Except for the booze, which is probably much nicer for people who don’t drink anyway. But my perfect online conference would involve an opening afternoon session or two and then a BYO gather-type meet that ran an hour or two, and holes in the schedule so you could grab a colleague or two you’d been waiting to talk with and really get some serious conversation in.
Given the current labor mobility, many workers seem to be shifting employment to their preference of working sites and conditions. Presumably those grocery clerks, nurses, teachers and college faculty who don’t want to work in person will look for and find jobs more suited to their preferences. Others who wish to do so will fill many of the openings, so it will be a better match of labor supply to demand.
Bates sent out a lengthy email today with lots of new info. Dining will be take and go at the beginning of the semester. They will boost the unboosted before classes start, and the first few days of classes will be remote. They have been doing asymptomatic testing so presumably are expecting lots of positives and describe a plan where students will be removed from the dorm room (but admit they won’t have enough places to put them) unless both roommates are positive. Students must test at home before they come and will be tested upon arrival as well. Some parents on the FB page think it is too much.
If you don’t mind answering, are the complaints about doing the testing and possible isolation being too much, or are people complaining that the dining shouldn’t be curtailed, or what?
Bates’ plan seems like what I expected at LACs that were surveillance testing. Colgate requires negative PCR before arrival, PCR and rapid upon arrival and another PCR five days later. Not sure about the masking and dining yet.
Haven’t heard from Bowdoin but Bates’ plan sounds like exactly what I expect from Bowdoin too. S19 goes back early for track and those athletes just need a negative rapid from the day before they arrive and then go straight to testing on campus before their cards are turned on to get into the dorms. Rapids and PCRs upon arrival like Colgate.
with new CDC guidelines, i’m guessing colleges will have a little relief with the relaxed guidelines for quarantining. Think colleges will follow these guidelines?
I don’t know; there is a lot of backlash from some progressives (it seems that many people are unaware that a lot of evidence has supported reducing quarantine and isolation time and a lot of doctors and health professionals have been calling for it for some time now) on the reduction of quarantine and isolation time for COVID-positive individuals. Some are getting the impression that the CDC is doing this in the interests of capitalism and getting people back to work rather than public health, and since the bulk of students, faculty, and staff at many of these colleges are progressive, this could manifest in significant backlash if these quarantine and isolation times are reduced. I think they should be reduced in accordance with the new guidelines, but not sure how this would play out in progressive college environments, considering that many people are unaware that many public health officials have been calling for the reduction of quarantine and isolation times for some time now.
Some of the posters on the parents FB page are happy with the pro-active approach to dealing with the surge but a few are concerned that the restrictions on dining and in-person instruction and socializing will last too long and the plans to move the positive asymptomatic cases identified through the twice weekly testing might be chaotic. The main FB poster keeps claiming that Omicron is like a cold, actually says Omicron “is literally a cold,” but not everyone thinks we know enough about it. Apparently the dining hall was closed all last year so keeping it closed too long is a real concern - Bates is known for its good food!