[teejers1]

Of course, staying at home does not protect against catching COVID-19, and a lot of places in the US have higher case counts than Santa Clara.

It isn't the zip code that is the issue, it is the interactions among people.   People here have bemoaned the lack of the college experience for the freshmen especially, but it is the interactions as part of that experience that is the concern (and, of course, the potential liability to the school, in addition to the altruistic concern for the health of the students, faculty, and staff).   The epidemic has caused that experience to be risky at this time.

Yeah, I was trying to find out a way to state this as well.  Of course being at home doesn't mean you don't limit the interactions between students and outsiders.  I mean, a substantial proportion of students at home are going to go out with their friends, go to bars if open, etc.  You are right that there is concern about the health of the faculty (especially), but even here, college students will probably put their parents and grandparents at risk.

BC

Of course that's true . . . I mean, students haven't been on campus for months in this country and everyone here is lamenting how things are out of control.  It's all about people being smart in whatever activity they engage in; moreso than the underlying activity itself (with some pretty basic and well-recognized exceptions).  Baseball and soccer are good examples.  If the participants are smart when they are at home, or go to a store, or dine outside, then playing baseball or soccer should not be a problem.  But if they're not, then you're more likely to see spread amongst teams (and more rapidly than in "everyday life").  The same theoretically could be true with football; however, you're dealing with larger numbers so the risk goes up.  And at some point, the risk is too great.

It's all about policy, which in turn is about weighing risk and benefit.

[teejers1]

Of course, staying at home does not protect against catching COVID-19, and a lot of places in the US have higher case counts than Santa Clara.

It isn't the zip code that is the issue, it is the interactions among people.   People here have bemoaned the lack of the college experience for the freshmen especially, but it is the interactions as part of that experience that is the concern (and, of course, the potential liability to the school, in addition to the altruistic concern for the health of the students, faculty, and staff).   The epidemic has caused that experience to be risky at this time.

Yeah, I was trying to find out a way to state this as well.  Of course being at home doesn't mean you don't limit the interactions between students and outsiders.  I mean, a substantial proportion of students at home are going to go out with their friends, go to bars if open, etc.  You are right that there is concern about the health of the faculty (especially), but even here, college students will probably put their parents and grandparents at risk.

BC

Of course that's true . . . I mean, students haven't been on campus for months in this country and everyone here is lamenting how things are out of control.  It's all about people being smart in whatever activity they engage in; moreso than the underlying activity itself (with some pretty basic and well-recognized exceptions).  Baseball and soccer are good examples.  If the participants are smart when they are at home, or go to a store, or dine outside, then playing baseball or soccer should not be a problem.  But if they're not, then you're more likely to see spread amongst teams (and more rapidly than in "everyday life").  The same theoretically could be true with football; however, you're dealing with larger numbers so the risk goes up.  And at some point, the risk is too great.

It's all about policy, which in turn is about weighing risk and benefit.