Those such schools are more likely to award huge merit to top stats student such as mine
This is exactly right.
17 Likes
Conference rules are likely to require surveillance testing* of home and visiting athletes and any others they are commonly with (coaches, travel staff, etc.), with isolation / quarantine requirements (including staying out of games) if they test positive.
Spectators for indoor sports or where the spectator areas are packed full are more problematic.
*Of course, it is not necessarily true that the method of surveillance testing is effective. E.g. if they do weekly PCR testing, that leaves plenty of gaps for someone to be spreading for days before knowing that they are infected.
1 Like
Is this college related?
Was referring to the BC physician arguing against boosters.
Many schools seem to allow family members of athletes to attend sports events. Because unvaxxed, covid positive relatives arenât a concern on campuses like UCLA.
Dr Jha is also Dean of Brownâs School of Public Health and in that role has been closely involved with Brownâs covid response.
3 Likes
Re: https://noorchashm.medium.com/an-urgent-safety-warning-to-dr-97503baddf46
Noorchashm is a cariothoracic surgeon who is opposed to vaccination for anyone who has had COVID-19 already.
Exactly. And with the numbers of people who have had Omicron, I donât understand why any school is continuing with PCR testingâŠthat is likely to place some number of students in isolation well after their covid case has resolved.
At least some schools allow those who have had covid within the last 90 days to opt out of testing, but now with so many testing positive on rapid home tests, not sure how proof of an infection via rapid home test would workâŠand not all schools allow this grace period in surveillance testing.
Colleges doing the PCR testing are also contributing to the problems we currently have with testing scarcity, access difficulty, and a delay in reporting of results.
2 Likes
Yes, I posted the article.
1 Like
My reply was to give some background in that he was more broadly anti-vaccine in previous statements than in the linked opinion (not article).
I was surprised by your estimate of half of Amherstâs students being on campus for January term since this is only the second year theyâve offered it and none of the handful of Amherst students we know are back on campus. Based on this 1/6/22 email, there are around 450 students on campus for January term, about 25% of the total student population. I got this information from Liz Agostoâs 1/6/22 email (https://www.amherst.edu/news/covid-19/community-messages/for-students-families/node/827517) to students and families posted on Amherstâs site.
âSince December 26, 45 students and counting (more results are being reported as I write this email) have tested positive and are isolating at home or at a nearby hotel. A significant number of staff have also tested positive. This is about 10% of the students currently on campus, markedly higher than we have seen since the start of the pandemic. At no point since March 2020, have we had a student positivity rate greater than 1% during any 14-day period.â
3 Likes
Colby is seeing similar results on campus. I donât have a good source as to how many kids are actually on campus for Jan Plan, but would guess it is at least 1000. Jan Plan is a very popular time at Colby, but the school did allow late withdrawal for students who did not want to return to a restricted campus. Currently, about 100 students and another 20ish faculty members are in isolation. Iâm glad my student sat this Jan Plan out and am anxious to see how the next few weeks play out before the full student body returns on Feb.2.
3 Likes
If online classes are deemed necessary, why allow students back on campus to live in a congregate setting?
Because not all students have ideal home situations for online learning.
3 Likes
Williams is returning to in-person classes tomorrow (Jan 10) for those students who have had two negative tests since arriving on campus. Theyâre sticking with to-go dining for the coming week, but Iâll take this small step towards normalcy given the current surge.
This weekâs campus update included the following news about a slower turnaround for test results which are processed by the Broad Institute.
"Our campus test results are taking longer to come back from the Broad Institute than the 24-36 hour turnaround weâd grown used to, and we expect the new, slower timing to continue. [empasis mine] Our reporting and dashboard updates will therefore also take longer than they did in the fall.
Broad is committed to processing our tests as efficiently as possible while they contend with the current surge and increased demand on their testing program, as well as the impact of Covid on their own staff. We wonât know what kind of turnaround to expect on a long-term basis until we get further into the year."
4 Likes
I know some colleges feel that PCR tests can detect infections sooner than antigen tests. These tend to be colleges that test students frequently and universally, so the risk of a student who had an infection that wasnât detected initially but is no longer infectious even though a subsequent test confirms an infection is very small.
I am not sure the data support that (I fully realize lots of test data continously coming in). I generally donât support surveillance testing of asymptomatic people, for many reasons.
And now, with many students having had covid in the past month or so, the risk is real that some have to needlessly isolate for 5-10 days based on a PCR test where they are still testing positive but are not contagious. And that is problematic especially at the schools that have no remote option for classes.
4 Likes
I do agree that the schools need to modify their procedures if a significant portion of their students were recently infected.
6 Likes
It will be interesting to see if they run into trouble with pooled testing. If campus positivity rate is low, and they excuse recent positives from surveillance testing for 90 days post-infection, it should be fine, but if rates start climbing, they may have to revert to individual testing.
I am not picking on Bowdoin here; I expect other universities will have to make the same pivot. The Broad ran into trouble with pooled testing of Cambridge public school students last week.
Thanks for sharing.
3 Likes
Probably not effectively.
Day 0: infected.
Day 1: not detectable by any test, not yet contagious.
Day 2: detectable by PCR test, not by rapid test, not yet contagious.
Day 4: detectable by PCR or rapid test, contagious; PCR test on day 2 gets results.
Day 6: detectable by PCR or rapid test, contagious; PCR test on day 4 gets results.
In the case of testing on day 2, the PCR test has no advantage over the rapid test in finding the infection earlier. In the case of testing after day 2, the PCR testâs delay in getting results means that the contagiousness is detected later.
Rapid testing at high frequency (daily, or before going to any place where one may expose others) is the best way to do precautionary testing.
4 Likes