|
Post by hoya305 on Aug 27, 2022 22:22:25 GMT -5
My Junior son has attended a class maskless for one month since he entered Georgetown 2+ years ago. Insane! So much for "following the science."
|
|
madgesiq92
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,384
|
Post by madgesiq92 on Aug 30, 2022 12:17:27 GMT -5
The only science that Georgetown is following is the political science of its activist faculty members.
|
|
3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by 3xhoya on Aug 30, 2022 12:24:13 GMT -5
The only science that Georgetown is following is the political science of its activist faculty members. Is it true that students must wear a mask only in class but it is optional for professors? If it is true it is embarrassing and shameful. It just further reveals what I always felt while attending the University, that the students are perceived as a nuisance.
|
|
1789
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 153
|
Post by 1789 on Aug 30, 2022 14:17:14 GMT -5
Shine on alma mater… Good grief… I am more embarrassed by this than our dear Hunter B.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 30, 2022 17:06:55 GMT -5
Some of these comments are not based in reality. Relying on the NY Post to justify outrage is a bit amusing, but nonetheless, that's the world we live in. Unlike what the NY Post will tell you, COVID-19 is not over. The fact is that the main campus reported 111 new cases last week among roughly 7,000 students. Extracted to a macro level, that's almost 1,600 cases per 100,000 population and well over most major cities. That's concerning for a student body from which is claimed is 97 percent vaccinated, although probably not at the booster level. It's also concerning in that it's significantly higher than the law school which has half the size but just 20 positive tests or even SCS (five). What the NY Post won't tell you is that if Georgetown did nothing and cases increased, the line of wealthy helicopter parents signing up with modern day ambulance chasers to file negligence suits for their children's care would be far more embarrassing than a mask requirement. www.georgetown.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-dashboard/
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,347
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 30, 2022 17:28:36 GMT -5
Shine on alma mater… Good grief… I am more embarrassed by this than our dear Hunter B. Interesting choice. How about our dear Eric T.?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,352
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 30, 2022 18:04:29 GMT -5
I am more embarrassed by this than our dear Hunter B. Interesting choice. How about our dear Eric T.? Mick Mulvaney, Kayleigh McAneny. Boris Epshtyn, Kjirsten Nielsen . . . many disgraced Hoyas to choose from. Steve Bannon has an Masters in National Security studies. But yeah, Hunter B really comes to mind first.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,572
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 31, 2022 3:17:35 GMT -5
Georgetown follows guidance from based on COVID levels in the community and their masking policies reflect that. What is actually embarrassing is that many are still conflating mask wearing with an intrusion on "freedom". Georgetown cannot control what students do in the community, where the majority of COVID transmission occurs, but they can take measures proven to work, such as masks, to minimize transmission in their campus buildings. I've worn a mask daily at work for almost 3 years now. I'm not whining about nonsense like this.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 31, 2022 8:16:20 GMT -5
Georgetown follows guidance from based on COVID levels in the community and their masking policies reflect that. What is actually embarrassing is that many are still conflating mask wearing with an intrusion on "freedom". Georgetown cannot control what students do in the community, where the majority of COVID transmission occurs, but they can take measures proven to work, such as masks, to minimize transmission in their campus buildings. I've worn a mask daily at work for almost 3 years now. I'm not whining about nonsense like this. There is no "guidance" that says Covid only spreads - and thus masking is only required - inside a classroom (which can vary in size from an ICC closet to an enormous auditorium with multiple -storie high ceilings). Meanwhile, it's not required - and certainly not practiced by more than 5% of the population, per my estimate of wandering around Leavey over the last two weeks - anywhere else. We should be honest with ourselves here about what's going on: the University is trying to thread the needle of looking like they are Still Taking This Very Seriously! because that is an important thing for some constituencies while also accommodating the fact that most people simply aren't putting up with masking or other restrictions in most aspects of their lives. One can argue until the cows come home about whether that is the right call, but we should be clear that this is what's happening. Public health has to deal with actual human behavior on the ground. Just as, for example, telling everyone with HIV that they should never have sex ever again is not viable, so too are many NPIs simply not viable at this point. I fear there is still nowhere near enough self-reflection from the public health community about why that is, just a lot of finger-pointing.
|
|
madgesiq92
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,384
|
Post by madgesiq92 on Aug 31, 2022 10:33:55 GMT -5
Georgetown follows guidance from based on COVID levels in the community and their masking policies reflect that. What is actually embarrassing is that many are still conflating mask wearing with an intrusion on "freedom". Georgetown cannot control what students do in the community, where the majority of COVID transmission occurs, but they can take measures proven to work, such as masks, to minimize transmission in their campus buildings. I've worn a mask daily at work for almost 3 years now. I'm not whining about nonsense like this. There is no "guidance" that says Covid only spreads - and thus masking is only required - inside a classroom (which can vary in size from an ICC closet to an enormous auditorium with multiple -storie high ceilings). Meanwhile, it's not required - and certainly not practiced by more than 5% of the population, per my estimate of wandering around Leavey over the last two weeks - anywhere else. We should be honest with ourselves here about what's going on: the University is trying to thread the needle of looking like they are Still Taking This Very Seriously! because that is an important thing for some constituencies while also accommodating the fact that most people simply aren't putting up with masking or other restrictions in most aspects of their lives. One can argue until the cows come home about whether that is the right call, but we should be clear that this is what's happening. Public health has to deal with actual human behavior on the ground. Just as, for example, telling everyone with HIV that they should never have sex ever again is not viable, so too are many NPIs simply not viable at this point. I fear there is still nowhere near enough self-reflection from the public health community about why that is, just a lot of finger-pointing. Spot on.
|
|
madgesiq92
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,384
|
Post by madgesiq92 on Aug 31, 2022 10:56:44 GMT -5
Some of these comments are not based in reality. Relying on the NY Post to justify outrage is a bit amusing, but nonetheless, that's the world we live in. Unlike what the NY Post will tell you, COVID-19 is not over. The fact is that the main campus reported 111 new cases last week among roughly 7,000 students. Extracted to a macro level, that's almost 1,600 cases per 100,000 population and well over most major cities. That's concerning for a student body from which is claimed is 97 percent vaccinated, although probably not at the booster level. It's also concerning in that it's significantly higher than the law school which has half the size but just 20 positive tests or even SCS (five). What the NY Post won't tell you is that if Georgetown did nothing and cases increased, the line of wealthy helicopter parents signing up with modern day ambulance chasers to file negligence suits for their children's care would be far more embarrassing than a mask requirement. www.georgetown.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-dashboard/OK DFW. I will use a different source than the NY Post to point out the insane irrationality of this policy, I guess Covid doesn't spread at the Law Center gureview.org/georgetown-mask-mandate-ignores-public-health-consensus/
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 31, 2022 11:33:42 GMT -5
Putting aside the source (a single opinion column within a student-run libertarian journal), I'm more inclined to ask why this policy exists, and why it is not in a vacuum. Very similar policies exist at American and George Washington. Is this mere coincidence, or do they blindly follow what Georgetown does? (A "no" on both counts.) Some clues may point back to the DC government and its public health conversations with the schools. Other clues may point to other schools outside DC, such as Villanova, Duke, and Rutgers, following a similar approach and sharing best practices between them. Or some clues may go back to faculty governance and whether of if the faculty at these schools pushed for it. But without clarity, you can't dismiss it out of hand, unless you are doing so from an emotional or a political posture. Is it inconsistent? Yes. Boston U. requires masks in classrooms, while literally down the street, Northeastern does not. Inconsistency is not "insane irrationality", as you put it.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 31, 2022 11:55:07 GMT -5
Putting aside the source (a single opinion column within a student-run libertarian journal), I'm more inclined to ask why this policy exists, and why it is not in a vacuum. Very similar policies exist at American and George Washington. Is this mere coincidence, or do they blindly follow what Georgetown does? (A "no" on both counts.) Some clues may point back to the DC government and its public health conversations with the schools. Other clues may point to other schools outside DC, such as Villanova, Duke, and Rutgers, following a similar approach and sharing best practices between them. Or some clues may go back to faculty governance and whether of if the faculty at these schools pushed for it. But without clarity, you can't dismiss it out of hand, unless you are doing so from an emotional or a political posture. Is it inconsistent? Yes. Boston U. requires masks in classrooms, while literally down the street, Northeastern does not. Inconsistency is not "insane irrationality", as you put it. The "why this policy exists" is what I was getting at with my point about the tension between certain constituencies vs. the broader mass. This is a good illustration of what is at play: The Very Liberal cohort is highly overrepresented at universities and among undergraduates in particular. Early on, this manifested itself in broad support for various measures, including NPIs that proved less popular in other settings. As the risk perception and salience has evolved, so too has the perceived equilibrium point between those views/forces in tension. And it is different in a clinical medical setting from an undergraduate one from a law school one, which is a milieu that is both less Very Liberal and less accepting of paternalism in loco parentis.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 31, 2022 12:34:33 GMT -5
As the risk perception and salience has evolved, so too has the perceived equilibrium point between those views/forces in tension. And it is different in a clinical medical setting from an undergraduate one from a law school one, which is a milieu that is both less Very Liberal and less accepting of paternalism in loco parentis. Dr. Wen aside, a different but related factor in all this is the rise of academic paternalism. The thought that GU would allow the level of hands-off student life that it did in the Healy years is anathema today, which ties back to mixed messaging on public health. The tribalism of modern academia patterns the tribalism of society, for which each side profits handsomely and is thus unwilling to reach that great four letter word of our time: consensus. Were we to have built consensus in the earliest days of COVID, perhaps, a different outcome in 2022 than arguing over where to wear masks.
|
|
1789
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 153
|
Post by 1789 on Aug 31, 2022 14:13:59 GMT -5
I am more embarrassed by this than our dear Hunter B. Interesting choice. How about our dear Eric T.? At some point perhaps, but for now I'm afraid Hunter and the contents of his laptop are getting more and more coverage in the media than anything Eric has been found to do at this time.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,347
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 31, 2022 14:25:22 GMT -5
Interesting choice. How about our dear Eric T.? At some point perhaps, but for now I'm afraid Hunter and the contents of his laptop are getting more and more coverage in the media than anything Eric has been found to do at this time. If you change the channels like I do, you will see that Hunter is only mentioned by FoxNews (I don’t watch OAN/NewsMax). I wonder why. On the other hand, non-FoxNews outlets mention Eric as part of the on-going NY-Trump Org matters and the defunct charity(ies). Why is Hunter Biden not mentioned by the other channels? Because Barr destroyed the MAGA narrative: www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/21/william-barr-hunter-biden-special-counsel-449576Yet, FoxNews counts on its followers to not change the channel. So who do you believe? Tucker C., whose lawyer as a defense in a case said that Tucker’s show is not to be believed (not sure if you’ve read that news, but you can google it), or Barr?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,572
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 31, 2022 17:00:40 GMT -5
Georgetown follows guidance from based on COVID levels in the community and their masking policies reflect that. What is actually embarrassing is that many are still conflating mask wearing with an intrusion on "freedom". Georgetown cannot control what students do in the community, where the majority of COVID transmission occurs, but they can take measures proven to work, such as masks, to minimize transmission in their campus buildings. I've worn a mask daily at work for almost 3 years now. I'm not whining about nonsense like this. There is no "guidance" that says Covid only spreads - and thus masking is only required - inside a classroom (which can vary in size from an ICC closet to an enormous auditorium with multiple -storie high ceilings). Meanwhile, it's not required - and certainly not practiced by more than 5% of the population, per my estimate of wandering around Leavey over the last two weeks - anywhere else. We should be honest with ourselves here about what's going on: the University is trying to thread the needle of looking like they are Still Taking This Very Seriously! because that is an important thing for some constituencies while also accommodating the fact that most people simply aren't putting up with masking or other restrictions in most aspects of their lives. One can argue until the cows come home about whether that is the right call, but we should be clear that this is what's happening. Public health has to deal with actual human behavior on the ground. Just as, for example, telling everyone with HIV that they should never have sex ever again is not viable, so too are many NPIs simply not viable at this point. I fear there is still nowhere near enough self-reflection from the public health community about why that is, just a lot of finger-pointing. This is akin to half the population skewering the CDC for taking a "relaxed" approach to masking etc while the other half skewers them for recommending it at all. The one reliable trueism in public health is that you are guaranteed to pis$ off a significant portion of your constituency all of the time regardless of the decision you make or the scientific merits thereof.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 31, 2022 19:35:00 GMT -5
There is no "guidance" that says Covid only spreads - and thus masking is only required - inside a classroom (which can vary in size from an ICC closet to an enormous auditorium with multiple -storie high ceilings). Meanwhile, it's not required - and certainly not practiced by more than 5% of the population, per my estimate of wandering around Leavey over the last two weeks - anywhere else. We should be honest with ourselves here about what's going on: the University is trying to thread the needle of looking like they are Still Taking This Very Seriously! because that is an important thing for some constituencies while also accommodating the fact that most people simply aren't putting up with masking or other restrictions in most aspects of their lives. One can argue until the cows come home about whether that is the right call, but we should be clear that this is what's happening. Public health has to deal with actual human behavior on the ground. Just as, for example, telling everyone with HIV that they should never have sex ever again is not viable, so too are many NPIs simply not viable at this point. I fear there is still nowhere near enough self-reflection from the public health community about why that is, just a lot of finger-pointing. This is akin to half the population skewering the CDC for taking a "relaxed" approach to masking etc while the other half skewers them for recommending it at all. The one reliable trueism in public health is that you are guaranteed to pis$ off a significant portion of your constituency all of the time regardless of the decision you make or the scientific merits thereof. The half and half dynamic was/would've been true when we were still in the phase where one's attitude toward Covid mapped pretty cleanly onto the left-right / Dem-Rep spectrum. But as that graph I cited illustrates, we've been moving away from that. Again, there are no "scientific merits" justifying a masking policy that exists in Main Campus (but not Law Center!) classrooms and literally nowhere else on campus. It's theater - we need to be honest about that. And I say that as someone who wrote a grad school paper arguing that counterterrorism security theater in the form of TSA and air travel security was not entirely unjustified - I am not reflexively anti-theater!
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,572
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 31, 2022 20:04:33 GMT -5
All I can tell you is we will be having our first in person professional conference (yes, 12000 infectious disease professionals) in the DC Convention Center in October and we are requiring masks indoors. Y’all may think it’s over but none of us do.
And sorry, the half and half dynamic is still a thing. Might be more 60:40 but still a huge problem.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,613
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 31, 2022 21:02:30 GMT -5
All I can tell you is we will be having our first in person professional conference (yes, 12000 infectious disease professionals) in the DC Convention Center in October and we are requiring masks indoors. Y’all may think it’s over but none of us do. And sorry, the half and half dynamic is still a thing. Might be more 60:40 but still a huge problem. The notion that masking indoors must remain until the virus is "over" is a troubling one, considering all evidence points to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 will never be over, it'll be with us for the rest of any of our lives, much like (insert your favorite coronavirus here). But I don't need to tell you that, obviously. Clearly the partisan/left-right divide remains... but the bigger shift isn't in a simplistic, binary "Is Covid a big deal or not?" but in what methods of suppression are considered justified given the costs. And pretending there are no costs, or aggressively minimizing them despite the evidence, is not being intellectually honest. And I will again say that, even as CDC admits it made serious mistakes, it's a real problem for public trust when there is a general refusal from the public health community to go back and examine any past guidance or messaging. People remember being told for over a year that it was so dangerous to have any public gatherings - despite zero evidence of outdoor transmission - that it was necessary to shutter public facilities, shame people for going to the beach, etc. etc.
|
|