The fact is that nobody really knows what is going to happen. Colleges are looking not only at public health factors but at the expenses and liabilities involved in “social distancing” on campus. Fears of being sued will have an impact on the decisions administrators make; they are very risk averse. They know that their customers want a certain experience, but they also know that if anyone gets sick, the colleges will be held accountable. People aren’t rational, fair, objective and philosophical when it comes to their own kids’ welfare.
^Also, as much as anyone might wish otherwise, whether or not students can be with their friends is hardly on the college’s radar. It’s like they’re on the titanic, trying to get people into lifeboats before the ship goes down. No one cares whether you can get into your friend group lifeboat. You’re gonna be lucky if you don’t drown.
@NJSue Staying closed in the fall would probably cost them a lot more than losing a lawsuit. Also, there is probably going to be a liability shield for colleges as well as other businesses, because if people can sue for COVID-19 related reasons our economy is screwed.
@sylvan8798 True, I’m sure college administrators don’t really care that much, if at all, about keeping friends together; however, if they have an option to keep friends together for the next year, I bet they would do that because that would mean that less students would take gap years and they would take less of a financial hit over the course of the next year.
@circuitrider Yeah you’re right. A cure or treatment as effective as the AIDS treatment would still take a very long time though.
Well, I’ve seen it all now. Dave is an acquaintance of mine, and I truly never thought I’d see his name mentioned on CC.
From Scripps:
“In order to achieve the goals for our intent to return to campus this fall, we are expanding residential space to reduce density in our residence halls, mapping our outdoor space to create outdoor “rooms” to be used for classrooms and other gatherings, producing new sanitation protocols, redesigning the dining experience, and considering many options for schedule modifications. We will share our plans for the fall sometime in July. We are working closely with the other Claremont Colleges to arrive at shared decisions to sustain the consortium experience and create a safe environment that preserves what makes the Scripps experience distinctive, stimulating, and fulfilling.”
—————
I wonder if they, like HMC, are going to expand into a nearby apartment complex. There are some fields and courtyards that could be used for outdoor classrooms, but I’m wondering how that would look.
Previously, Amherst said that it was likely that if we returned, we would be required to live on-campus and commit to not leaving. I wonder if they may change their minds about that and decide instead to expand housing into very close-by off-campus apartments (there is an abundance of off-campus apartments that are right by campus, because we live so close to UMass), as this would allow de-densification, and it seems that is the direction a lot of the residential liberal arts colleges are headed.
Off-campus housing isn’t ideal unless the school can lease an entire apartment block and restrict its access.
I completely understand and agree with this. We’re doing ourselves no favor by staying at home. In the end the same number of people will probably have the same outcome with regards to the virus. We need to open society back up and wear masks and social distance. It can and should be done. The majority of us are getting this virus. The majority of us will have mild or no symptoms. We cannot hide from it forever. Those that are scared can hide out. Those that are elderly or otherwise compromised can isolate or choose their course of action. Sooner or later most of us are going to face this virus. I say do it before our economy collapses.
I know immunity is not considered at all assured right now, but let’s say that changes soon for the positive. And what if the serum tests are proven to be highly accurate? And a number of returning students prove to be immune? Wouldn’t that change the calculus for things like room assignments? A presumed immune student could sleep in a double, no? And what if, say, 20-30% of returning students are in that category? And…wouldn’t they want immune students spread out (not rooming together?). Seems to me that would be a fluid situation…will students need to expect to be moved around to different rooming situations as things evolve during the school year?
Has this possibility factored into any college’s plans?
Apologies if this has already been chewed up in this thread. I haven’t read every single post.
Most residential colleges aren’t likely to be able to put every student in a single. A plexiglass divider isn’t going to help much either. Students are going to mingle, at least in small groups. Social distancing rules among students on campus would have to be relaxed. Robust testing, tracing and isolation capabilities are the absolute necessities.
CypressPat, I haven’t heard/read of colleges factoring in students with antibodies into their plans. But I am personally very hopeful about the positive impact of a growing number of people with antibodies. It will take a long time to 100% prove that immunity is granted and for how long, but I don’t think we need 100% proof to benefit. There are meat production facilities that had almost 70% of workers infected. Well, and I guess millions of previously infected people everywhere. If we do not see those people get reinfected anytime soon, we should feel great, even without 100% scientific proof. Those early few upsetting cases of people who had been sick, then tested negative and then positive again I think have mostly been debunked as errors/reactivations vs. infected a 2nd time. So I’m not aware that we have people truly completely believed to have caught the virus twice. Great news in my book, and I pray that continues to be the case.
As for how colleges can use this, I think it’s trickier to imagine things like fluid bed-hopping and room assignments based on it; however, it will be a real boon if there are a large number of students with (accurately tested) antibodies. Just knowing that if you have typical classes with 10 students in the room, if your campus has 30% students immune (unable to transmit or get sick from the virus), then it is almost as if you really only have 7 students in that room. It is a way of considering your campus somewhat de-densified!
My understanding is that for true herd immunity that will ultimately suppress the virus, we need to reach 60-70% infected, and clearly that is not happening this year. But as far as I can tell, it is still beneficial in reducing spread if we have 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, whatever!
Early results from a random sample to test for antibodies in my state (NC) is showing only 2% have been exposed. The final results of this study are due later this month, I think.
@MarylandJOE wrote:
The economy has already collapsed; the virus has exposed what we’ve already known was true for years: that the majority of Americans have the income security of mayflies. Both parties have contributed to the situation; neither seems to have all the right answers. The Great Depression lasted ten years and didn’t really end until the entire society united around the goal of winning a war. One would think defeating a worldwide pandemic would have provided a similar motivation. But, that narrow window when it might have been possible to mobilize people’s better instincts appears to have closed.
@cypresspat i think a lot of schools aren’t releasing details of their return strategy because info on the virus and testing is changing all of the time. Maybe antibody testing is part of that and some are considering if that could make a difference in their plan for fall. I get the impression that everything is on the table and committees and constantly meeting with public health professionals to get updates. While some colleges have released their exact plan (like schools that have already said class will be all online), most are waiting until late June or even early July to have a more solid plan. They want the most updated information.
It’s highly likely that antibody testing is part of the mix for schools’ re-opening strategies, I know directly of one where this is true.
Antibody tests are highly accurate, there are 13 on the market with FDA EUA: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance
The trick is colleges (or workplaces) have to be careful to not create an incentive to those with antibodies, because some people would then choose to infect themselves. So a school can’t say students who have antibodies get to come to campus first, or go to class, or live in suites, etc.
Tulane just sent an email that they are starting up in person tours next week.
I figured no one was going to start until Fall.
I’m sorry that I can’t recall where I read it (it could even have been here!), but I did read that some colleges are thinking about rooming kids whose antibody tests show that they have antibodies with kids whose tests show that they don’t. This would enable them to safely keep some housing density.
That is surprising to me too.