MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 14, 2020 13:29:21 GMT -5
Its only downside to people who value strangers' lives more than their own portfolios.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 14, 2020 13:49:39 GMT -5
Where has viral saturation occurred? Didn't know this had happened. Being more concerned about my family's health and less about my wealth, living in Florida, I envy those who live in Maryland or Ohio where I think a more sensible and, I view ethically sound (perhaps "draconian"), approach was exercised by leadership (again in my view). On the face of it, I see this gamble you speak of by Sweden as grossly unethical. To me, even if a vaccine were a hail Mary pass (which I believe it is not) they have a responsibility to preserve lives in the present with the hope of the vaccine. There are certainly value differences being reflected here . I might disagree that there are "value differences here." The goal is likely the same: To limit disease, misery, and death, while not crippling economies. The approaches. are different. And, where has the virus saturated? Wuhan. Perhaps parts of Italy. Partially in the greater NYC area and much of the Mid-Atlantic. Florida will. likely join them over the next 1-2 months, as their daily numbers of cases are 1/5th what they were in mid July. As mentioned from the get go, in my view what Sweden is doing is morally and ethically objectionable, flat out wrong. Surrendering what I see as their responsibility to protect citizen's lives and health in the present as this approach does makes it indefensible for me. Perhaps you and I may have a profound disagreement here. It just is not an okay strategy for me.
|
|
|
Post by glorydays on Sept 14, 2020 14:00:41 GMT -5
But don't you think those four extra or nine extra Swedes who died for every one in Denmark/Norway is happy they died with their freedom to not quarantine or wear masks intact? ...payback by the music gods for 5 decades of ABBA music...
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Sept 14, 2020 15:47:01 GMT -5
The downside of your hypothesis possibly being wrong is that a lot more people die. .....Of Covid. The downside of being too draconian are the other adverse outcomes I previously cited. Which, in the grand tally, may be much more detrimental to both short and long term health outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Sept 14, 2020 15:56:56 GMT -5
I might disagree that there are "value differences here." The goal is likely the same: To limit disease, misery, and death, while not crippling economies. The approaches. are different. And, where has the virus saturated? Wuhan. Perhaps parts of Italy. Partially in the greater NYC area and much of the Mid-Atlantic. Florida will. likely join them over the next 1-2 months, as their daily numbers of cases are 1/5th what they were in mid July. As mentioned from the get go, in my view what Sweden is doing is morally and ethically objectionable, flat out wrong. Surrendering what I see as their responsibility to protect citizen's lives and health in the present as this approach does makes it indefensible for me. Perhaps you and I may have a profound disagreement here. It just is not an okay strategy for me. So if one of my patients has cancer, and I want to protect their lives in the present, should I avoid putting them through a surgery today for removal of the cancer? Because that surgery carries some risk that may not let them see the end of the day. If I want to protect my teenager i n the present, should I not allow them to drive, because there is risk to that? Looping back to college sports and education more germane to the this forum: How long shall we shut things down? If we include a very abbreviated semester last Spring, at the end of the fall semester we will have effectively stunted American higher education for hundreds of thousands of students for nearly a one year time period. Those effects may last entire lifetimes for some of these young people. Young people who are at extraordinarily low risk for death and complications from this virus.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 14, 2020 18:08:11 GMT -5
As mentioned from the get go, in my view what Sweden is doing is morally and ethically objectionable, flat out wrong. Surrendering what I see as their responsibility to protect citizen's lives and health in the present as this approach does makes it indefensible for me. Perhaps you and I may have a profound disagreement here. It just is not an okay strategy for me. So if one of my patients has cancer, and I want to protect their lives in the present, should I avoid putting them through a surgery today for removal of the cancer? Because that surgery carries some risk that may not let them see the end of the day. If I want to protect my teenager i n the present, should I not allow them to drive, because there is risk to that? Looping back to college sports and education more germane to the this forum: How long shall we shut things down? If we include a very abbreviated semester last Spring, at the end of the fall semester we will have effectively stunted American higher education for hundreds of thousands of students for nearly a one year time period. Those effects may last entire lifetimes for some of these young people. Young people who are at extraordinarily low risk for death and complications from this virus. Okay, Sweden aside . I appreciate your point of view and what you shared here. Per the last area. I share your concerns for our young people. What is going on has been dreadful. I share the belief that there ultimately is a need to face and confront risk (including this disease) in order for them and all of us to have a meaningful life. Here is where I suspect we might differ. For me, not looking to mitigate and control the disease goes against my sensibilities. I am a believer that this is imperative. To me, if kids are to successfully return to school and stay there it will ultimately depend on our commitment to our control effort and the efficacy we develop in this regard. And it will not have to be perfect. But, from a distance, I am getting the impression we are not faring very well to this point.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 14, 2020 18:12:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 14, 2020 18:56:41 GMT -5
"There’s been a 19% increase in cases among 19 to 24-year-olds so far in September when compared to April, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine said during a news conference Monday....'The most significant different between the case increases that we are seeing now and what we saw in April is that colleges and universities are back in session' Levine said."
My questions: Are they also doing 19% more testing, so the positivity rate is the same, or more testing so the positivity rate is actually less? Levine blames schools being open, but since many schools are doing random testing, couldn't one argue that someone testing positive in a random test is better because they can be treated and quarantined more quickly? Maybe the schools being open is actually of value and saving lives as people who wouldn't normally be tested are being screened and isolated during the contagious period. By this line of thinking, La Salle's administration actually did a disservice to its students and the community by leaving them on their own to get tested...or not.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 14, 2020 19:17:13 GMT -5
So if one of my patients has cancer, and I want to protect their lives in the present, should I avoid putting them through a surgery today for removal of the cancer? Because that surgery carries some risk that may not let them see the end of the day. Risking life to save that life is not analogous to risking life to save that economy.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 14, 2020 19:33:42 GMT -5
"There’s been a 19% increase in cases among 19 to 24-year-olds so far in September when compared to April, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine said during a news conference Monday....'The most significant different between the case increases that we are seeing now and what we saw in April is that colleges and universities are back in session' Levine said."
My questions: Are they also doing 19% more testing, so the positivity rate is the same, or more testing so the positivity rate is actually less? Levine blames schools being open, but since many schools are doing random testing, couldn't one argue that someone testing positive in a random test is better because they can be treated and quarantined more quickly? Maybe the schools being open is actually of value and saving lives as people who wouldn't normally be tested are being screened and isolated during the contagious period. By this line of thinking, La Salle's administration actually did a disservice to its students and the community by leaving them on their own to get tested...or not. Interesting reply you had there.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 14, 2020 19:47:06 GMT -5
La Salle University: Killing Students by being Closed since Fall 2020
(Your whole post is ludicrous to me and just makes a mockery of common sense and data)
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 15, 2020 6:11:32 GMT -5
La Salle University: Killing Students by being Closed since Fall 2020 (Your whole post is ludicrous to me and just makes a mockery of common sense and data) It's odd that you don't understand scientific method and surveillance testing. When you start testing random people, many of whom are in the demographic to be asymptomatic, you are going to find more positives that otherwise would not have been found. If they are positive, you can then isolate/quarantine them and keep them from spreading it. It's kind of simple. - Levine stated increase of COVID cases in 19-24 year olds from April at 19% due to colleges and universities being open (inferring that this is the CAUSE of the increased cases) - in April, state wide, there were about 1500 tests per day...not of this demographic, but all ages - Tests are now at about 25,000 a day...with this demographic going through surveillance testing at many colleges and universities that are not happening in the general population - This age range is largely asymptomatic - Therefore, of course this age range will show an increase in cases...you are randomly testing people that otherwise would not have been tested because they show no symptoms, and maybe 3-5% have it. That same number could have had it in April, but hey weren't tested and had no symptoms. Since April tests were only done on patients with symptoms, it is impossible to infer, as Levine did that colleges being open is the CAUSE of the increased case count in this demographic...unless there happened to be a secret stash of surveillance tests somewhere acting as a control group. That's how statistical analysis and the scientific method works. (We could bring up the death you cited...from a student NOT on campus. Maybe surveillance testing would have caught it...or someone he came i contact with...earlier. Unfortunately an N of 1 is not statistically relevant enough from which to draw a conclusion).
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 15, 2020 6:28:19 GMT -5
I'm not going around in this circle again. It's not about the not-dead young adults. It's about the possibly-dead people they come into contact with. Schools are clearly not doing the best job of containing super spreader events like large parties. College kids are going to college kid. You have clowns like these guys trying to make money off of it. You can say that "well at least they're at college" but I'd guess that if they were at home, there wouldn't be large college parties.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 15, 2020 6:54:57 GMT -5
I'm not going around in this circle again. It's not about the not-dead young adults. It's about the possibly-dead people they come into contact with. Schools are clearly not doing the best job of containing super spreader events like large parties. College kids are going to college kid. You have clowns like these guys trying to make money off of it. You can say that "well at least they're at college" but I'd guess that if they were at home, there wouldn't be large college parties. I love when you say you're not going to "circle around" and then you add arbitrary stuff about YouTubers and postulate that kids won't go to parties while at home. "Schools are clearly not doing the best job of containing super spreader events"...um....look at the data from 2 of the Big 5 schools still open and see if you actually agree with that statement you made. Duquense has had 7 cases in the past month...seems SOME schools can contain it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 15, 2020 7:18:23 GMT -5
Temple had to close.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 15, 2020 7:40:40 GMT -5
I'm not going around in this circle again. It's not about the not-dead young adults. It's about the possibly-dead people they come into contact with. Schools are clearly not doing the best job of containing super spreader events like large parties. College kids are going to college kid. You have clowns like these guys trying to make money off of it. You can say that "well at least they're at college" but I'd guess that if they were at home, there wouldn't be large college parties. I love when you say you're not going to "circle around" and then you add arbitrary stuff about YouTubers and postulate that kids won't go to parties while at home. "Schools are clearly not doing the best job of containing super spreader events"...um....look at the data from 2 of the Big 5 schools still open and see if you actually agree with that statement you made. Duquense has had 7 cases in the past month...seems SOME schools can contain it. Glitter, per your comments here, would I be right to assume that you see an important goal to "contain" meaning detect and control the spread of this "deadly" disease in your community? Do you sign on to this goal? If you were a responsible college administrator/decision maker looking at opening a university and assuming this goal in mind (whether you agree with it or not) what data, data collection measures, criteria, would you require to pull the trigger on this decision, to make the best decision? Your goal is to have the opening competently maintained. So, what data, data collection measures and criteria would you need in this regard? I know I can tend to be a wise guy but I mean these as serious questions.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 15, 2020 10:51:29 GMT -5
Glitter, per your comments here, would I be right to assume that you see an important goal to "contain" meaning detect and control the spread of this "deadly" disease in your community? Do you sign on to this goal? If you were a responsible college administrator/decision maker looking at opening a university and assuming this goal in mind (whether you agree with it or not) what data, data collection measures, criteria, would you require to pull the trigger on this decision, to make the best decision? Your goal is to have the opening competently maintained. So, what data, data collection measures and criteria would you need in this regard? I know I can tend to be a wise guy but I mean these as serious questions. Good questions. I sign onto that goal. However...I don't sign onto that goal at the mutual exclusion of all other goals...health related and not...that affect a community. I sign onto that goal with the proper mix of education and risk assessment that encourages people to act responsibly. As Big5 pointed out in an earlier post, that the members of his hospital system were showing less prevalence of COVID while still being in their offices and healthcare jobs shows that masks and social distancing and precautions work. Seeing 9 cases at my daughter's school, that is more than twice the size of La Salle, in an urban setting in the 30 days since I dropped her off (and her roommate was randomly surveillance tested last week) tells me that schools can control the risk and spread. My criticism all along was that the La Salle administration seemed to make a panic decision, citing "uncontrolled outbreaks at other universities". I have since come to learn that factors in the decision were: 1) off-campus students arriving back early and hosting parties; 2) Notre Dame's numbers (which spiked 2 weeks after they went to campus but have dropped considerably); and 3) the videos from Villanova's orientation (which also "spiked" at 21 cases over 3 days, 2-3 weeks out from those videos). Only one of these factors were actually data driven and none of them were "uncontrolled outbreaks" despite being declared as such. As far as data, data collection measures, etc. Pre-arrival testing, symptomatic testing and self reporting, mandatory surveillance testing (VU and Duquesne made it clear in emails to parents and students that if you were randomly chosen...you could not opt out), contact tracing, having adequate quarantine/isolation space and tracking it...all these things combined would be criteria to use in making an open/close decision. I also think good leadership from the school president on down to the upperclassmen leaders can help in controlling the spread and mitigating it. Duquesne, for example, held classes on Labor Day to discourage students from dispersing for the long weekend. I think St., Joe's had a number of "stay on campus" activities for the weekend. I really like the VU dashboard - as a parent I'm happy they are doing the testing and have adequate space for isolation. (https://www1.villanova.edu/university/return-to-campus/dashboard.html) Obviously college administrators have to juggle a lot of different factors...not just COVID cases, but mental health of students, job retention for staff and faculty (including local community members who fill many of the service jobs in the campus and rely on salary and healthcare benefits for their families), enrollment numbers, community relations, fundraising, ensuring a competitive and current curriculum, etc. While shutting down certainly fulfills the college administrator's goal of containing the spread and minimizing risk and effectively allowing them to wash their hands of any responsibility for any of their community getting it, it only manages to that one factor at the expense of all the others. It's like having all your basketball practices focus solely on man-to-man defense at the expense of teaching any defense or offense.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Sept 15, 2020 11:30:33 GMT -5
Glitter, per your comments here, would I be right to assume that you see an important goal to "contain" meaning detect and control the spread of this "deadly" disease in your community? Do you sign on to this goal? If you were a responsible college administrator/decision maker looking at opening a university and assuming this goal in mind (whether you agree with it or not) what data, data collection measures, criteria, would you require to pull the trigger on this decision, to make the best decision? Your goal is to have the opening competently maintained. So, what data, data collection measures and criteria would you need in this regard? I know I can tend to be a wise guy but I mean these as serious questions. Good questions. I sign onto that goal. However...I don't sign onto that goal at the mutual exclusion of all other goals...health related and not...that affect a community. I sign onto that goal with the proper mix of education and risk assessment that encourages people to act responsibly. As Big5 pointed out in an earlier post, that the members of his hospital system were showing less prevalence of COVID while still being in their offices and healthcare jobs shows that masks and social distancing and precautions work. Seeing 9 cases at my daughter's school, that is more than twice the size of La Salle, in an urban setting in the 30 days since I dropped her off (and her roommate was randomly surveillance tested last week) tells me that schools can control the risk and spread. My criticism all along was that the La Salle administration seemed to make a panic decision, citing "uncontrolled outbreaks at other universities". I have since come to learn that factors in the decision were: 1) off-campus students arriving back early and hosting parties; 2) Notre Dame's numbers (which spiked 2 weeks after they went to campus but have dropped considerably); and 3) the videos from Villanova's orientation (which also "spiked" at 21 cases over 3 days, 2-3 weeks out from those videos). Only one of these factors were actually data driven and none of them were "uncontrolled outbreaks" despite being declared as such. As far as data, data collection measures, etc. Pre-arrival testing, symptomatic testing and self reporting, mandatory surveillance testing (VU and Duquesne made it clear in emails to parents and students that if you were randomly chosen...you could not opt out), contact tracing, having adequate quarantine/isolation space and tracking it...all these things combined would be criteria to use in making an open/close decision. I also think good leadership from the school president on down to the upperclassmen leaders can help in controlling the spread and mitigating it. Duquesne, for example, held classes on Labor Day to discourage students from dispersing for the long weekend. I think St., Joe's had a number of "stay on campus" activities for the weekend. I really like the VU dashboard - as a parent I'm happy they are doing the testing and have adequate space for isolation. (https://www1.villanova.edu/university/return-to-campus/dashboard.html) Obviously college administrators have to juggle a lot of different factors...not just COVID cases, but mental health of students, job retention for staff and faculty (including local community members who fill many of the service jobs in the campus and rely on salary and healthcare benefits for their families), enrollment numbers, community relations, fundraising, ensuring a competitive and current curriculum, etc. While shutting down certainly fulfills the college administrator's goal of containing the spread and minimizing risk and effectively allowing them to wash their hands of any responsibility for any of their community getting it, it only manages to that one factor at the expense of all the others. It's like having all your basketball practices focus solely on man-to-man defense at the expense of teaching any defense or offense. Greatly appreciate all the thought you put into this, quick response and meaningful detail. I see a lot here that hits the right buttons for me. Gonna take some time to look it over further.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 15, 2020 14:45:30 GMT -5
"Most of" LSU's football team has tested positive but, don't worry, Orgeron doesn't think anyone will miss a game.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 15, 2020 19:08:02 GMT -5
Greatly appreciate all the thought you put into this, quick response and meaningful detail. I see a lot here that hits the right buttons for me. Gonna take some time to look it over further. Just saw this article....it explains it better than I did. (And it touches on an earlier point I made that students might actually be safer on their college campuses). www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/15/health-experts-evaluate-college-reopeningsCraig Roberts, a former epidemiologist with the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a member of ACHA’s COVID-19 task force, said he’s generally been pleased with the reopenings he’s seen and does not feel reopening was irresponsible.
“At this point in time, COVID is essentially ubiquitous in our society, and there really isn’t any part of our culture or society that can really expect to exclude infection from happening,” he said. “At this point schools are going forward with ways to manage illness on their campus rather than exclude illness on their campus.”
Roberts said it's not always true that home is safer for students than campus. Sending students away from campus, he said, can just make their health someone else’s problem.
“There’s an assumption that people are safe at home and they’re only at risk when they come to college, and I don’t think that’s true for many young adults,” he said. “People are still going to have a risk of infection whether they are sitting in a college setting or they’re back home or working.”
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 15, 2020 19:17:23 GMT -5
Sending students away from campus, he said, can just make their money someone else’s money.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 15, 2020 20:46:21 GMT -5
"Most of" LSU's football team has tested positive but, don't worry, Orgeron doesn't think anyone will miss a game. Was he talking about covid or gonorrhea?
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Sept 16, 2020 7:05:06 GMT -5
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 7:43:47 GMT -5
This whole thing is just an exercise in "_______ University now has 300 positive cases" versus "can you prove there wouldn't be 301 if students were home???"
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 9:27:32 GMT -5
This whole thing is just an exercise in "_______ University now has 300 positive cases" versus "can you prove there wouldn't be 301 if students were home???" It's more an exercise in "we know people will get sick...how can we best manage it while returning to some semblance of normalcy?" Do you advocate La Salle staying closed in the spring if there is no vaccine...just to protect the singular factor of # of cases? How is that even economically sustainable for the school (and I know you mock the economic arguments of this, but they are real...La Salle is not a charity (despite its tax status), the teachers don't teach for free and the basketball games are not free to attend).
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 9:38:14 GMT -5
Same way I wouldn't advocate for my kids' public school to reopen in person.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 9:52:21 GMT -5
Same way I wouldn't advocate for my kids' public school to reopen in person. which is funded by mandatory public tax dollars, not enrollment-based tuition in a competitive higher-ed landscape...
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,495
Likes: 6,388
|
Post by MisterD on Sept 16, 2020 9:57:41 GMT -5
And, as we've established repeatedly discussing school and restaurants and mom-and-pop flooring showrooms, I care more about the health of the students and staff than I do about revenue. I'm not going to concede 50% more infections to save 50% of revenue or something; there's no middle ground in this pointless debate.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Sept 16, 2020 10:46:09 GMT -5
And, as we've established repeatedly discussing school and restaurants and mom-and-pop flooring showrooms, I care more about the health of the students and staff than I do about revenue. I'm not going to concede 50% more infections to save 50% of revenue or something; there's no middle ground in this pointless debate. Yes..because you only look at one factor and not the multitude of factors that effect mental health or community health. If La Salle needs to lay off service staff who live in the community and get benefits through La Salle that now they cannot afford, is that protecting their health? You keep looking at # of cases in a vacuum and not looking at the broader scope of this in a holistic fashion.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Sept 16, 2020 11:03:53 GMT -5
And, as we've established repeatedly discussing school and restaurants and mom-and-pop flooring showrooms, I care more about the health of the students and staff than I do about revenue. I'm not going to concede 50% more infections to save 50% of revenue or something; there's no middle ground in this pointless debate. Yes..because you only look at one factor and not the multitude of factors that effect mental health or community health. If La Salle needs to lay off service staff who live in the community and get benefits through La Salle that now they cannot afford, is that protecting their health? You keep looking at # of cases in a vacuum and not looking at the broader scope of this in a holistic fashion. Show me the math please. Why isn't there just as much far reaching mental and community impact from people contracting and or dying from Covid (did I spell that right?) that are employees, students etc.? Here's the bottom line. Neither you, nor I nor anyone else on this board know for sure what the right thing to do here. We all have our opinions, but we're not experts, so we're all just pissing in the wind and getting soaked. I am going to believe that Madame (did I spell that right?) President along with the board spoke to experts and debated this long and hard. I'm sure it was a very difficult decision and I applaud them for being brave enough to make what they feel is the right call You don't agree with their decision, but I'm going to defer to them and their collective wisdom in making what they felt was the right decision at the right time. To call them cowardly like you do in your byline is reprehensible and frankly cowardly in my opinion. If you don't like what they're doing get on the next board meeting agenda or schedule an appointment with her and air your grievances in person instead of doing something infantile like using your byline like a child throwing a tantrum.
|
|