Editor’s note: This commentary is by Seth A. Steinzor, of South Burlington, who is retired from a 32-year career as a state employee.
Reopening college classrooms could destroy Vermont’s relative, precarious safety. I will focus on the University of Vermont, because I live one block away from it, but what I say applies across the board.
Flooding Vermont’s communities with tens of thousands of students, many from states where coronavirus is rampant, is not a good idea. Social science, corroborating common sense and experience, shows that 18-to-24-year-olds are the segment of the adult population likeliest to engage in risky behavior. Copious reporting shows how young people’s behavior has driven the last few month’s surges in Covid. Focusing on recent disease spikes, the New York Times reported on July 31 that college-age people in Greenwich, Connecticut, partied, spread coronavirus, and failed to cooperate with contact tracing. The Times reported on July 29 that there have been 6,300 cases of covid at American colleges and universities over the summer, when they’re not in session. VTDigger reported on July 23 that UVM students themselves are doubtful that their classmates will comply with public health restrictions or contact tracing.
UVM will rely on three things to protect the community, all based on wishful thinking. First, students will be tested upon arrival and told to quarantine, after which UVM will require them to submit to periodic testing. These testing requirements will apply to all students, whether they live on or off campus. Second, students will sign a pledge to behave properly, that is, wear masks, observe social distancing, obey quarantine as appropriate, and so on, subject to discipline if they don’t. Discipline means such things as being forbidden to enter campus facilities and possible expulsion from school. How and on what evidence and with what procedures discipline may be imposed, and how strictly, is unclear. To the extent that the pledge is enforceable at all, it will be enforceable by UVM only with regard to on- campus behavior. It is completely unenforceable with regard to off-campus behavior by any student, whether or not that student lives on campus. Third, contract tracing will be used to isolate any outbreaks, with quarantining recommended for those who test positive.
At every stage of its plan, UVM relies on the good judgment and self discipline of the age group least possessed of these things. Without policing and surveillance beyond UVM’s ability or, I suspect, willingness, compliance with quarantine, social distancing, mask wearing, and contact tracing all will depend on the self regulation of 18-to-24-year-olds. Dorm residence rules won’t apply off campus. The pledge won’t be much of a restraint on a horny sophomore who’s had a few beers. And after the Covid cases start piling up, the pledge will deter cooperation with contact tracing, since that means informing on classmates and exposing them to consequences. Young people are very prone to this sort of loyalty, in addition to reckless behavior. The pledge thus would operate to undermine the primary tool upon which the state is relying to limit the spread of the virus.
UVM misplaces its reliance on a strict testing regimen. A test only reveals existing infection. It is not a preventative measure. It’s not even closing the barn door after the horse is gone. That job is for contact tracing and quarantine. The test just shows the open door.
UVM will use a saliva test. That is, you spit in a cup rather than have a swab stuck up your nose. This undoubtedly will be more comfortable for the students. Unfortunately, saliva testing, which is allowed under an expedited emergency authorization (that is, without the usual FDA full review process) is prone to false negatives. A study in Australia found a 13% false negative error rate. That is, out of 100 infected people, the saliva test will fail to detect 13. Coupled with college students’ tendency to behave recklessly and to frustrate contact tracing, this is far from reassuring. Even if the test were sufficiently reliable, it only serves to trigger control measures that are not effective, in view of the population to whom they apply and upon whose compliance they rely.
UVM’s public communications do not boost confidence in its thoughtful solicitude for public health. The provost appeared on “Vermont Edition” to explain UVM’s reopening plan, but only on the condition that she appear before and not with potential critics of the plan, ensuring that she would not have to answer them. When asked about the application of UVM public health restrictions to students living in the community, she said that the only way to regulate their behavior would be by resort to local police. The virus can be counted on to disregard police warnings.
In sum, reopening college classrooms unacceptably gambles with Vermonters’ health and lives. The coronavirus owns this casino. The house always wins.
