I don't understand WSJ framing of Schlissel comments
The first paragraph of the WSJ article reads: "The University of Michigan won’t have a football season this fall unless all students are able to be back on campus for classes" (emphasis added). But that's not what Schlissel is actually quoted as saying.
Schlissel instead tells the WSJ that "if there is no on-campus instruction then there won't be intercollegiate athletics, at least for Michigan" (emphasis added). In other words, a system in which some students can come back, but not others, would be ok.
This latter take is the more sensible one. People under age 25 have a very low risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, whereas the elderly do. So it makes sense to keep elderly faculty and staff at home, and also students who live with at-risk individuals.
Schlissel ought to clarify his comments, if the WSJ has inaccurately framed them.
I thought I was crazy or a quote was missing when I ready this because I thought the exact same thing, but no one noticed.
He doesn't say all students like the beginning of the article says. His quote definitely leaves the door open for football with some sort of hybrid online/on-campus plan.
"I ready" is that a new Apple product?
No, it is one of the ways our kids are learning: https://login.i-ready.com/
Change your handle!!!!
(kidding...kinda)
I do the same every time I open up Facebook and see a Freep article.
Everything you read in the paper, hear on the radio or see on TV is absolutely true, except for those things you have personal knowledge of.
I think I saw someone put it best when they said something like 'watching someone speak confidently and incorrectly on something you're an expert on makes you wonder how confident and wrong a lot of people are about a lot of other things you don't know much about'
About to finish the last of his books this year and I haz a sad. What an incredible author.
He was the first author whose works I fell in love with. He is the reason for my love of reading and science.
Few people I know take the Fourth Estate very seriously anymore. They've made their own bed there.
I also don't understand how this one kid I knew from HS went out with my crush?
Meh, he was an athlete so I suppose it does make a little sense.
Was it someone other than Shea?
Yes! Me and Shea went to different HS for one.
What you’re missing is that, while people under 25 are less likely to get seriously ill, they are still silent carriers. And silent carriers are the most likely to spread the virus to others. It’s not just about the one person. It’s about all the others he/she will infect. That’s why it’s still dangerous.
That's absolutely true, but the reality is this virus is not going to be eradicated. So the decision is ultimately going to come down to continuing the current state of things for 2 years or allow the virus spread at a low level rate among those least vulnerable while continuing the protect those at most risk
Except in the countries where it's virtually been eradicated.
sorry I meant: The reality is this virus is not going to be eradicated in the US*
Exhibit A: Memorial Day beaches
It's been "virtually" eradicated, although far from fully eradicated (the last remnants are the toughest to root out), but at a cost impossible to sustain.
It's not being missed. In fact it was addressed in the OP.
It really shouldn't be that hard to keep faculty/coaches away from players/students. College is much easier than elementary/high schools, because there aren't parents to bring the Covid back to (in a lot of places).
I can think of one way to help right off the bat. Let the GAs do hands-on-coaching for this season. They are all young and healthy yet, let them get in the kids faces.
Don Brown and the other guys who have done nothing but work 16 hour days and stuff fast food down their throats for 40 years should try their best to keep away.
We assume they are all healthy...but that still puts risk on the GA’s when they go home. You don’t know if their wives or kids have compromised immune systems. Or if they have an elderly person they live with.
The real point is, by now they should be aware they are potential carriers and avoid people at risk. More importantly, people at risk (i.e. Over 65 or with compromised health) should be personally responsible for avoiding potential carriers. As he said in the post, students who live with people at risk should do remote learning.
" people at risk (i.e. Over 65 or with compromised health) "
So like 75% of Michigan faculty?
Does unrepentant liberalism now count as compromised health?
He said around 75% not 99.94%
There are zero people in the entire world who are missing this.
This is why everyone in the entire world has been saying 95% of the focus in the crisis needs to be on the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions that make them at-risk for negative COVD outcomes.
Like not sending COVD positive patients into nursing homes that cannot handle them properly, leading to massive spreads, which lead to massive deaths, as we've seen in New York, New Jersey, and Michigan. Everyone in the world is saying maybe if they had listened to the science, they wouldn't have done this because their efforts would have been focused there instead of being diverted to plans to shut down schools, where children have shown a literal (rounded) 0% fatality rate for this disease.
In fact an argument can be made to that sending children and young adults to school builds herd immunity, which will lead to more protection for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.
Now how do you protect the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions? What's the plan? Everyone in the world is waiting for that.
Amen! We need to think for ourselves, use some common sense, think logically based on the "science and data", and quit feeding on the fear porn of the MSM.
There is a very compelling case for opening K-12 based on science and data, but the reality is that it is politically inconvenient, and the decision won’t be made solely on what is best for the kids.
There will be no herd immunity without a vaccine.
Unless you find a way to infect the entire country all at once and lock the doors to hospitals.
The Flu has had herd immunity without a vaccine for a long time. It isn't required. It's nice, but not required.
Herd immunity doesn't mean no one gets sick and die, it means we don't die by the millions.
That's nonsense. I know you're probably saying that we won't get there for a very long time, but we would certainly get there. Our actions to date are making us get there much more slowly - with good reason, we needed to flatten the curve.
But kids don't overwhelm hospitals because they don't go to the hospital. But they will get their parents sick and anyone else they come into contact with. Are those people over 60 or do they have pre-existing conditions? There needs to be a plan for those students and how that gets managed. Will that be difficult? Yes. As difficult as shutting down the entire economy? No.
Read the section of this paper that begins with "focus on the risk in nursing homes and assisted living facilities." Alternatively this Forbes article.
We don't actually know that. In fact, there's evidence that children don't infect their parents, despite prolonged indoor encounters with them in their homes.
President Schlissel's actual comments seemed to me to be bland and barely newsworthy. To boil it down, he is essentially saying "if we are not willing to put 120 students into a lecture hall with an instructor, then we also should not be willing to put 120 students into a locker room with a coaching staff."
From what I'm hearing, there won't be 120 students in a lecture hall. Smaller classes might still meet in person, but lectures will go online. It'll be a hybrid of online and in person instruction.
I expect many K-12 schools will do the same.
I was wondering about that. It makes sense, because it might be one of the more obvious safety half-measures that Universities can take--lectures meet online, labs and smaller classes meet in person.
The problem I'm seeing for Universities will be how to not come across as hypocrites if you don't allow classes of more than 30 or whatever, but you do allow sports teams to meet & practice & play together. And if you allow football, you have to allow marching band, right? And social clubs and other activities?
Really, the more you think about it the more you realize that Universities pretty much have to choose between (a) "we're going back to business as usual pre-COVID" or (b) "we're changing everything--here are the new rules." And if they choose (b), it would be hard to rationalize varsity sports competitions as a permitted activity if they are placing limits on other extracurricular activities.
It makes little difference what class size you have. It’s a nice idea. Those same kids are going to find ways to gather over beer in large groups.
It’s known the kids are carriers. It’s also known they are at almost zero risk themselves.
Those at risk should be protected and accommodated to the best of our ability. GAs, remote teaching, new faculty hires...if people need a leave of absence for safety then promote that.
Yes, it seems so abundantly clear this needs to be the path for the entire nation.
I don't expect leaders to have perfect information on a once-a-century pandemic, so I'm fine with the bulk of the actions so far. But now that so much more is known, a plan for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions while allowing almost all others to return to work is needed. How do you do that? They need to figure that out. How much will it cost? Magnitude of orders less than shutting down the economy, in both $'s and social welfare.
Last I heard, which was last week, none of the senior faculty that I know at Michigan had any idea what was happening.
Aren't you confusing that with... (edit) nevermind. Full disclosure: I confess that I was on Twitter a little while ago.
Reminder to self: behave!
No. I was thinking of the other Biden. That guy is always confused.
Agreed. IMO, here's what will happen:
By the 1st week of June, most schools will announce that they will be open for students on campus but few will give details of what that actually means. They want to make sure their students have committed to attending in the fall so enrollment doesn't fall off a cliff.
At some point in July, perhaps early Aug, most schools will roll out specific plans that will probably depend on the state they reside in and what that state's status of re-opening is, but I'd guess it looks something like this:
- Dorms are open, campus is generally open with SDing and masks a very strong suggestions if not required.
- Dining halls and rec activities likely look very different (take out only or scheduled reservations)
- Clubs with mass gatherings limited with Gmeets/Zoom/whatever a more normal mass meeting protocol.
- Very limited attendence for sports, if any.
- Traditional large lectures close to 100% online only
- small recitations may be the same or optional with a combo of students in person and Gmeet attendence
- Labs in person with SDing/masks a considerations where appropriate.
- Tuition will likely not be ammended at all. These schools will face huge deficits in state aid as is (and from sports) so I can't imagine them doing anything more than freezing tuition for a year. Dropping tuition would be a non starter for anyone looking at budgets, but I could be wrong.
So studnets will be on campus, sports will happen (no fans or limited fans) but things will likely be quite different than normal in 20-21. I don't see Winter semester being fundamentally different than fall, but maybe the Covid data changes things if it looks very good re: a second wave.
If my oldest were a freshman in the fall, I'd VERY likely defer her enrollment unil Jan and perhaps even until summer or fall of '21
Came here to comment on two things:
So studnets will be on campus
I could not let "studnets" pass. I don't know what that is, but I'd like to see a studnet.
If my oldest were a freshman in the fall, I'd VERY likely defer her enrollment unil Jan and perhaps even until summer or fall of '21
This is apparently the guidance many graduating HS seniors have been receiving, i.e.,, to take a gap year. I have a few friends whose kids are doing so.
I have another friend whose daughter - a rising junior in college - is looking forward to getting back on campus, but that's still up in the air in IL. She was supposed to study abroad this past semester beginning in mid-February, but that got pushed back and then cancelled. She had a job at Panera, but got cut when they shut it all down. Still not back at work with skeleton crews only right now and nobody else really hiring. She's basically been sitting around doing not much of anything.
" This is apparently the guidance many graduating HS seniors have been receiving, i.e.,, to take a gap year. I have a few friends whose kids are doing so."
If this ends up being the case it is going to be a MASSIVE workplace advantage to those who decide to go ahead and go a few years down the line and a MASSIVE workplace detriment to those who decided to defer. Said as someone who works on the "output" side of higher education.
FTR, I'm not encouraging a gap year and would generally advise against it in most cases, especially now for all the reasons mentioned (WTF is there to DO instead now?!?!?).
I'm saying they should go to a local CC for a semester or two while staying at home. Doesn't put you behind or in a cohort with more grads than normal (keeps you in a cohort with fewer grads in 4 years), save some $$$, do the online thing for cheap (why pay for Michigan tuition and room &board if 90% of your academics are online?).
In my experience, schools are willing to defer your enrollment for a semester. A year if different from an admissions number viewpoint I guess, but a semester would be idea in this case IMO.
Biggest problem there is that so many schools won’t fully accept CC transfer credits.
I'm in that situation where my only child just graduated high school. My initial reaction a few months ago was to suggest a gap year, but the benefits of a gap year(travel, work, etc.) are greatly curtailed. Then two things I began to realize: If he starts college as planned and a significant number don't (as it sounds like may be the case), four years from now, he will be entering a job market with 10, 20, 30% fewer college graduates competing for the same job.
Second, upon entering the job market, employers are likely wanting employees who are comfortable, adept and proficient with online learning/working as the workplace will need those skills. Finishing high school and starting college in Zoom/online settings is proof of being adaptable and overcoming obstacles.
I'm only 31 and not a parent yet, but I tried to haggle with my parents for a gap year in 2007 so I could bullshit around and work for $10 an hour and drink beer with my friends. My parents said no. I'm so grateful for that. Gap years are a waste of time.
I actually thought the notable part was that it implies the converse was also true: If students are on campus, there will likely be football
I don't see the problem with the WSJ paragraph. If there is no on-campus instruction then of course that means that all students will not be able to be back on campus