That wasn't the question
by irishlawyer (2020-05-25 00:52:17)

In reply to: let's not lose sight of the big picture (honestly)  posted by jt


The commissioner posited that the athletes are safer on campus. They're likely SAFE as opposed to NOT SAFE.


It's not a fair question
by jt  (2020-05-25 02:59:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Perhaps a better question would be, "how many 18-22 year old carriers passed the virus on to someone that was at risk, and how many of those people died?"

I don't know the answer to that question, but I would imagine that it isn't a small risk.

Right now, the best bet is to keep moving forward, collect more data, and see where things go. These guys are certainly planning to re-start (the Michigan guy will be put in his place shortly) but instead of just blindly cheering this on and being glad football is coming back, we should try and hold these guys accountable and make sure that all necessary safety protocols are followed and adjustments are made. I'm somewhat confident that something can be done to make this safer, but I don't think just saying things like, "Oh, they aren't at risk anyway" is very productive.


The number of 22+ age people around campus is dramatically
by btd  (2020-05-25 19:46:46)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

less than the number of people 22+ off campus -- so it is indeed dramatically safer for them to be on campus in effect quarantined from the world than it is for them to be home and then walking the streets with the general population.

Missing from your post is how easy it is for ND to prepare the people on campus that are over 22 to be in contact with these players. It's not like they are mysteriously arriving and no one has any clue its happening.

If you can go to Home Depot safely, you can figure out how to protect workers on a college campus. It isn't rocket science and I am beyond tired of so many people making things far more complex than they really are.


Even taking a fair question
by KeoughCharles05  (2020-05-25 19:28:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I think that society as a whole is better off putting 18-22 year olds on islands of college campuses, housed with each other, as opposed to housed with people who are statistically far more likely to be at-risk. Not all colleges are set up this way, but even in the urban campuses where students mostly live off campus, society is likely better off with them living there, with other young people, than with their parents.

If there are at-risk faculty, take special precautions. At-risk staff would need to be dealt with differently. Ultimately, the working-age population that can't safely return to work probably need to be put on disability.


You are changing the commissioner’s point
by Dickiebeev  (2020-05-25 09:04:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

He is stating that athletes are safer at school than at home, not that administrators and teachers are safer. It is possible that he is correct given that the athletes generally come from urban, poor communities with higher risks of COVID and non-COVID deaths.

I suspect we will find some more practical approaches to risk mitigation that isn’t all or nothing, and isn’t the same for every demographic. Proper risk management, rather than political risk management.


It should be changed...
by Kbyrnes  (2020-05-25 12:10:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

...The commissioner's point is narrow enough to be useless without considering the wider context.


Wider context
by dickiebeev  (2020-05-25 17:51:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

29% of the US population (55 and older) is the highest risk for the most severe COVID result. They have experienced 93% of the deaths, with the increasingly higher age demographics having increasingly larger percentages (55-64 = 12%, 65-74 = 21%, 75-84 = 27%, 85+ = 33%). If the highest risk of the university population also represent the smallest percentage on campus, then it seems reasonable that one could devise some common sense practices to protect those demographics - social distancing, protective equipment, no in-office visits, etc. It seems pretty easy to keep 10-15 foot separation between students and any administrators or instructors that fall in the at-risk groups or have comorbidities.

Again, all or nothing and one size fits all approaches are not good policy. Students don't need to be held hostage, and it can be done with safety and common sense.

Whether there needs to be intercollegiate games is a separate matter that should be considered separately based upon entirely different risks and mitigation approaches. Extracurricular activities are certainly not critical to the mission of a university, and they aren't critical to successfully earning a degree.

Edit to avoid going too far off-topic: the PAC 12 commissioner was addressing athletes because his the commissioner of PAC 12 athletics. It seems reasonable for him to stay in scope, and his statement is fairly common sense if one looks at the wider context.


That's all I was saying *
by irishlawyer  (2020-05-25 11:43:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I'm not really addressing his point, I believe Cash is *
by jt  (2020-05-25 10:47:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


What question?
by Cash  (2020-05-25 01:34:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The commissioner stated he thought students would be safer at school (presumably than at home). He cited the first rate academic medical centers that are affiliated with PAC-12 schools as the primary reason, if I read correctly.

But that’s almost certainly nonsense. Dormitory living is definitely more dangerous for contracting/spreading SARS-CoV-2 than is life at home with social distancing measures. Access to major academic medical centers is a nice thing to have - something many of their students have from their home residence - but isn’t likely to matter much.

It’s reasonable to note that kids that age do very well on average, and almost everyone with a bad outcome under the age of 25 has had serious preexisting vulnerability. It’s also reasonable to debate the harms of not reopening universities relative to the low health risks for the kids themselves.

But it’s not reasonable to ignore that the students interact with others, and those others then with still others. And spread can be facilitated beyond the walls of a dorm.

It’s also ridiculous to say that kids are actually safer on campus. They’re safer at home, not living in tight quarters with a few hundred others, drinking together and losing inhibition. Maybe those risks are worth taking, particularly if COVID prevalence is quite low in August, but we (conference and school officials) should be direct about it and avoid speaking nonsensically.

Cash


As you know those kids dont live in a vacuum
by ACross  (2020-05-25 02:43:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Staff feeds them, cleans up after them, supports them in all sorts of ways.

It is an outlandish thing to say.


the tail wags the dog *
by jt  (2020-05-25 02:49:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post