[Phogge]

For what it’s worth the student I mentioned above has gone through five days of hell and scared the shit out of her parents. And it didn’t have to happen. Plus there are stories of long term brain damage in young people.

So society rolls along with thousands of projected cases coming out of the Sturgis rally and a leader caught in a lie. India is falling apart and I wouldn’t want to be in Rio for Carnival in the spring.

That said there was only one thing to do on Monday nights back in the day. Watch the Avengers.

[Phogge]

For what it’s worth the student I mentioned above has gone through five days of hell and scared the shit out of her parents. And it didn’t have to happen. Plus there are stories of long term brain damage in young people.

So society rolls along with thousands of projected cases coming out of the Sturgis rally and a leader caught in a lie. India is falling apart and I wouldn’t want to be in Rio for Carnival in the spring.

That said there was only one thing to do on Monday nights back in the day. Watch the Avengers.

[81alum]

All of us old farts need to stop projecting our personal insecurities and health fears onto healthy 18-22 year-olds who will, in all likelihood, shake off Covid much like a dog shakes off water after being given a bath.  The reason why death rates are dropping is because more younger people are getting the virus.  "Toss you mask day" is, of course, ridiculous.  But so are the panic buttons hit whenever an outbreak or surge occurs on a college campus. 

Teejers, I respect and understand that young people are being asked to give up a major part of their lifestyle and that the benefit largely accrues to old people.  Our society has not done a good job of persuading anyone that they should ever make sacrifices for people other than themselves.

However, what all of this conversation misses is that those campuses with hundreds and now thousands of COVID students have classes taught by faculty who are much older--in many cases over 65.  Are we seriously willing to sacrifice our older university faculty so that college students do not need to make a sacrifice in their lifestyles?

And the same can be said for the older residents of college towns, who cannot avoid contact with college students completely--as they walk into the local grocery store filled with kids buying beer. 

So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

[81alum]

All of us old farts need to stop projecting our personal insecurities and health fears onto healthy 18-22 year-olds who will, in all likelihood, shake off Covid much like a dog shakes off water after being given a bath.  The reason why death rates are dropping is because more younger people are getting the virus.  "Toss you mask day" is, of course, ridiculous.  But so are the panic buttons hit whenever an outbreak or surge occurs on a college campus. 

Teejers, I respect and understand that young people are being asked to give up a major part of their lifestyle and that the benefit largely accrues to old people.  Our society has not done a good job of persuading anyone that they should ever make sacrifices for people other than themselves.

However, what all of this conversation misses is that those campuses with hundreds and now thousands of COVID students have classes taught by faculty who are much older--in many cases over 65.  Are we seriously willing to sacrifice our older university faculty so that college students do not need to make a sacrifice in their lifestyles?

And the same can be said for the older residents of college towns, who cannot avoid contact with college students completely--as they walk into the local grocery store filled with kids buying beer. 

So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

[donkey687]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

[donkey687]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

[pefloresjr]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.  I behaved much better living at home than I did out "on my own" in college.  Even with new college rules about gatherings, etc, I would definitely follow the community rules regarding Covid at home more than I would in a dorm or college apartment.  Perhaps some athletes with lots of big brother oversight to control bad behavior, mostly football, would behave better at college, but even most athletes don't have that kind of oversight during the school year.  It just seems like a bad idea to get that many people gathering when we aren't able to know the extent that they are adding to community spread.  If you could keep the students on campus and in their bubble/zone, it would help but I don't think Stanford is confining people to the zones, just excluding others.  Yes, there is risk in life, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the relative levels of risk and act in a way that minimizes the risk for those most vulnerable in the community.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.  I behaved much better living at home than I did out "on my own" in college.  Even with new college rules about gatherings, etc, I would definitely follow the community rules regarding Covid at home more than I would in a dorm or college apartment.  Perhaps some athletes with lots of big brother oversight to control bad behavior, mostly football, would behave better at college, but even most athletes don't have that kind of oversight during the school year.  It just seems like a bad idea to get that many people gathering when we aren't able to know the extent that they are adding to community spread.  If you could keep the students on campus and in their bubble/zone, it would help but I don't think Stanford is confining people to the zones, just excluding others.  Yes, there is risk in life, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the relative levels of risk and act in a way that minimizes the risk for those most vulnerable in the community.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[donkey687]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.  I behaved much better living at home than I did out "on my own" in college.  Even with new college rules about gatherings, etc, I would definitely follow the community rules regarding Covid at home more than I would in a dorm or college apartment.  Perhaps some athletes with lots of big brother oversight to control bad behavior, mostly football, would behave better at college, but even most athletes don't have that kind of oversight during the school year.  It just seems like a bad idea to get that many people gathering when we aren't able to know the extent that they are adding to community spread.  If you could keep the students on campus and in their bubble/zone, it would help but I don't think Stanford is confining people to the zones, just excluding others.  Yes, there is risk in life, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the relative levels of risk and act in a way that minimizes the risk for those most vulnerable in the community.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Pete- If every college student behaved as well as you and followed community rules at home then we wouldn't have a problem, but that isn't how I see 18-22 year olds behaving in my community.  One could argue that college students expose themselves to a lot less vulnerable population at college than in their community (i.e. away from their parents and grandparents).

[donkey687]

[quote="teejers1" pid='290385' dateline='1599778349']


So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

The flip side of the college students not being on campus is that they are somewhere else without controls on their behavior. Thus, do you prefer that they are in their hometowns contributing to the deaths of people around them in their hometowns? You can not eliminate risk in life. You can only attempt to manage it and the tradeoffs.

I don't agree with this assessment at all.  I behaved much better living at home than I did out "on my own" in college.  Even with new college rules about gatherings, etc, I would definitely follow the community rules regarding Covid at home more than I would in a dorm or college apartment.  Perhaps some athletes with lots of big brother oversight to control bad behavior, mostly football, would behave better at college, but even most athletes don't have that kind of oversight during the school year.  It just seems like a bad idea to get that many people gathering when we aren't able to know the extent that they are adding to community spread.  If you could keep the students on campus and in their bubble/zone, it would help but I don't think Stanford is confining people to the zones, just excluding others.  Yes, there is risk in life, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the relative levels of risk and act in a way that minimizes the risk for those most vulnerable in the community.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Pete- If every college student behaved as well as you and followed community rules at home then we wouldn't have a problem, but that isn't how I see 18-22 year olds behaving in my community.  One could argue that college students expose themselves to a lot less vulnerable population at college than in their community (i.e. away from their parents and grandparents).

[teejers1]

All of us old farts need to stop projecting our personal insecurities and health fears onto healthy 18-22 year-olds who will, in all likelihood, shake off Covid much like a dog shakes off water after being given a bath.  The reason why death rates are dropping is because more younger people are getting the virus.  "Toss your mask day" is, of course, ridiculous.  But so are the panic buttons hit whenever an outbreak or surge occurs on a college campus. 

Teejers, I respect and understand that young people are being asked to give up a major part of their lifestyle and that the benefit largely accrues to old people.  Our society has not done a good job of persuading anyone that they should ever make sacrifices for people other than themselves.

However, what all of this conversation misses is that those campuses with hundreds and now thousands of COVID students have classes taught by faculty who are much older--in many cases over 65.  Are we seriously willing to sacrifice our older university faculty so that college students do not need to make a sacrifice in their lifestyles?

And the same can be said for the older residents of college towns, who cannot avoid contact with college students completely--as they walk into the local grocery store filled with kids buying beer. 

So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

There are many, many responses to this, including (i) older profs concerned about health can sit this semester/year out, or lecture remotely (you know there are protective measures being taken in in-person study as it is) - why do you assume that only the students should sacrifice?, (ii) older residents of college town can refrain from shopping in-person [again, why aren't these folks being asked to sacrifice?], (iii) I love the way you mention buying beer - as if the benefit of in-person college is all about partying.  There are so many more benefits about in-person schooling that you ignore, including the hundreds/thousands of jobs associated with in-person collegiate schooling, from food services to bike and car shops, and perhaps even the viability of colleges themselves as many would not receive the $$ if instruction were only remote.*  

It's all about balancing incremental risks and incremental benefits - and my take is that in-person educational instruction is incredibly important (K-12 even moreso than colleges).  And I agree that sacrifices need to be shared.  And we all are sacrificing - by wearing masks and not gathering en masse indoors (or even outdoors, at least around here).  BTW, I don't believe older folks should not shop at the local store.  If they mask and socially distance, then they should be just fine.  Older folks have been shopping at stores in our area throughout, and the numbers here are quite low.

Look, I don't mean to be callous - though I'm sure many here think that.  My outlook on Covid has been consistent since the jump.  We all should take reasonable precautions and be smart.  Someone on the Covid board dubbed it the 3 sticky points:  (i) wear masks, (ii) socially distance, and (iii) avoid large gatherings (I'd add, particularly indoors).  And the degree of "openness" should be determined by hospital capacity because the ultimate goal of our policies should be to ensure that those who contract the virus and need hospital service get it.  Plus, capacity numbers are readily available and not subject to much debate (bed occupancy is pretty straightforward). I get that HC is a lagging indicator; thus, you can't just open it all up and say "go."  But at the same time, for example, I don't know why SCC has been one of the strictest counties.  It's like our Health Bureaucrat is actively ignoring hospital numbers in insisting we remain in most stringent lock down mode.  [And the hospital numbers have been somewhere between great and comfortable for the entire period, even amongst "the surges" we read so much about].   The number of Covid patients generally hovered between 5% and 8% (and is now down to 4%); all the while, unused capacity has had a baseline of 34-35% (there was way more HC early in the pandemic, when hospitals were bracing for the overrun (which never materialized) and discouraged other patients/procedures from seeking hospital services).

Incremental benefit vs. incremental risk.

*  And yes, there are risks.  BTW, I'd be very interested in the details of NYT's 60 deaths that Mick cites, and in particular how they are attributed to college life.  Given the state of contact tracing in this country, I'd bet good money there is no way to determine, with any degree of certainty, how someone contracted the virus - and that doesn't even take into account the "Covid death" attributions, which themselves are imperfect.

[teejers1]

All of us old farts need to stop projecting our personal insecurities and health fears onto healthy 18-22 year-olds who will, in all likelihood, shake off Covid much like a dog shakes off water after being given a bath.  The reason why death rates are dropping is because more younger people are getting the virus.  "Toss your mask day" is, of course, ridiculous.  But so are the panic buttons hit whenever an outbreak or surge occurs on a college campus. 

Teejers, I respect and understand that young people are being asked to give up a major part of their lifestyle and that the benefit largely accrues to old people.  Our society has not done a good job of persuading anyone that they should ever make sacrifices for people other than themselves.

However, what all of this conversation misses is that those campuses with hundreds and now thousands of COVID students have classes taught by faculty who are much older--in many cases over 65.  Are we seriously willing to sacrifice our older university faculty so that college students do not need to make a sacrifice in their lifestyles?

And the same can be said for the older residents of college towns, who cannot avoid contact with college students completely--as they walk into the local grocery store filled with kids buying beer. 

So under those circumstances, I do not think it is wise to put college students into such an untenable position, of contributing to the deaths of people around them--or being subjected to draconian measures to control their behavior.  Best not to have them on campus, for now.

There are many, many responses to this, including (i) older profs concerned about health can sit this semester/year out, or lecture remotely (you know there are protective measures being taken in in-person study as it is) - why do you assume that only the students should sacrifice?, (ii) older residents of college town can refrain from shopping in-person [again, why aren't these folks being asked to sacrifice?], (iii) I love the way you mention buying beer - as if the benefit of in-person college is all about partying.  There are so many more benefits about in-person schooling that you ignore, including the hundreds/thousands of jobs associated with in-person collegiate schooling, from food services to bike and car shops, and perhaps even the viability of colleges themselves as many would not receive the $$ if instruction were only remote.*  

It's all about balancing incremental risks and incremental benefits - and my take is that in-person educational instruction is incredibly important (K-12 even moreso than colleges).  And I agree that sacrifices need to be shared.  And we all are sacrificing - by wearing masks and not gathering en masse indoors (or even outdoors, at least around here).  BTW, I don't believe older folks should not shop at the local store.  If they mask and socially distance, then they should be just fine.  Older folks have been shopping at stores in our area throughout, and the numbers here are quite low.

Look, I don't mean to be callous - though I'm sure many here think that.  My outlook on Covid has been consistent since the jump.  We all should take reasonable precautions and be smart.  Someone on the Covid board dubbed it the 3 sticky points:  (i) wear masks, (ii) socially distance, and (iii) avoid large gatherings (I'd add, particularly indoors).  And the degree of "openness" should be determined by hospital capacity because the ultimate goal of our policies should be to ensure that those who contract the virus and need hospital service get it.  Plus, capacity numbers are readily available and not subject to much debate (bed occupancy is pretty straightforward). I get that HC is a lagging indicator; thus, you can't just open it all up and say "go."  But at the same time, for example, I don't know why SCC has been one of the strictest counties.  It's like our Health Bureaucrat is actively ignoring hospital numbers in insisting we remain in most stringent lock down mode.  [And the hospital numbers have been somewhere between great and comfortable for the entire period, even amongst "the surges" we read so much about].   The number of Covid patients generally hovered between 5% and 8% (and is now down to 4%); all the while, unused capacity has had a baseline of 34-35% (there was way more HC early in the pandemic, when hospitals were bracing for the overrun (which never materialized) and discouraged other patients/procedures from seeking hospital services).

Incremental benefit vs. incremental risk.

*  And yes, there are risks.  BTW, I'd be very interested in the details of NYT's 60 deaths that Mick cites, and in particular how they are attributed to college life.  Given the state of contact tracing in this country, I'd bet good money there is no way to determine, with any degree of certainty, how someone contracted the virus - and that doesn't even take into account the "Covid death" attributions, which themselves are imperfect.

[Papa John]

Not true, donkey687. College students can and do infect their college's staff and faculty and also their employers--a lot of students have outside jobs at the college at which I work. Having said that, I really do hope that Notre Dame's phased return to campus activity works out.

[Papa John]

Not true, donkey687. College students can and do infect their college's staff and faculty and also their employers--a lot of students have outside jobs at the college at which I work. Having said that, I really do hope that Notre Dame's phased return to campus activity works out.

[winflop]

Remember the promise of signing Sarrel and Little? Don't know if Stanford could have gotten less out of two 5 star OTs in the same class. I don't know if anyone is to blame, but wow was that not a lot of production for such elite recruits.

Injuries were unforeseeable, as was COVID. Fingers crossed Sarrel stays healthy going forward so we can see him contribute

[winflop]

Remember the promise of signing Sarrel and Little? Don't know if Stanford could have gotten less out of two 5 star OTs in the same class. I don't know if anyone is to blame, but wow was that not a lot of production for such elite recruits.

Injuries were unforeseeable, as was COVID. Fingers crossed Sarrel stays healthy going forward so we can see him contribute

[SamuelMcF]

Remember the promise of signing Sarrel and Little? Don't know if Stanford could have gotten less out of two 5 star OTs in the same class. I don't know if anyone is to blame, but wow was that not a lot of production for such elite recruits.

Injuries were unforeseeable, as was COVID. Fingers crossed Sarrel stays healthy going forward so we can see him contribute

Foster Sarell was one of two starters to stay healthy all season last year, starting every single game at RT and playing well. Was he Walker Little level? No. Few OL across all of CFB are. But we certainly "saw him contribute" plenty this past season. Not his fault 3 of his compatriots were true frosh for most of it.

[SamuelMcF]

Remember the promise of signing Sarrel and Little? Don't know if Stanford could have gotten less out of two 5 star OTs in the same class. I don't know if anyone is to blame, but wow was that not a lot of production for such elite recruits.

Injuries were unforeseeable, as was COVID. Fingers crossed Sarrel stays healthy going forward so we can see him contribute

Foster Sarell was one of two starters to stay healthy all season last year, starting every single game at RT and playing well. Was he Walker Little level? No. Few OL across all of CFB are. But we certainly "saw him contribute" plenty this past season. Not his fault 3 of his compatriots were true frosh for most of it.