When weighing the financial liability it’s actually private institutions that have the greater risk. Public universities can claim sovereign immunity to limit exposure. Publics would still be smart to quietly settle, but they would have better bargaining leverage.
1 Like
One problem I see with requiring the vaccine for this fall is that a not insignificant number of students are under 18 when they start college. Right now only the Moderna vaccine is approved for them. If a school is going to require a vaccine, I would think they’d have to find a way to get these kids that vaccine and I’m not sure that’s possible. (I’d love to be proven wrong.) And it’s not like a parent can just sign a waiver to allow Pfizer or, if approved, Johnson and Johnson to be given to them. The EUA won’t allow that.
2 Likes
Contagious diseases create this conflict, because the imposition of involuntary risk on others means that different individuals’ liberties, freedoms, and rights conflict with each other. Remember that many rules that societies have exist to manage conflicting liberties, freedoms, and rights (e.g. the ancient commandments against murder and theft exist because freedom to murder or steal infringes on someone else’s rights to life and property).
The characteristics of COVID-19 amplify this conflict, because spreaders can be asymptomatic so that others do not know to “keep away from the sick person” (i.e. people have to assume that everyone is a possible asymptomatic spreader, unlike with many other diseases which are most contagious when the person is obviously sick), while the significant chance of long term effects or disabilities is high enough to make it something that many people really want to avoid.
Effective vaccines available to everyone greatly reduce this conflict, because then the risk changes from an involuntary risk imposed on you by others into a voluntary risk taken by those who refuse the vaccine. However, those medically unable to get the vaccines are still vulnerable to have involuntary risks imposed on them.
12 Likes
That was a wonderful analysis! I agree!
The epidemiology at every school will be distinct. Uchicago, for instance, wants to minimize person-to-person spread due to its location on the south side of Chicago, where populations have been heavy hit by the virus. No student to my knowledge has been hospitalized but, for this particular institution, it’s not just about the students or even the faculty. Much of the staff and their families reside in the local area, and of course many off-campus students interact with the local community. Toward the end of first quarter, positivity rates were starting to jump, but those were found to be coming from the local area, as opposed to student-to-student spread on campus. And fortunately, that was right around Thanksgiving when the university was going to switch to remote anyway.
If designed correctly, this can be a very effective method of keeping Covid from sweeping through the campus. I wonder if Pitt coordinated it’s Covid policies with CMU? If I recall correctly, that area has been particularly low-incidence.
Yes, and the value of doing so, over and above a well-designed surveillance system might not be worth the cost and the stress. It’ll depend on the local community, of course. UChicago opted NOT to test more than 1x per week (mandatory for those living in dorms and involved in athletics; voluntary for those living off campus as well as non-medical faculty, staff, etc. I believe UCMed has its own testing program). The rationale is that more than once a week might lower compliance and wouldn’t necessarily provide more genuine information. Plus - and this is just my own bugaboo with frequent per-week testing - it artificially lowers the positivity rate by expanding the denominator.
All of these lock-down policies have costs. Specific to colleges and universities, it is hard to understand why some seem to be striving for zero-incidence, whether that’s a CYA tactic or is supported by a genuine underlying public health concern. As mentioned in this post and also upthread, the surrounding community can certainly contribute to the spread among the student population. Rather than punitive measures and scolding, institutions are better off understanding how best to contain the virus on their campuses and stick to those policies, not turning a blind eye on one hand and bringing down the axe on the other. An attitude of realism seems to be missing. This is a highly infectious virus; it’s going to be impossible to stamp it out completely. Design your system, monitor closely, tweak as necessary, and publish your findings regularly. That seems to be a recipe not only for success in containing Covid but for keeping the parents well informed and minimizing frustration.
I’ve been wondering the same. But unfortunately, the virus has been politicized by both sides of the debate and trust in our political and media institutions is pretty low right now. That’s a hinderance at any time, but in a time of crisis it’s especially harmful.
I’m surprised that any college or university is even discussing at this point whether to make the vaccine mandatory or what their autumn plans are. There’s a time and place for every announcement and this is a rapidly-changing real-time event. Didn’t they learn from their abrupt re-callibrations of last summer? Can’t think of better way to frustrate parents and students than to promise one thing and then whip-saw to something else.
5 Likes
For the most part those being imminently deployed are accepting it in high numbers but some Army units are reporting as few as 1/3 agreeing to the vaccine.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/thousands-service-members-covid-19-vaccine-75950930
What would it mean if say, 20% of students on a campus didn’t have the vaccine? Wouldn’t it mean those students have a higher risk of contracting COVID/severe side effects but the vaccinated students are still protected? I’m just wondering how this would work and am having a hard time wrapping my head around it.
The University of Wisconsin system said today they plan to have at least 75% of classes in person next fall, which is basically pre-pandemic levels.
2 Likes
My question to all of these schools saying class will be in person in the fall is- what about everything else? Club meetings, sports, parties, dance class, etc. Unless I’m missing it, these announcements seem to be focusing on class. I know quite a few schools where most classes are in person but kids are still struggling with mental health issues because every other in-person thing is virtual and the loneliness is real.
4 Likes
Why would it be hard to wrap one’s head around it?
If the vaccines are available to all who want them by early summer, and there is no new variant that evades vaccine protection, then not getting a vaccine is (except for the few who are medically unable) a voluntary assumption of COVID-19 risk, unlike in the pre-vaccine time when COVID-19 risk was an involuntary risk if school operated as normal in-person with expected close social interaction. So if 20% of the students choose not to get a vaccine, then they can play COVID-19 lottery among themselves, while everyone else who has gotten a vaccine can mostly ignore them (yes, there will be the unlucky ones for whom the vaccine does not give full immunity, but they will tend to get milder cases if they do get COVID-19).
3 Likes
My son’s college started twice-a-week testing after post-arrival testing and found a cluster of 50-something in just two first days in this month, caused by a student athletes’ large off-campus gathering. Since then, college started to test all students 3 times a week (athletes everyday). The college closed campuses for 10 days and had 2-3 new daily cases so they opened campuses and in-person classes on 11th. And today, “zero” new case report in their dashboard.
The college town allows 25% capacity for both indoor and outdoor dining. But the college told all on-campus and off-campus students not to dine indoor or outdoor because just removing face masks in any public settings is very unsafe. The college encourages students to do take-out, instead. Also, the college town allows up to 10-person gatherings but the college allows all on-campus and off-campus students up to 5-person gatherings with face masks on.
Are all students keeping the more strict rules?? I am not sure. But the college keeps giving very strong messages about “public health” to all a students seems working.
3 Likes
I get you about sovereign immunity, but public schools have more issues to deal with about whether they can make this mandate. I still think a private school would be fine, because they aren’t forcing kids to come, it’s a kid’s choice.
1 Like
I’m with @homerdog on this one. What my kid is getting out of their pandemic learning experience is not what we signed up for, or are paying for, at all. This was necessary, I agree and I get that, because kids could spread it and they could also get very sick themselves. So I agree that everyone had to suck it up or take a gap year. But once the vaccine is available to all, the kids who have chosen to get vaccinated should be able to go back to the experience that we are paying for. Meaning, all in person classes for those that want it (BTW, my kid has had 0 in-person classes last semester and this one, and despises on-line classes), in-person club activities (no in-person club activities now, all via zoom), and in-person sports (her sport still isn’t back, even though it is outdoors and socially distanced). What a crummy year. And how depressing. And how upsetting to me who is paying $61k (tuition & fees only) for an on-line experience.
13 Likes
This is useful information, so thank you for posting, but I’m not going to “heart/like” it, because I think it is absolutely disgusting that 1/3 have declined it.
To me, I have 100% moved on from being mad at people for not wearing masks, and am now directing my ire towards people refusing to get vaccinated. The most selfish choice out there, they will slow our recovery, and I find it abominable. Our schools would more quickly return to normal if everyone eligible agrees to get vaccinated. There are basically close to zero (well below a fraction of a percent as far as I can see) of people who are medically unable to get vaccinated, so that is a non-issue. We should stop discussing it, unless anyone can point to anything other than an absolutely minute, minuscule, insignificant number of people who fall into this category. All people who have allergies are allowed to get the vaccine, just need extra medical supervision. Pregnant people, cancer patients, etc are all approved for the vaccine. There really do not appear to be much in the way of people “medically ineligible”, so let’s stop bringing them up unless there really is a real group of people that fit that definition. The issue is selfishness. Get vaccinated, folks.
2 Likes
Pfizer is approved for 16+. The number of college students below 16 is absolutely neglible, and can be handled one-off.
3 Likes
Well said!!
2 Likes
If you are not concerned about people who are medically unable to get a vaccine, then why worry about the voluntary vaccine refusers? If, after general vaccine availability, assuming no variant virus that evades vaccines shows up, a school reopening to pre-COVID-19 normal could do so because the people in danger of COVID-19 would be the voluntary vaccine refusers. Many will say, let them play COVID-19 lottery among themselves…
But it remains to be seen how many people are medically unable to get a vaccine (probably few). To protect these people, herd immunity is necessary, which requires high vaccination rates that are unlikely to happen in the near term. That is why people get mad at anti-vaxxers (at least for other things like measles).
I posted the other day that my daughter’s school was unexpectedly given over 800 doses Monday to give to students. My daughter does not know anyone who did not try to get it. Kids were sprinting across campus to get in line and stood outside in the cold for hours. They all desperately want to do anything they can to get things back to normal.
20 Likes
Why worry about the voluntary vaccine refusers? Because our vaccines are not 100% effective. So it is selfish to not get vaccinated, because the vaccinated still have a chance of getting sick due to the unvaccinated.
Who are these medically unable people? No one I think. But that still doesn’t mean we don’t want everyone to get vaccinated. It helps everyone to get the entire group vaccinated.
2 Likes
That’s awesome. I myself have been vaccinated, as a healthcare worker. I had Moderna. The 1st one gave me 8 hours of fever and migraine. The 2nd one kicked my butt for 36 hours in many ways. Every bit was WELL worth it, and it wasn’t scary, because I knew it would end and I wasn’t really “sick” and it was all a good sign of my immune system kicking in. So I don’t say this to dissuade anyone. But I’m 50. I’ve heard the younger you are, the stronger your response. My mom only felt a sore arm on her 2nd; I think a lot of the older people feel very little. But if middle aged people suffer multiple days, I worry about what actual young people will feel. And I worry that the calculus won’t be worth it for them. My own kids and their friends are eager to get it, but they are pretty bright and care a lot about others; I know that is not true for all young people. I’ve been worried that a lot would say, “why would I want to suffer terribly for 2 days, twice, when if I catch covid I am almost entirely likely to be asymptomatic or a very mild situation?”. I am buoyed hearing that other youngsters are eager to get it!!! Let’s pray that stays the case!!
3 Likes