My daughter has friends at Villanova and 9 freshman were sent home (to do online school) for the same thing: Dorm parties with more than 10 people.
The currently available tests are not really suitable for public health purposes (as opposed to individual health purposes).
A test that would be helpful for public health purposes would be cheap test strips that one could lick and see a result instantly or within a few minutes to show contagiousness (not necessarily the same as infection). If it shows contagiousness, one knows to avoid going to in-person class, parties, restaurants, etc. that day.
In other words, it would give what we are lacking, which is an ability to know which not-obviously-sick people are potential spreaders of the virus. Currently available tests, which require sending samples to a lab and waiting (optimistically) a day or few to (pessimistically) a week or few, are not effective for this purpose (a pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic spreader could be spreading virus for days or weeks before the test results come back). So, with currently available tests, we either have to cast the quarantine/isolation/social-distancing net broadly (heavier restrictions for everyone, because everyone is a potential spreader), or narrowly (restrictions only on known virus-positive people, but that misses all of the pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spreaders, so it will be ineffective at containing the virus).
Of course, some college students may not be compliant with a “don’t go to class if you test positive” rule even if given a book of those theoretical test strips. But perhaps they could also be used at entrances to campuses or classroom buildings.
Most of the pods being set up around here are keeping the kids in public school but having parents or paid helpers direct the pod of students who are working from home. The student is not considered homeschooled.
Michigan State did not require testing to move into the dorm, and the plan was to do pool testing, surveillance sewage testing, random testing, and of course, testing those who were symptomatic or exposed. This would not be sufficient to prevent the spread. I agree that a quick, cheap test is what we need, but there is also the pesky detail of 40,000+ young people each following safety measures.
@Luckyjade2024, after first saying that
Then writes:
I remember early in the pandemic when we read info from China about how people who didn’t need to be hospitalized had “mild” disease. Some of us read the fine print, though, and noticed that “mild” disease included “mild to moderate pneumonia.” That’s not what I’d call mild disease.
We’re past that stage now, and we know that there is a middle ground between barely sick and needing to be hospitalized.
Let’s talk about the middle here: not the people who have no symptoms, not the people who have cold symptoms or low grade fever, not the people who go to the emergency room because they can’t breathe, but the people who are very sick but not sick enough to go to the hospital.
Here are some symptoms these folks might have: fevers of 104 every night, bones hurting like they’ve been broken, excruciating headaches, inability to walk across a room. We don’t know numbers here: of young people, maybe 5-10% of infected people? Could be less. Certainly nowhere near zero.
Ignore for the moment the potential long-term effects. Some people who get covid but don’t need hospitalization get what most of us would call “very sick.” It does no one any good to pretend this doesn’t happen.
This is my daughter’s new job. 3 - 5 year olds online. She is an Educational Pod Facilitator… She made that up since she’s not a teacher… Lol
I disagree. I think by fall 2021 we will have cheap, quick lateral flow assay tests. These are the tests @ucbalumnus is talking about: you lick a strip, wait a few minutes, and look at an indicator line that shows your infectiousness status.
As I understand it, the reason we don’t have those tests widely available right now are bureaucratic, not scientific. The science is there, but the FDA will not approve the tests because, while they are accurate enough to determine whether someone is infectious, they are not accurate enough to determine whether someone is infected. This is a decision that could be changed (and should be changed instantly in my view).
Flu Shot update : at least for Chicago it seems Walgreens and Costco are doing flu shots now. Just a FYI if you want your college kids or yourself to get one.
@homerdog - I am with those that feel “change is around the corner” is a sucker’s game. We are in a time when we need to learn to “do life” in the midst of a pandemic. I refer again to President Crow of ASU. They are moving forward with bringing over 70k students back for this reason. If you think you can “wait out” the virus, you are wrong. We need to learn to live with the circumstances provided, not wait for more information.
Innovation comes from trying something new when standard methods have failed.
Update on MSNBC Craig Melvin just now–Notre Dame suspending in-person instruction for 2 weeks. Michigan State also “suspending” class (unclear for how long).
So does death.
If you need to cross the street, you don’t just walk…you follow the indicators and wait until it’s a bit safer. It’s never perfectly safe, but there are times that are safer than others.
The “circumstances provided” at this point indicate that distance between college-aged learners and the people that support them is the most effective way to limit the damages.
Bowdoin has a plan for the freshmen, but what about all of the upperclassmen who will be partying in other cities like Brunswick?
What “innovation” is ASU doing to control the spread of CV-19 on campus that the UNC’s/Notre Dame’s of the world haven’t tried?
@waverlywizzard wrote:
Clearly, Trinity is the outlier here. Not only are they the most urban of the NESCACs but even their religious roots place them outside the early puritan New England “church versus chapel” divide. All Episcopalians are familiar with the canard, “Where there are two, there’s also a fifth.” 
And, I would call Middletown more of a mature suburb. It’s still inconvenient to reach without a car; only two buildings above six stories in the entire town and one of them is the Wesleyan science center.
I am not looking to “pretend” anything. If the outbreaks at these colleges were “severe” it would have been all over the news. Most cases (i’m guessing) are mild.
Also the cases in the US have been cut in half over the last month…that is definitely positive news.
New data from Notre Dame: 73 new cases yesterday out of 355 people tested, a positivity rate nearly identical to Monday’s 20 percent.
Testing still massively inadequate.
Here’s a link to the ND and Michigan State closures. ND for 2 weeks; Michigan State for the fall term.
@AlwaysMoving I honestly don’t think this will be a thing. I know of some Bowdoin kids getting houses in Maine but they are spread out. Some near campus, but many in Portland. Kids also getting houses in other states. There are only about 1200 student total who won’t be in dorms. Majority of those are likely studying from home. Brunswick doesn’t have much housing available for them. We tried to find a place there to no avail. It’s not like there’s some big strip of housing with Bowdoin kids partying in Brunswick.
Asserting that we have to learn how to “do life” is not the same as being able to do normal life. I took a look at ASU’s covid FAQ. Their plan looks entirely inadequate. I’ll summarize.
Students who will be living on campus, but not other students, are required to have a PCR test before coming to campus. Looks to me like most students live off campus.
Masks are required indoors.
There’s no mention of any surveillance testing. Students who experience covid symptoms, and students who had contact with known positives, are “encouraged” to get tested. Testing is free.
Students who test positive are banned from class for ten days. They are “educated” about self-isolation. This education does not seem to include the statement, “If you do not isolate, goodbye, you must leave this school.” There are isolation facilities.
Students who are identified as contacts are “educated” about quarantine. This education does not seem to include the statement, “If you do not quarantine, goodbye, you must leave this school.” Students who have been exposed are not, evidently, barred from going to class.
There is no mention of gatherings or parties being prohibited.
Did you wonder if some colleges had plans that were much worse than UNC’s? Wonder no longer. I suppose it’s logically possible that there won’t be enormous outbreaks at ASU, but if I had a kid who was planning to live in the dorms at ASU, I’d be sprucing up the basement and making sure I had great internet.
@“Cardinal Fang” Colleges that aren’t really trying to contain the virus are pretty much taking the stance that people are going to get it and the sickest will seek treatment. End of story. Case counts might not matter in states that aren’t really taking it seriously. Maybe campuses in those states don’t even close. Students who go to those schools might have the option to choose all remote classes if they don’t want to be part of that.