01-05-2022, 10:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2022, 10:31 AM by pefloresjr.)
The problem with some of the criticism of Stanford's decision is that it is based on the seemingly obvious, doubtless conclusion that Omicron causes less serious infections in all populations. However, that is far from established. Not enough is known about the way it impacts the US population and nothing is known about potential long term effects from Omicron because we know that prior strains sometimes caused long term effects even with seemingly "minor" infections. The evidence may well lead to the conclusion that cutting down on large indoor gatherings is not needed but I am perfectly fine with Stanford taking a cautious approach. Stanford clearly wants to take the first two weeks of this quarter to try to limit spread caused by students returning from around the world. That may not be possible with Omicron, but, again, I am fine with Stanford taking extra precautions to try to protect the community. I don't know why people seem to think these changes are permanent when Stanford changed its attendance policies based on the changing conditions over the last year. Some think they were too conservative, but they obviously decided to take the careful path. I am absolutely fine with it and am sure I will get a refund for the games that I am not allowed to attend.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Cheers,
Pete F.
