Stanford cancels in-person classes for rest of the quarter
healthalerts.stanford.edu
healthalerts.stanford.edu
Children go to work with their parents now. My breakfast Pho place has a little dude who man's the register and is learning how the business works from his family.
Kids play in the park after morning studies at home.
It's not all sun and roses of course, but it's an interesting forced experiment that's happening under our very noses. The big losers are people who see the "school building" as the only way to learn. The winners are going to be those who embrace methods and technologies that help people learn without the rote of the traditional classroom.
Hope this will lead to
* more Khan Academy-like content
* free textbooks available to everybody in the world
* software companions to help children advance according to their exact needs and level (instead of being stuck in a 20-person class herd)
* online teachers paid by the hour or monthly subscription available for students
* less emphasis on expensive certifications and more on 'what can you accomplish'
What opportunities or hopeful outcomes do you see?
And it also requires not just resources, but also parent that could be good teacher. And even among richer people, not every parent would be good teacher, quite a lot would sux at it.
Incentive and opportunity is something quite different then "there is no other option".
It might be true for some proportion of HN readers, but it's not clear that this generalizes. After all, those of us who self-study are often learning programming-related topics for which there is both abundant online documentation and clear, objective feedback on progress. We also tend, as a community, to have reliable access to the necessary technology, large amounts of disposable income (and security of leisure time that comes with it), a high level of prior expertise, and exposure to role models in self-learning. It's easy to take these things for granted, but they all certainly help in developing self-study habits.
As much as I might personally like to see everyone be more self-driven and self-reliant in learning, I share the concern expressed elsewhere in this thread as to what the impact of a sudden shift to remote learning would be on equitable access to education.
Basically, poor people, and people struggling with disabilities and disadvantages, will get far less education. Overall, society will see drastically less education as a whole. This includes not just technical education in math, physical sciences, automotive tech, etc., but also in civil society areas such as social studies and literature.
Current education systems are very far from ideal. But abandoning them for an extended period of time under the belief that people will see it as in their best interest to learn to be good citizens on their own is potentially catastrophic.
All the school teachers are not getting paid and a lot are stiffed on their contracts. There is no viable actual recourse in Vietnm. Many have to leave the country as a result and now won't be back because they leave on bad terms. You see them posting constantly in the expat groups looking for help.
The teachers eat at all the expat places and tourism has been decimated... so all the non-local restaurants are suffering and will go out of business since they already operate on small margins. Viet landlords are more than happy (greedy) to have a place go empty than reduce rents... entire streets have shut down [1] literally over night.
Places like Halong Bay, who depend entirely on tourist revenue have stopped all cruises and those workers, who make tiny salaries, are now out of work.
What I'm trying to say is that the ripple effects are going to be huge in Vietnam... it isn't going to be pretty and it isn't going to magically fix itself over night. Especially as more cases keep cropping up.
[1] https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/business/20200305/stores-close-e...
A lot of moms work these days, and that's going to make things a lot harder for keeping kids at home. Not trying to pass any judgement on women in the workforce, just pointing out that in black swan events like this it makes reacting to it a lot harder from a social perspective. Consider for a moment if most women stayed at home: school being cancelled would be annoying, but manageable. I've already heard from friends (on the west coast) that they have no idea how to handle this (kids are grade school age, 2nd and 3rd grade) given that they're both expected to still do their jobs remotely.
Edit: I don't see how this doesn't cause a massive hit to the economy though. Some workplaces will be shut down and if stuff isn't produced then the economy isn't moving.
But the parents should be also mostly working from home, too.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting#Restricti...
So if a parent has a bullshit job, that parent should be put on paid leave to take care of the child.
The critical case is when both parents have real jobs.
The trouble is that it simultaneously requires sacrificing interests of both the redundant workforce and leads to resentment of those pay for them in normal situation.
Edit: Citation:
https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/03/06/press-conference-...
[1]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/university-of-wash...
Presumably all these kids are still living in dorms together and eating together in dining halls...
Source: I work at UW, was very perturbed that classes/operations hadn't been cancelled when it was quite clear that a case would eventually appear.
I think the real measure of if this is under control is the growth rate and not the absolute numbers, since exponential growth will generate big numbers very quickly. If the growth is not under control, slowing it down at the beginning makes a lot of sense compared to later (and buys time for vaccine development).
I'm not an expert so I hope I haven't gotten any of this wrong, but the experts / authorities taking it seriously seems pretty justified.
The cost of closing schools, canceling events, etc, for several weeks would have been very disruptive and expensive. But it stood a chance of containing this.
Now we’re experiencing the beginning of the economic impact plus we’re allowing this to become a pandemic — and probably seasonal. It’s hard to see how the cost won’t be astronomically higher in choosing to react rather than take proactive steps.
And we chose this path with Italy and China already showing us the seriousness of this virus.
Source: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/03/06/stanford-cancels-...
https://www.ktvu.com/news/stanford-educator-tests-positive-f...
Don’t have the link on hand but there was a study floating around showing something like a 10x difference in impact for every week early a school closes during a virus outbreak. Seems pretty obvious that closing before a positive case, at which point the cat is kind of out of the bag, is much better than reacting. Especially in the situation we’re in now where the trend is obvious.
Additionally weather: https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1235963670255071237
The obvious concern is low income families. However, the calculus is whether they’ll be more devastated by the short term closures — or a much longer, much deeper recession if the virus spreads unchecked in the West.
That's a lot better than scattering them to the wind.
UW is on a quarter system so finals were supposed to be in two weeks, now professors are mostly making the exams online and some are just cancelling the finals entirely.
Two nearby community colleges also closed yesterday, Bellevue College and Everett Community College.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/health/coronavirus-cdc-robert...
While a lot of people will die from corona complications I don't expect total mortality to increase that much. You can die only once ..
One of the potential vaccines enrolling trial patients is made of mRNA that codes for the spike protein needed for entry to cells. [0] If that spike protein turns out to be highly-conserved, then the vaccine will have sticking power. If it's not, but there turn out to be evolutionary trade-offs to adapting around it, it could push the virus to become less aggressive.
For instance, what if it becomes like the flu? Vaccine exists, but flu still does the rounds.
Additionally, with some reinfections happening, what does that mean? Why didn't the people who had covid-19 a first time have immunity?
The relapses are a bit of a mystery but it's not uncommon with viruses e.g. various herpes viruses.
There is not enough data to say it isn't.
We're still at the point where a single confirmed case in a country that didn't have any before is international news and triggers more panic, as if the virus somehow cared about political constructs like country borders. You could easily have a long tail of these that can easily be spun into news about the continuing spread of the virus.
The virus may not care, but it doesn't fly planes, control customs, coordinate response or a bunch of other things. Borders and other political constructs have large effects on contagion.
That wasn't going to happen, and anything else doesn't stop the virus from entering in some way.
And even this could potentially be unsafe as the virus could potentially mutate.
Honestly, anything but herd immunity with vaccine isn't going to cut it with an easily spread virus such as this. (Still not a guarantee, just highly likely to work)
(Incidentally, it's not just about direction. Option bets require you to be also right about magnitude and timing.)
Check out the option chains to shop around for different strikes and expirations to find options that suit your risk tolerance and time horizon.
If there's a vaccine and a large sample of cases studies on treatment with antivirals, I'd assume its fatality rate would fall down to regular flu levels or somewhere near that. Therefore the spread wouldn't be treated like a pandemic as it is now.
0: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-06/moderna-s...
[1] https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/legacy/bioorg/docs/C...
But all these containment measures will also slow down the economy, which will have a cost too.
What I find interesting is that it seems a lot of people ask for greater containment (closing schools and borders, canceling events and conference), while at the same time, measures such as reducing speed limit, taxing junk food are hugely unpopular. I think it's similar in the sense that this would reduce mortality in exchange of loss of freedom and economic activity.
Yeah, a pity that carbon certificate value will fall.
A vaccine should not be expected for ~2 years from what I hear. Of course, not all treatments are vaccines.
Considering that serious complications seem to be confined to older adults and the elderly (as opposed to seasonal influenza, which is also dangerous for very small kids), perhaps it's better to let it burn through the population as quickly as possible. It might be easier to keep the vulnerable population confined for a short period during the burn; once there's herd immunity (assuming infection provides immunity, of course) they should be safe.
Stanford students can just do distance learning. The infrastructure for primary and secondary schools just isn't in place to provide that, so they're forced to make more difficult decisions about the needs of their students and the curriculum on the one hand, and the risks to students' families and the wider population on the other hand.
This is misinformation. Its just way more likely to kill the elderly them the young. The same applies to the influenza however, and the preliminary numbers make this strain more deadly than influenza in both elderly and adults.
But nevertheless: we just don't know with the virus just taking hold outside of China. Give it 3 more weeks and realistic estimates are possible.
This isn't surprising because influenza is a completely different virus from coronavirus.
Of course the elderly and sick are far more at risk for any of these. All of these viruses kill by causing pneumonia--primary viral pneumonia in the case of SARS and MERS, secondary bacterial pneumonia in the case of seasonal influenza, and a seeming mix of primary and secondary pneumonia in the case of 2009 H1N1. People with cardiopulmonary problems are far more likely to succumb to pneumonia if only because their lungs are already compromised.
Kids are in close proximity at school, touch each other, don't wash hands or not touch face as they are told...
Also, even if they don't very sick, they can make others in family sick.
- that it is harmless. As vaccines are to be used on healthy people, it needs to be very safe. And of course
- it needs to be shown to be effective.
So even if we find a vaccine right now, it will take at least a year until it can be deployed. Though in this case, everything will be tried to cut the time short.
The only thing I’ve seen even remotely to this is... no one under 10 has died.
That’s a lot different than what you said.
Ignore the title and read the article. Within it is claimed that children are equally likely to catch the disease, but do not show symptoms. COVID-19 is the showing of symptoms.
It is the infection. If it were literally just the showing of symptoms, then anyone with the symptoms would have COVID-19, but a variety of diseases cause these symptoms.
Likewise, COVID-19 is the disease which has symptoms including severe coughing, fever, and shortness of breath. But if you have absolutely no symptoms whatsoever, but your blood tests positive, you do not have COVID-19. The positive result, if it isn't a false positive, indicates that your blood contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and therefore you are presumably fighting an asymptomatic infection. But by the terminology used by pathologists, you wouldn't have COVID-19.
So back to the original point, children generally don't get COVID-19. They may get infected by the virus, but without showing any symptoms. No symptoms, no disease, no COVID-19 classification.
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/DiseaseInformation/novel-co...
If kids are being pulled out of Paly for suspicious coughs then it’s time to close.
At some point staying open is criminal, not to mention stupid.
Remote is good enough for Stanford fee levels.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/stanford-educator-tests-positive-f...
Edit: Apparently my sarcasm wasn't thick enough so let me make my point crystal: COVID-19 is a real, genuine threat that's just getting started, but HN is filled with armchair fuckwits [1][2] who dismiss it because they lack simple math skills.
All of the coronavirus deaths have been people that were going to die anyway. (Edited to clarify: we all do, at least currently.)
The vast majority of them have been people that were going to die soon, if not of coronavirus then of something else.
Is the mass panic really sensible in the face of this?
Life is a terminal condition, Jack Handey.
Anyway, this isn't Reddit and I'll refrain from further responses so as to be respectful to the netiquette of this site.
Which is to deeply inhale one’s own farts and declare them delightful.
He had reason to believe the stercoraceous flavour, condemned by prejudice as a stink, was, in fact, most agreeable to the organs of smelling; for, that every person who pretended to nauseate the smell of another’s excretions, snuffed up his own with particular complacency; for the truth of which he appealed to all the ladies and gentlemen then present.
Yes, all the doctors in China in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who died were just gonna die anyways, so who cares? For that matter, everyone's going to die, so it really doesn't matter, right? I'm hoping my sarcasm is apparent in my tone here, but if not; your argument is both counter-factual and full of fallacy.
> The vast majority of them have been people that were going to die soon, if not of coronavirus then of something else.
Again, this is BS.
> Is the mass panic really sensible in the face of this?
Panic isn't, but taking quick, decisive, and committed action is the only way that a crisis can be averted. If you don't understand this, I imagine you haven't had to deal with life or death decisions before. This all may blow over, but the facts DO NOT support that outlook. They all point to a bend in the hockey stick, and if we don't have a strong plan of action to mitigate this, people you know, and people I know, will die.
If you believe the second sentence is BS, please provide evidence.
Glad you agree. I imagine most of those doctors in their 20s-40s had at least 40 years of life left. Really interesting to hear that half a lifetime fits in your definition of "soon".
> If you believe the second sentence is BS, please provide evidence.
See my statement above, which extrapolates on a fact that you agree is "irrefutable".
Feel free to respond to my third paragraph as well, so as not to avoid the most important issue in this argument.
This is true of literally every cause of death. It's a meaningless tautology.
I guess there is _some_ information there, but really not a lot.
We have a major testing kit shortage right now. China and Iran have been covering up how bad the case was and suppressed information about it's spread early on. We haven't been reacting enough. What we need right now is a clear eyed understanding of the risks this causes for the health of the populace (just because it's only so far proving a particularly dangerous concern in the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions doesn't mean those deaths count any less and that reactions should be any less strong). We're already seeing the economic impacts as work and exports grind to a halt as people are staying in quarantine if they are sick to avoid putting the vulnerable in danger. And these testing shortages mean we don't know the full extent of the disease spread.
So no, we aren't overreacting. If the response is successful, then we'll max out at a couple dozen dead. That doesn't mean the disease wasn't a big deal, that means that the reaction worked to contain it.
Not to mention if the outbreak escalated it will become Spanish-flu V2 then we are talking about 10 of millions people dying, and hundreds of thousands dying in US alone.
COVID19 is probably the most disastrous disease in our lives, assuming most of us haven’t been through Spanish flu. It almost felt like this virus is tailored to live with us.
I will take no chance and do the protections from my part as careful as possible
Anybody who is willing to pass (IMHO) bad-faith judgments on well-intentioned users should be also willing to answer these sorts of questions.
"The national health institute said the average age of those who have died was 81, with the majority suffering from underlying health problems. An estimated 72% of all those who have died were men.
According to government data, 4.25% of individuals confirmed to have the coronavirus have died, the highest rate in the world."
It is really really important for people to understand the risk group and take that into account in their lives and interactions. For those that are young and health the risk is still low.
The panic level of the general populous does not fit the facts at this point.
The disease is harsh, kills too many in alarming ways (lung cascade reaction) and leaves survivors with lifelong debilitating damage.
This is not like normal flu, and not a thing to be dismissed nor marginalized.
Any way you look at it, the numbers on the ship are much more positive than a lot of what's reported in the media. More importantly, they are also more trustworthy in my opinion. The main reason is that there are fewer unknowns.
People are simply hedging their bets. A bit of isolation won't harm anyone, not isolating might. Organisations are running various scenarios and calculating what the least amount of business disruption will be.
It really isn't panic.
I strongly disagree. Some containment measures will be extremely costly. A lot of business are suffering now.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken, but the measures can turn out more costly than the virus itself. I'd hope we leave experts take these decisions based on facts and projections, rather than fear alone.
This is true, and people love to keep pointing this out to show how "contrarian" they are. But.
1. People with mild symptoms are able to transmit the disease to vulnerable populations.
2. If the spread isn't slowed, the number of patients can outstrip available ICU capacity. Without treatment, the death rate goes up for everyone.
This is not an overreaction. #2 reportedly happened in Hubei. Containment makes sense if the goal is to save lives.
I don't want to be the grandson who killed his grandma, I don't want to be the guy who pulled the trigger on a sufferer of another illness.
Are the people who paddle this argument of "you are too young and healthy to die from NCOV-19" are disconnected from their elderly and have no contact at all with people who are suffering some illness?
Please explain to me because I do not understand your angle here.
https://www.who.int/influenza/en/
Have a look at some charts comparing death rates for flu and covid-19.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbloom/CoV_vs_flu_CFR/mast...
https://twitter.com/vote4dongshen/status/1236136262039416832...
Covid-19 is not just another flu.
Also, the choice is not "deal with flu or coronavirus", it's "deal with flu and coronavirus as well". We already see winter pressure in most health care systems because of flu season, and adding coronavirus on top is going to be pretty devastating.
The panic level of the general populous does not fit the facts at this point. The fact that there is no toilet paper, wipes or hand sanitizer on the store shelves in the Bay Area is panic buying. The fact that eBay band their sale is proof of panic.
Wash your hands people with lots of soap for 20 seconds. Do not touch your face absentmindedly like we all do. If you have a cold like symptoms do not go out.