Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Wynship W. Hillier, M.S.'s avatar

    I first met Professor Hoy when I returned to UC Santa Cruz in Fall of ’92 to finish my undergraduate…

  2. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  3. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  4. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  5. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  6. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  7. Deirdre Anne's avatar

Looking ahead for universities and colleges

Brian Leiter

A huge number of institutions of higher education in the U.S. (and elsewhere) are moving on-line for the remainder of this academic year.  This is all to the good, and will no doubt help reduce spread of the virus.  But it will also not cure the virus or insure a return to normalcy next fall.  So what happens six months from now?

Here are the options I foresee given what we know now, which is of course very far from complete:

1.  The new virus spreads so far and wide that there is effectively herd immunity that permits colleges to reopen normally in the fall.

2.  A vaccine is developed much sooner than expected (i.e, during the summer) which permits colleges to reopen normally.

3.  Anti-viral medications are discovered or developed that permit meaningful treatment of symptoms which means colleges can reopen since those who get sick can be effectively treated.

4.  Colleges continue to operate on-line for much of next academic year.  (If that happens, of course, that will solidify the future of online education for good.)

5.  Colleges postpone starting dates into the Winter or Spring of 2020-21 (or further), awaiting effective treatments and vaccines (or herd immunity).

I would bet on #4 or #5.  The problem with #5 of course is that colleges still must pay salaries. 

Thoughts from readers welcome, along with links etc.

Leave a Reply to Francesco Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

15 responses to “Looking ahead for universities and colleges”

  1. M

    It seems the UK is betting on something like the first option: universities will remain open the better to spread the virus amongst a population perceived to be at low risk, and only close tactically if a valve needs to be shut off to lower infection numbers. If this produces herd immunity, the UK could conceivably be better off next autumn or winter if the virus comes back after the summer months. Based on what's known about the virus, though, that's no doubt a big if. And it's at least up for question whether enough care is being taken with respect to those who are vulnerable.

    Reply
  2. Steven Hales

    The problem with #5 is that many, many colleges and universities will go bankrupt. Even with #4 that is very likely because enrollments will tank.

    Reply
  3. Mohan Matthen

    This blog's readers are largely highly-educated, sober-thinking people who have the public good at heart. And the same can be said of you, Brian. But by and large, most of us lack expertise in public health and epidemiology. So, allowing that I am unaccustomed to the ways of the internet, I am still seriously sceptical that this kind of speculation is useful. Where do the above options come from? If from you, Brian, then why should they be taken seriously as exhausting the possibilities? If from experts, then you should cite your sources.

    That said, many of us know quite a lot about university finances. So comments like Steven Hales' (and yours, Brian, about paying salaries) are informative.

    BL COMMENT: Happy to stand corrected, which is why I opened comments. I am reading various things by public health experts, but as noted, I've not seen anyone address this question.

    Reply
  4. Gregory C. mayer

    Given that the outbreak has clearly peaked in China and South Korea after 1-2 months, I think reopening in fall (#1) is most likely.

    Reply
  5. Francesco

    The current UK policy seems very questionable, to say the least. It is regarded as completely unscientific by Italian experts here:

    https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/14/news/coronavirus_cos_e_l_immunita_di_gregge_e_perche_potrebbe_non_funzionare-251248421/?ref=RHPPTP-BH-I250726198-C12-P13-S1.3-T1

    The problem, as I understand it, is that the notion of ‘herd immunity’ only makes sense when a vast majority of the population become immune to the virus, either because they get vaccinated (but no vaccine against COVID-19 is available for the moment) or because the nature of the virus is such that people who have been ill become immune (but we don't yet know whether this is the case with COVID-19). Therefore it is unclear whether ‘herd immunity’ is an attainable goal in this particular situation. On the other hand, it is certain that lots of people will die if no drastic measures are taken. What is more, the UK might become a hotbed of infection from which the virus might start to spread again.

    It is, I think, obvious why the UK government is going for this kind of policy: they fear that draconian measures would wreak havoc with the economy, which is already facing the threat of the consequences of the Brexit. Nor can they ask for help from the EU. So they will take an irresponsible decision in order to be consistent with a previous irresponsible decision.

    Reply
  6. SC

    "The problem with #5 of course is that colleges still must pay salaries."

    The problem with #5 of course is that adjuncts, who teach a majority of the courses in universities today, would not be paid at all.

    Reply
  7. Not Boris

    I don't think that's very helpful. Initially, the UK was praised for its handling of the crisis because it relied on epidemiology experts:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/08/five-coronavirus-experts-guide-british-public-through-crisis

    And those same experts are suggesting the course the UK is currently on just one week later.

    You may disagree with their "herd immunity" approach, but to suggest its a knee-jerk response driven by Brexit uncertainty sounds like someone with an axe to grind.

    Reply
  8. Robert Lee

    I would add an option NOT based on careful consideration of science and public health needs.

    6. Public pressure to return to normalcy will force policy. Pile up a few weeks of parents trying to deal with kids at home along with businesses and employees worrying about money, and public opinion is going to turn. K12 opens in a month, Colleges open for summer.

    We collectively shrug off 40,000 US deaths and a half million hospitalizations from the flu each year that are preventable by exactly the same measures being used now. The younger half the population, for which this is a non event, will become functionally non-compliant with social isolation in a week. Based on the Atlanta area's negative recent history with wholesale shutdowns due to snow and rumors of snow, if there aren't scores of otherwise healthy locals hospitalized in short order, people will start to feel like they have been had fairly quickly.

    Putting on my systems modeler hat… Herd immunity can start to impact even at, say, 5%. However, if we continue to fight the spread at the current level of vigilance then we are maybe years from even that low level (i.e. 15 million cases in the US). Consequently, I don't think #1 is viable.

    Finally, it is my understanding that if the FDA were to fast-track/waive rules, we could have a widely available vaccine with at least a decent efficacy in 6 months for this particular strain. If this is the optimistic time frame then #2 is also not viable once logistic delays are factored in.

    Reply
  9. Brian Leiter

    I'll just note that we're at risk for far far worse than the annual flu toll of deaths and hospitalizations. The flu, among other things, can't spread nearly as efficiently because of widespread vaccinations and immunities to past strains. I'm sketpical public opinion will move in the direction you describe, but we shall see. I note that Singapore has kept schools open, but has contained the disease with other measures.

    Reply
  10. D

    Related question, if I may: how will this bear on the Fall 2020 job market? I would imagine if #4-#5 happen, there effectively just won't be one, at least for non-temporary positions (I suppose if #4 happens, they'll still hire adjuncts).

    Reply
  11. Robert Lee

    First, no country has truly contained the disease. At best, Singapore appears to be containing the rate of growth. The cat is out of the bag on this one. Current and past health officials are slowly shifting to language that indicate this reality.

    Second, we don't yet know the contagion/infection rates with enough accuracy to really know the risk. There is certainly the risk of a much higher risk. The hospitalization and mortality rates are running 10-15 times typical flu at all age ranges for those showing symptoms. That is clearly bad news. However, the infection rate best guess is not so bad. The unethical petri dish that was the diamond princess gave us a lot of information that put the likely symptomatic infection rate on par with the flu**.

    As for public opinion, the irony is that the more successful we are at slowing the spread the more it will look like we overreacted.

    ** Diamond Princess infection rate was only 20% and half of them were symptom free (meaning that they would not likely have been tested normally). Given what we now know about Covid19 viability outside the body, the "at least brief exposure" rate was probably close to 100%. The crew was clearly chronically exposed and had a total (symptomatic and asymptomatic) infection rate of 38%. So some exposure is 10% chance and heavy exposure is 20% chance of symptomatic infection. In comparison, the annual symptomatic infection rate across all strains and exposure (including unexposed) levels is (5% -20% being the range).

    Reply
  12. Brian Leiter

    That's quite interesting about Diamond Princess, do you have a link to an article about this? Thanks.

    Reply
  13. Robert Lee

    This one gives numbers. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-coronavirus-quarantine-went-wrong-2020-2

    Reply
  14. RA

    It seems like many of these scenarios will hit financially precarious liberal arts college hard. In much of the country, they were already facing a declining demographic. On top of that, the virus deprives them of their chief selling point: their residential experience and close interaction with faculty. In addition, the stock market meltdown and economic slow down will pressure the budgets of the upper-middle class families whose tuition dollars keep these schools going.

    Reply
  15. GP

    I've found it worthwhile to listen to the 'event 201: pandemic exercise' undertaken at Davos in October. There are a bunch of videos on youtube taken from the event, and a highlights to give an idea. It's a similar scenario to the current pandemic being considered by world experts under mock conditions – a talked-through simulation – and it might give some clues as to what sort of measures governments would have to consider and which we might expect from these kinds of situations. I've certainly been at least a little less shocked by the measures unfolding.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress