@katliamom That’s not true… testing has been increasing dramatically by the day. The media just isn’t covering it because that interferes with their story. And the more people are terrified, the more money they make, so if they covered it, they would make less money. Amherst College has implied they think they will be able to acquire lots of tests, and Biddy implied in her email that she believes we will have more than enough tests, masks, contact tracing, and quarantine facilities to reopen in fall.
I agree in that I found Fauci to be slightly encouraging with regard to schools. Especially if the school is located in an area that has not been so hard hit.
It may have “increased dramatically” but we’re still lagging behind. Instead of blaming “the media” get off CC and do some reading.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-testing-per-capita-countries-ahead-of-us-2020-5
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104645/covid19-testing-rate-select-countries-worldwide/
AKA “area that has lots of people without immunity”.
We’re still in the very early stages of this pandemic, folks.
Well by that measure there’s really no area with any meaningful level of immunity. I think what he was suggesting was that for a school in an area with little infection and that had the capacity to test students and staff, there is a path. And the suggestion today, was that the numbers of tests available are rapidly increasing and that by school time there should be enough.
At the hearings, the witnesses seemed to offer a consensus that if there is an area that at the time of college re-opening has few cases and has a robust system of surveillance testing, contact tracing and isolation, then in that area colleges could be able to open up, with “changes in social distancing.”
I’d like to see the CDC guidance on exactly what those changes in social distancing would be.
@katliamom There is no need to challenge my competence just because you disagree with me. I have done more than my fair share of readings, believe me. The problem is, I have to go directly to news sources for the medical community because many mainstream media sources are intentionally omitting positive information. Did you see the spin many media sources put on Fauci’s statement today?
I am very aware that we are currently behind other countries in terms of testing. But we are improving very rapidly.
I am not one of those conservatives who are anti-media. I am very liberal and very pro-media. But the fact is, the media sources have been omitting information and intentionally hyping up fear among the general public so they can make more money; this shouldn’t be surprising! They are, after all, for-profit organizations!
How often have we been promised that there’re enough tests? The schools need rapid and accurate tests. The current rapid test (Abbott IDNow) isn’t accurate enough. Many other tests take too long to get the results back. Would the schools have enough trained personnel to administer these tests? Enough PPEs? I wouldn’t bet my money on every school having all the capabilities.
@1NJParent Does the rapid test trend towards false positives or false negatives? If it trends towards false positives, we could initially quarantine all those who test positive until they get the results of a more accurate test; if they test positive again, they just ride out quarantine until they are no longer contagious. If they test negative, they can be released from quarantine.
^False negatives (15-25%)
@katliamom wrote:
Except that those billion dollar endowments are not likely to go anywhere. Trustees are not going to be content to spend them down merely to keep the same old business model. You can feel the resistance even now to “dipping into permanent assets”. Large research institutions are likely to continue scaling up (which they are in the process of doing anyway.) And, the traditional small LACs would be more than capable of scaling down by eliminating departments and targeting financial aid at a smaller student body.
I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I think it ALL matters, where you went to high school, where you went to college, grad school, your first internship, first college research project, collaborating with your intellectual peers, your first job, etc. How much it “matters” can be debated but IMO it all matters, a lot.
An example is my step father. He attended college at San Jose State University, did some fantastic research and had professors who helped him get a job at the Stanford Research Institute, which snowballed into a job at Hewlett Packard where he was a research engineer for 30+ years. Where he went to college and the location of that college really put him in a great position to excel in his career. You put yourself in certain environments and good things happen.
You forget about the billions in endowment money lost already. And with an increasingly impoverished client base there may not be as many full-pay students or mega generous donors on which these schools depend.
You rather proved my point. With an over 66% acceptance rate, and a huge number of community college transfers, San Jose State University is hardly considered an elite institution, albeit in a good location for SV jobs. Your stepfather didn’t have to go to Stanford. Or MIT or Berkeley to get a job at SRI, then HP. I’ve always advocated big publics. I personally like them much, much more than the LACs so many people here are enamored with.
All I can tell you is they will do whatever it takes to avoid touching capital.
I’m sure you’re right. The big rich ones will do OK. Those kinds usually do. But there’s more than 3,000 colleges and universities in this country, and many are barely hanging on financially. There will be fallout. There will be closings. There already are.
There’s going to be fallout for the public universities as well. States will most likely be serving up big cuts to public universities for the next couple of years which will result in fewer services/staff/course offerings etc. Tuition, particularly OOS tuition will rise. Out of staters may be less willing to pay more for a diminished experience and they are a big source of funding for public schools.
Will all due respect, @Nhatrang, do not assume we will be fired for refusing to spend five or more hours a day in enclosed classrooms with 25 young people. I’ll file an ADA suit and ask for accommodations, i.e. teach my classes online. People do not have to risk death because your kid wants an ideal “experience” and frankly I am shocked you are taking this stance.
That blog detailing the spread of the virus in a restaurant setting is getting HEAVY play in discussions among college instructors. Because yes–that’s my classroom, over and over again.
It’s a mistake to hear college teachers say they hate teaching online and can’t wait to teach in person, and conclude that means they’re ready to go back into a classroom in September.
@garland but, one, no one was wearing masks at that restaurant and, two, students will be being tested all of the time. Are you saying professors won’t teach in person unless there’s a vaccine?