|
Post by hcpride on Oct 7, 2020 22:51:21 GMT -5
/\ /\ Given the widely-known particularities of the virus, virtual absence of hospitalizations is not a shocker. Also not a surprise that schools giving a zillion tests and schools giving far less tests have the same number of Covid hospitalizations. And that number is essentially 0.
Anyone have the data on non-college kids of college age and Covid infection/hospitalization/death?
Any chance this sort of unsurprising data will hasten the return of kids to campus and college sports?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 8, 2020 7:26:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 8, 2020 7:49:40 GMT -5
Very god news Is there a chart as to how many of these 70000 + cases infected others who became hospitalized and/or died ?? Some /many of these Schools are in one of the 39 states whose cases, hospitalizations and deaths have increased in this past week. There is a way to deal with that issue. Our PL brothers down in West Point have come up with a system to make sure any infected students don't infect the community at large. They have guards with guns at all the gates and the cadets stay on campus
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 8, 2020 7:52:34 GMT -5
A job for the HC NROTC
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 8, 2020 8:10:34 GMT -5
The only national tabulation of cases by college/university that I know of is the one prepared by the NY Times. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-college-cases-tracker.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=HomepageIt is updated periodically, but generally the data is a tabulation of where things stood a week previous. I believe most of the data reflects cases among students, staff, and faculty; i.e., individuals accessing the campus. I have not seen tabulated data from any higher ed institution of hospitalizations and deaths of infected students. The absence of data does not mean that there were zero hospitalizations or deaths. Massachusetts weekly reports hospitalizations by age group. Of 133 total patients in this week's report, seven were ages 20-29. The data set is incomplete, as the three day running average of hospitalized COVID patients in MA is about 450 patients. Deaths by age group is more accurate and complete. In the two weeks ending yesterday, there were three deaths of individuals ages 0-29. Total deaths in MA over this two week period were 223. No one argues that the rate of hospitalizations and deaths increases sharply with ago, but for the most part, folks in their 70s and 80s who are hospitalized and dying didn't become infected by hanging out in a bar.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 8, 2020 9:27:30 GMT -5
Is there an assumption that college-aged kids on campus are more likely to spread covid to the vulnerable population than kids off campus or college-aged kids living at home (either enrolled remotely or not enrolled at all)? That would seem a fallacious assumption on its face. If that assumption is the basis for hoping schools empty their campuses it might bear re-examining.
It may very well be the case that kids on campus does not increase the death/hospitalization of this age cohort nor does it increase spread to the vulnerable population.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 8, 2020 9:50:26 GMT -5
College students party far more when they are on campus in their group setting. That would potentially spread the virus more than when the students are home.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 8, 2020 10:09:41 GMT -5
College students party far more when they are on campus in their group setting. That would potentially spread the virus more than when the students are home. When they are home with their parents, grandparents, and other elderly relatives ? (Beyond that, many college age kids socialize and smooch whether or not they are on a college campus...). At some point vagaries regarding potentialities come up against science and data. The first impulse last spring to close all college campuses to save kids' lives has not necessarily been supported by the science. (As data regarding college-aged kids [on and off campus, enrolled and not enrolled], mortality, and covid has emerged.). The fallback argument to close all college campuses to save the vulnerable elderly/compromised population has its own logical shortcomings.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 8, 2020 11:00:14 GMT -5
Infected student on-campus places the following individuals at higher risk of a serious infection: a,) fellow students with a co-morbidity b.) faculty and staff with a co-morbidity
Infected student living off-campus, but with access to campus, places the following individuals at higher risk of a serious infection. a.) and b.) above c.) members of the community with a co-morbidity who interact with the infected student.
A student living off-campus with no access to campus, and no interaction with students accessing the campus, or a student living at home, probably has significantly less chance of becoming infected if his/her household adheres to guidelines and protocols. A student living in this situation does not put a.), b.), or c.) at risk.
Exception to the above would seem to be Hasidic Jews, where campus residence may be safer than living in the community, or students living in a community with a persistently high incidence rate, e.g., Chelsea MA
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Oct 8, 2020 11:05:51 GMT -5
Infected student on-campus places the following individuals at higher risk of a serious infection: a,) fellow students with a co-morbidity b.) faculty and staff with a co-morbidity A and B don't have to be on campus then. Teach and learn remotely. Allow for the overwhelming majority of people to still learn in person and have a college experience.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 8, 2020 11:13:03 GMT -5
Is there an assumption that college-aged kids on campus are more likely to spread covid to the vulnerable population than kids off campus or college-aged kids living at home (either enrolled remotely or not enrolled at all)? That would seem a fallacious assumption on its face. If that assumption is the basis for hoping schools empty their campuses it might bear re-examining. It may very well be the case that kids on campus does not increase the death/hospitalization of this age cohort nor does it increase spread to the vulnerable population. If I were a cynic, I would say a kid on campus that catches COVID is more likely to be considered the school's responsibility/fault than a kid that catches COVID while living at home
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 8, 2020 11:30:10 GMT -5
Infected student on-campus places the following individuals at higher risk of a serious infection: a,) fellow students with a co-morbidity b.) faculty and staff with a co-morbidity A and B don't have to be on campus then. Teach and learn remotely. Allow for the overwhelming majority of people to still learn in person and have a college experience. As HC is planning on a spring semester on-campus, that's your answer. However, faculty in b.) may still be teaching classes remotely, until vaccinated.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 8, 2020 12:41:05 GMT -5
NESCAC just canceled winter season.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 8, 2020 12:52:50 GMT -5
Infected student on-campus places the following individuals at higher risk of a serious infection: a,) fellow students with a co-morbidity b.) faculty and staff with a co-morbidity A and B don't have to be on campus then. Teach and learn remotely. Allow for the overwhelming majority of people to still learn in person and have a college experience. So a (hypothetical and quite rare) young person with a very serious co-morbidity would (if taking no common sense precautions) have less risk of getting infected and heading to the hospital if he was circulating around in his hometown doing what young people do while living with his family versus living on-campus? During a pandemic? Hmmm. This theory is why some schools have closed campus? (Given how few college kids are getting seriously ill on campus from covid and heading to the hospital...and by few I mean essentially zero...this theory may be entirely OBE in any case.)
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Oct 8, 2020 13:10:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thecrossisback on Oct 8, 2020 15:51:41 GMT -5
NESCAC just canceled winter season. Sanity. Wrong decision. Never care about the athletes. Cancel everything because you can't figure out a strategy. Its to much work for these Presidents and AD's who do nothing all day! They don't care, collecting a check either way!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 8, 2020 17:23:33 GMT -5
Thanks to all who provided posts for this last point of discussion. It reinforces my pleasure that HC never made the mistake of joining NESCAC. The same could be said for Division III.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 8, 2020 21:17:55 GMT -5
Three hots and a cot, except the three meals are probably cold grab and go.
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Oct 8, 2020 21:23:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 9, 2020 3:13:32 GMT -5
The first student lived off campus and took all of his classes remotely. The second student lived off campus (his school campus was closed, all instruction was remote, the football season was cancelled). I am not sure these two unusual cases argue for the closure of school campuses and a move to remote instruction.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 9, 2020 6:17:55 GMT -5
Wrong decision. Never care about the athletes. Cancel everything because you can't figure out a strategy. Its to much work for these Presidents and AD's who do nothing all day! They don't care, collecting a check either way! Could not agree more with this.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 9, 2020 9:45:36 GMT -5
Google Dr. Simone Gold to get a clearer picture of her record. It is very informative. typical hit pieces against those who go against arrogant medical groupthink. covid is revealing increasingly common medical hypothesis censorship that is becoming a greater and greater problem. differing hypotheses should not be censored, but rather, critically-evaluated in terms of 1.) the science 2.) policy implications and - very importantly - 3.) financial and political implications that could be influencing conflicting hypotheses. if this process is applied, harmful ideas will be thoughtfully dismissed as opposed to blindly censored or disparaged. medicine has a long history of ridiculed dismissal that has greatly harmed people. this has gotten worse with political and financial motivations stronger than ever. seem obvious that hands should be washed prior to surgery? look at how semmelweis was treated for his germ hypothesis www.newscientist.com/people/ignaz-semmelweis/or marshall, who had to drink h pylori to convince the medical establishment elite that it causes stomach ulcers www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mysteryarrogant dismissal and censorship of someone like dr gold, or others in the frontline group, because they go against the cdc guidelines could be another grave mistake with unanticipated repercussions. i welcome conflicting opinions and hypotheses.
|
|
joshua1
Climbing Mt. St. James
Posts: 94
|
Post by joshua1 on Oct 9, 2020 15:11:26 GMT -5
Do you think we will have fans allowed in the heart in January when the season starts
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Oct 9, 2020 15:14:18 GMT -5
Hope so, Josh.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 9, 2020 21:31:35 GMT -5
Do you think we will have fans allowed in the heart in January when the season starts No. If we're (very) lucky, fans will be in the stands for a PL spring football season.
|
|