|
Post by theneumann64 on May 6, 2020 8:33:43 GMT -5
Dr. Hanycz sent a letter out regarding the school's financial situation and outlook for Fall Semester about 30 minutes ago. Check your e-mails.
|
|
|
Post by gymrat67 on May 6, 2020 8:44:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 8:59:40 GMT -5
If government had done nothing, the economy would have tanked due to Coronavirus. No mandated shutdowns, no stay-at-home orders, nothing. People were still going to severely limit their travel- meaning canceling flights, hotel rooms, cruises etc. A lot of people, not all, but a significant amount (even if it's half of the roughly 60 percent who are worried the government will act to quickly to remove the restrictions currently in place), were going to stop going to restaurants, movie theatres, shopping malls. That's to say nothing of the companies that would have made the independent decisions to shut down or go to a delivery or by appointment only approach. Colleges would have closed or gone to distance learning for the semester. And a lot more people would have died. Maybe the hit on the economy would have been blunted somewhat (and I guess we could argue over the extent), but the virus was going to devastate the economy regardless of how much, or how little, the government did in terms of shutdowns. In this scenario, using the personal choice we're told is the answer to all of this, a ton of people would have made the personal choice to do exactly what we're doing now. But in PA...we were not given that choice. It was made for us with no data. That was the point of the word "Draconian" which Joe took issue with. Let businesses open, have appointments, limit people in one place at a time. Let people self regulate based on their accepted level of risk. Somehow our state has decided that 300 people in Target is fine, but 3 people building a deck on someone's house isn't. That's not a data-driven decision. There's no data to show a lot more people would have died or that the economy would have taken the hit it took. The mortality curves are strikingly similar from country to country regardless of the measures put in place. The shutdown was put in place to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the healthcare system all at once...not to reduce cases, but to spread them out. Those won't be reduced until there is a vaccine, and it's simply not an option to keep people on lock down for another 9 months while a vaccine is developed.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 9:16:35 GMT -5
Dr. Hanycz sent a letter out regarding the school's financial situation and outlook for Fall Semester about 30 minutes ago. Check your e-mails. "While you may have heard that some colleges and universities have chosen to confirm what will unfold on their campuses this fall, we are taking the position that, at least for La Salle, it is not yet possible to predict these outcomes with any degree of reasonable confidence, given the huge set of uncontrollable variables."
That's a tough message for a current or prospective student to hear. Compare that to the message below from Hawk Hill which, while also not definitive, at least details the options on the table for their students. As a parent of a high school senior who applied to both places, the Hawk Hill message seems more well thought out regarding planning. (and I know everyone on here hates St. Joe's...but objectively, one feels like plans have been made, and the other feels like hands have just been thrown in the air...I know that hasn't happened and there are plans evolving, but you're selling a product to possible consumers, and that doesn't come through in this morning's message). "While we have developed and reviewed dozens of scenarios, we have identified the following as the most likely according to current information available.
1. On-campus start with varying physical distancing requirements and health and safety modifications throughout the semester. We would monitor and adapt operations and instruction as necessary.
2. On-campus start with a planned transition to virtual instruction after Thanksgiving to limit travel. We would also modify the term by eliminating fall break in favor of interspersed reading days. Again, this is intended to limit travel and potential virus spread.
3. Government restrictions require a virtual start to the semester, but we are able to move to on-ground during the semester.
4. Government restrictions require us to continue to deliver instruction, services and advising virtually."
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 6, 2020 9:21:10 GMT -5
If government had done nothing, the economy would have tanked due to Coronavirus. No mandated shutdowns, no stay-at-home orders, nothing. People were still going to severely limit their travel- meaning canceling flights, hotel rooms, cruises etc. A lot of people, not all, but a significant amount (even if it's half of the roughly 60 percent who are worried the government will act to quickly to remove the restrictions currently in place), were going to stop going to restaurants, movie theatres, shopping malls. That's to say nothing of the companies that would have made the independent decisions to shut down or go to a delivery or by appointment only approach. Colleges would have closed or gone to distance learning for the semester. And a lot more people would have died. Maybe the hit on the economy would have been blunted somewhat (and I guess we could argue over the extent), but the virus was going to devastate the economy regardless of how much, or how little, the government did in terms of shutdowns. In this scenario, using the personal choice we're told is the answer to all of this, a ton of people would have made the personal choice to do exactly what we're doing now. But in PA...we were not given that choice. It was made for us with no data. That was the point of the word "Draconian" which Joe took issue with. Let businesses open, have appointments, limit people in one place at a time. Let people self regulate based on their accepted level of risk. Somehow our state has decided that 300 people in Target is fine, but 3 people building a deck on someone's house isn't. That's not a data-driven decision. There's no data to show a lot more people would have died or that the economy would have taken the hit it took. The mortality curves are strikingly similar from country to country regardless of the measures put in place. The shutdown was put in place to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the healthcare system all at once...not to reduce cases, but to spread them out. Those won't be reduced until there is a vaccine, and it's simply not an option to keep people on lock down for another 9 months while a vaccine is developed. We fundamentally disagree so I'm not sure there's a point to continuing to go round and round, but I think "Let people self regulate based on their accepted level of risk" is where you lose me. Because again, the risks you take directly impact everyone else when it comes to this virus. And I believe that in this instance, it absolutely is the responsibility of the government to protect the people as a whole by limiting personal freedoms. And any example about a "slippery slope" is not going to hold water here because in no other scenario- are we talking about an invisible disease that people can unknowingly carry and transmit to others.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 9:27:21 GMT -5
We fundamentally disagree so I'm not sure there's a point to continuing to go round and round, but I think "Let people self regulate based on their accepted level of risk" is where you lose me. Because again, the risks you take directly impact everyone else when it comes to this virus. And I believe that in this instance, it absolutely is the responsibility of the government to protect the people as a whole by limiting personal freedoms. And any example about a "slippery slope" is not going to hold water here because in no other scenario- are we talking about an invisible disease that people can unknowingly carry and transmit to others. You have to admit...there's a certain irony of a pro-choice governor taking away people's personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 6, 2020 9:37:03 GMT -5
We fundamentally disagree so I'm not sure there's a point to continuing to go round and round, but I think "Let people self regulate based on their accepted level of risk" is where you lose me. Because again, the risks you take directly impact everyone else when it comes to this virus. And I believe that in this instance, it absolutely is the responsibility of the government to protect the people as a whole by limiting personal freedoms. And any example about a "slippery slope" is not going to hold water here because in no other scenario- are we talking about an invisible disease that people can unknowingly carry and transmit to others. You have to admit...there's a certain irony of a pro-choice governor taking away people's personal choice. If you'll admit nearly every "Pro-Life" Governor saying that lives will be sacrificed in the name of re-starting the economy is equally as ironic, sure.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 9:45:59 GMT -5
You have to admit...there's a certain irony of a pro-choice governor taking away people's personal choice. If you'll admit nearly every "Pro-Life" Governor saying that lives will be sacrificed in the name of re-starting the economy is equally as ironic, sure. I know physicians begging their patients in PA who have serious conditions (non-COVID) to get to a hospital or ER...and they are telling me their patients are afraid to go because of all this. So...yeah...even in the Pro-Choice states...lives are being sacrificed (interesting word choice by the way). Take away that open-up stigma, and maybe people go to the hospital and get the treatment they need.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on May 6, 2020 9:54:18 GMT -5
If you'll admit nearly every "Pro-Life" Governor saying that lives will be sacrificed in the name of re-starting the economy is equally as ironic, sure. I know physicians begging their patients in PA who have serious conditions (non-COVID) to get to a hospital or ER...and they are telling me their patients are afraid to go because of all this. So...yeah...even in the Pro-Choice states...lives are being sacrificed (interesting word choice by the way). Take away that open-up stigma, and maybe people go to the hospital and get the treatment they need. Yeah, like I said, we seem to fundamentally disagree, not only on public policy, but on the nature of what's going on in the present moment, so I don't really think there's too much point in me going further down this road with you. It's also hard for me to argue with anecdotal stories you have, not that they're not true, but that I can't really respond to people you've talked to.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 10:05:12 GMT -5
There's no data to show a lot more people would have died or that the economy would have taken the hit it took. Are you really claiming there's "no data" saying that more people contracting the illness would have led to more deaths?
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 10:52:53 GMT -5
There's no data to show a lot more people would have died or that the economy would have taken the hit it took. Are you really claiming there's "no data" saying that more people contracting the illness would have led to more deaths? No. re-read it. His premise was that without the government acting, "a lot more people would have died". There's no data showing that. The government took action to flatten the curve...that doesn't the decrease the number of cases or necessarily increase the mortality rate in a statistically significant fashion...it spreads it out over more time so the healthcare system isn't overwhelmed all at once, but doing it for too long reduces the opportunity for herd immunity. Ideally a vaccine is needed...but you can't shut everything down until you get that. Since we like math here, 100,000 people in the US died in 1968 from the H3N2 virus (with a population of about 201M in the US at the time). That number, as a percentage of today's US population, would be about 165,000 deaths. Did everything shut down over that? Why not? It seems just as severe, no?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 10:53:18 GMT -5
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 10:57:22 GMT -5
Since we like math here, 100,000 people in the US died in 1968 from the H3N2 virus (with a population of about 201M in the US at the time). That number, as a percentage of today's US population, would be about 165,000 deaths. Did everything shut down over that? Why not? It seems just as severe, no?
Despite all the data on you doing this monthly, its still hard to tell when you're looking for a real answer like "no, its not as severe because those 'less than 100,000 deaths' took place over 18 months versus 72,000 in 10 weeks" and when you're just dropping half-facts you hope no one checks to avoid having to back off your initial comment.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 6, 2020 11:01:03 GMT -5
There's no data to show a lot more people would have died or that the economy would have taken the hit it took. Are you really claiming there's "no data" saying that more people contracting the illness would have led to more deaths? I will say that. Sort of. Keep in mind that "flattening a curve" doesn't necessarily mean that we end up having fewer (or is it less?...lol) people under the curve. Countries like Sweden have not necessarily taken a hardline mitigation approach. And it's possible they may ultimately end up with the same number of people affected/infected as they would have under a different mitigation approach. This viral outbreak, like most infectious outbreaks, has a herd immunity threshold, and it is very likely that it's a consistent threshold across all countries and communities. So, what I am getting at, is the "destination" may be the same for many countries and communities to reach that herd immunity threshold. If you drive to grandma's house slow or fast, but get there for dinner either way, the rate of travel may have been irrelevant at dinner time. And the road underneath the car is the same road. There is so much consistency when comparing country-to-country acceleration and deceleration viral case curves, that it leads to some fairly good evidence that this virus is going to come and go along a consistent timeline, nearly unaffected by mitigation effort differences. I'll loop us back to the thread. If our viral regression curve stays on course, I expect numbers locally here in eastern PA to decline on an accelerating curve and they should be significantly lower by late May, and nearly zeroed-out by end of June. And, if herd immunity is in-place, and sticks around for a while, the fall and winter should not be a problem.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 11:20:59 GMT -5
Sweden's death rate is 29% higher than ours.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on May 6, 2020 11:21:46 GMT -5
Are you really claiming there's "no data" saying that more people contracting the illness would have led to more deaths? There is so much consistency when comparing country-to-country acceleration and deceleration viral case curves, that it leads to some fairly good evidence that this virus is going to come and go along a consistent timeline, nearly unaffected by mitigation effort differences. Both the US and the UK had governments who both downplayed and under appreciated the seriousness of the virus...and the US and UK lead the way in cases and deaths. (China not withstanding but lets discount them)
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 6, 2020 11:33:58 GMT -5
This simply isn't true when you look at deaths per 100k population.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 11:43:59 GMT -5
Speaking of straight up "COVID related deaths per 100K" or other measures ...
The United States has suffered at least 66,000 more deaths than expected this year, a toll that includes the devastation directly caused by the coronavirus pandemic and a sharp rise in fatalities not attributed to the virus, the government reported late Wednesday.
The new report from the National Center for Health Statistics shows 33,756 covid-19 deaths and 32,325 from all other causes since Jan. 1. Other causes include heart attacks, accidents, overdoses, cancer and a wide variety of other fatal diseases. It also could include people who died of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at home but whose deaths were incorrectly attributed to another cause.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 11:49:02 GMT -5
End of the day (or year or whenever its available), the real measure for country versus country comps will be deaths per X versus prior year or projected.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on May 6, 2020 11:49:25 GMT -5
I'll throw some more math out there. I've seen a similar article on NPR and a few other websites.
The CDC estimated there was 39 million to 56 million cases of the flu. This is over a 6 month period. The death rate was somewhere between 24,000 to 62,000 deaths which is a rate of 0.1%
There have been 1,240,000 million positive tests for Covid 19 in roughly 2 months time with a death rate of 72,000 people or roughly 6%.
Anyone with the flu on average infects 1.3 people versus someone with Covid 19 is estimated to infect between 2 to 2.5 people.
20% of people with Covid 19 are hospitalized or 10 times more than anyone who catches the flu.
The average stay for someone with Covid 19 is 11 days versus the flu is 5 to 6 days.
So to wrap up the math, more people get sick at a much higher rate. More people die at a much higher rate. More people are hospitalized at a much higher rate and stay there longer. This puts incredible pressure as we've seen on our healthcare system. As we enforce the social distancing rules in the states we're seeing all of these numbers decreasing. I'm okay with the lockdown. This is a much deadlier disease based on the math.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 6, 2020 11:49:30 GMT -5
Sweden's death rate is 29% higher than ours. Sweden's is actually quite similar to the US, and statistically not an outlier. Keep in mind that when comparing "death rates" there is so much variability as well. If one country tests more often, their death rates may seem lower. There can also be "over-counting" of deaths. For example, it's possible some people in Italy died at home from a myocardial infarction and never sought medical care, and were inaccurately counted as Covid deaths. There is also variability in "who" gets tested. Is the country testing kids? Are they testing outpatients with mild symptoms? Are they only testing the patients who land in the hospitals? Each method greatly affects mortality rates. This may be helpful. I'l urge you to look at the fairly consistent Worldwide Mortality graph. Most important take-aways. Its a fairly consistent graph regardless of country. Interestingly, Sweden compares very closely with nearby countries of Switzerland, and the Netherlands. coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 11:50:57 GMT -5
End of the day (or year or whenever its available), the real measure for country versus country comps will be deaths per X versus prior year or projected. I guess its really deaths minus known non-COVID stuff like car accidents and injuries incurred in mom-and-pop shops. I'll have my intern create a list of exceptions that we can use going forward.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 6, 2020 11:56:59 GMT -5
I 20% of people with Covid 19 are hospitalized or 10 times more than anyone who catches the flu. . I've seen this stat quoted ad nauseam. I strongly doubt this is even close to being accurate. It's anecdotal, but our medical practice has had about 80 positive cases. We've had one patient hospitalized (and subsequently discharged). And, perhaps more important to note, those are 80 cases *confirmed* by testing. If a father tests positive, and the mother in the house has symptoms we assume she is positive as well. The 3 kids without symptoms are also likely positive, and we won't test them. So, in that household, there are actually 5 cases, non hospitalized, but only one gets reported. Also you write, "Anyone with the flu on average infects 1.3 people versus someone with Covid 19 is estimated to infect between 2 to 2.5 people." There is no static infection rate during an outbreak for most diseases. As a community develops more herd immunity, this infection rate can drop to nearly zero. Sometimes exponentially, and rather quickly. I guarantee the "infection rate" for Covid in New York City is far lower now than it was 6 weeks ago. Don't believe all the stats you read.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 12:11:27 GMT -5
I agree with all of that, but I don't think it changes the argument over quarantining given that 20% or 2% would completely overwhelm most hospital systems.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on May 6, 2020 12:13:34 GMT -5
Do I believe all of the stats I read? No. When multiple new sources that are accredited are quoting them, more often than not they're right and I'll lean towards believing this. And you're also giving me anecdotal data. One small area's experience is not the larger country experience.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,441
Likes: 6,366
|
Post by MisterD on May 6, 2020 12:40:16 GMT -5
It was the same here, especially at our local peak people. There wasn't testing so people were video conferencing and told to just assume they have it and only go in for breathing issues or a fever spike.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on May 6, 2020 13:14:25 GMT -5
Do I believe all of the stats I read? No. When multiple new sources that are accredited are quoting them, more often than not they're right and I'll lean towards believing this. And you're also giving me anecdotal data. One small area's experience is not the larger country experience. Where does a news source obtain their accreditation? And yes, as noted, my data is anecdotal. But personally I find it difficult to accept that the hospitalization rate is 20% when our suspected case load of around 200 patients has a hospitalization rate of under 1%. Those are markedly different percentages.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on May 6, 2020 13:20:19 GMT -5
Do I believe all of the stats I read? No. When multiple new sources that are accredited are quoting them, more often than not they're right and I'll lean towards believing this. And you're also giving me anecdotal data. One small area's experience is not the larger country experience. Where does a news source obtain their accreditation?... Seriously? Lol. I'm not going down that rabbit hole, but thanks for asking.
|
|
gymratlsc72
Mop-Up Time
Durrett Status
Posts: 103
Likes: 127
|
Post by gymratlsc72 on May 6, 2020 14:29:53 GMT -5
Dr. Hanycz sent a letter out regarding the school's financial situation and outlook for Fall Semester about 30 minutes ago. Check your e-mails. "While you may have heard that some colleges and universities have chosen to confirm what will unfold on their campuses this fall, we are taking the position that, at least for La Salle, it is not yet possible to predict these outcomes with any degree of reasonable confidence, given the huge set of uncontrollable variables."
That's a tough message for a current or prospective student to hear. Compare that to the message below from Hawk Hill which, while also not definitive, at least details the options on the table for their students. As a parent of a high school senior who applied to both places, the Hawk Hill message seems more well thought out regarding planning. (and I know everyone on here hates St. Joe's...but objectively, one feels like plans have been made, and the other feels like hands have just been thrown in the air...I know that hasn't happened and there are plans evolving, but you're selling a product to possible consumers, and that doesn't come through in this morning's message). "While we have developed and reviewed dozens of scenarios, we have identified the following as the most likely according to current information available.
1. On-campus start with varying physical distancing requirements and health and safety modifications throughout the semester. We would monitor and adapt operations and instruction as necessary.
2. On-campus start with a planned transition to virtual instruction after Thanksgiving to limit travel. We would also modify the term by eliminating fall break in favor of interspersed reading days. Again, this is intended to limit travel and potential virus spread.
3. Government restrictions require a virtual start to the semester, but we are able to move to on-ground during the semester.
4. Government restrictions require us to continue to deliver instruction, services and advising virtually."The paragraph immediately following the one you quoted from Dr. Hanycz' email: "We have a strong intention to return to face-to-face instruction in the fall semester and are planning accordingly. We have a robust continuity and recovery team in place at the University, receiving input from faculty, staff, and students, that is developing multiple scenarios for the fall and beyond."Why would you leave this out of your post? Those sentences show a clear and positive intention and planning for face-to-face instruction in the fall. It also indicates a planning process that is far more than "hands have just been thrown in the air." And, yes, I realize you said "I know that hasn't happened and there are plans evolving, but you're selling a product to possible consumers, and that doesn't come through in this morning's message." That 'disclaimer' just doesn't make up for your proclamation about it seeming like hands being thrown up in the air. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the impact of the wording choices, but you clearly biased the representation of Dr. Hanycz' letter to suit your premise.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on May 6, 2020 14:52:57 GMT -5
"While you may have heard that some colleges and universities have chosen to confirm what will unfold on their campuses this fall, we are taking the position that, at least for La Salle, it is not yet possible to predict these outcomes with any degree of reasonable confidence, given the huge set of uncontrollable variables."
That's a tough message for a current or prospective student to hear. Compare that to the message below from Hawk Hill which, while also not definitive, at least details the options on the table for their students. As a parent of a high school senior who applied to both places, the Hawk Hill message seems more well thought out regarding planning. (and I know everyone on here hates St. Joe's...but objectively, one feels like plans have been made, and the other feels like hands have just been thrown in the air...I know that hasn't happened and there are plans evolving, but you're selling a product to possible consumers, and that doesn't come through in this morning's message). "While we have developed and reviewed dozens of scenarios, we have identified the following as the most likely according to current information available.
1. On-campus start with varying physical distancing requirements and health and safety modifications throughout the semester. We would monitor and adapt operations and instruction as necessary.
2. On-campus start with a planned transition to virtual instruction after Thanksgiving to limit travel. We would also modify the term by eliminating fall break in favor of interspersed reading days. Again, this is intended to limit travel and potential virus spread.
3. Government restrictions require a virtual start to the semester, but we are able to move to on-ground during the semester.
4. Government restrictions require us to continue to deliver instruction, services and advising virtually." The paragraph immediately following the one you quoted from Dr. Hanycz' email: "We have a strong intention to return to face-to-face instruction in the fall semester and are planning accordingly. We have a robust continuity and recovery team in place at the University, receiving input from faculty, staff, and students, that is developing multiple scenarios for the fall and beyond."Why would you leave this out of your post? Those sentences show a clear and positive intention and planning for face-to-face instruction in the fall. It also indicates a planning process that is far more than "hands have just been thrown in the air." And, yes, I realize you said "I know that hasn't happened and there are plans evolving, but you're selling a product to possible consumers, and that doesn't come through in this morning's message." That 'disclaimer' just doesn't make up for your proclamation about it seeming like hands being thrown up in the air. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the impact of the wording choices, but you clearly biased the representation of Dr. Hanycz' letter to suit your premise. One school's message seemed to indicate to me...as a consumer...that they reviewed a lot of different options and decided upon 4 scenarios they are envisioning and planning with. The other, La Salle, said there are intentions and planning for the face-to-face, and is in the process of "developing multiple scenarios" for the fall. It didn't feel as "baked" to me as a consumer. Maybe they have the same plans or even more thorough ones...I don't know...because they didn't communicate anything beyond the plans for face-to-face in the fall. What are those multiple scenarios? I'm left to guess. It felt like more of a "trust us and we'll figure this out type of message". I get there's no playbook for this...but I've seen video messages and other things from different schools with more definitive plans trying to attract students for the fall.
|
|