Perhaps you’ve heard about the disaster at the University of Illinois that saw a huge spike in cases despite probably the nation’s most extensive testing program for returning college students?
A spike in coronavirus cases at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is now calling into question whether any amount of testing and safety precautions can make it safe to reopen college campuses.https://t.co/xOyEzJ7oO6
— NPR (@NPR) September 3, 2020
The university, which developed its own rapid-test using a person’s saliva, couldn’t stop corona, they reported:
An unexpected upswing in positive tests at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign showed how even the most comprehensive approaches to limiting the virus’s spread can break down. https://t.co/netkNrnt90
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 12, 2020
And you just can’t model human behavior accurately enough to account for what college kids will do in college:
"What we didn’t model for is that people would choose to go to a party if they knew that they were positive" via @naturehttps://t.co/mQi9vOKsnD
— Pippa Stevens (@PippaStevens13) September 14, 2020
BUT GUESS WHAT? IT WORKED!
Cases at the University of Illinois are under control and it should be a model for the rest of the nation. The school is testing 10,000 people per day and the positivity rate is now .31%. So, where’s the positive coverage? Where’s the follow-up reporting? Crickets.
Via University of Washington professor and much-cited COVID-19 expert Carl Bergstrom:
1. Three weeks ago, everyone was bashing the University of Illinois for having the audacity to run an in-person semester at a large state school by developing an in-house testing program test to screen 10,000 students per day.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
Recommended
2. Particular vitriol (and a decent xkcd) were directed at the physicists involved, @NigelGoldenfeld and @sergei_maslov.
The narrative was that these guys arrogantly came in, took over the epidemiologists' job, and botched it.
This was bullshit. Thread: https://t.co/P7ACfIaYzk
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
3. Why? It seems that (1) the massive testing program found lots of cases upon entry and before it could influence transmission and (2) students partied, even after testing positive.
Newspapers ate it up. Even the @NYTimes. https://t.co/TMiyyCcuSr
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
4. So what happened? Did the @Illinois_Alma epidemic spiral out of control?
Not at all.
The plan worked.
They're now testing 10,000 people a day with positivity rates below a half of a percent. https://t.co/56CaofSDyj pic.twitter.com/rvmCaiORA5
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
5. "But they had to take more drastic steps, and reduce on-campus activity!"
Indeed they did. And a week ago they started relaxing again, without ill effect yet. Surveillance and rapid response are part of any reasonable plan. That they did this and it worked was a huge success.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
6. But you wouldn't know it to read the newspapers, or even twitter. Mass condemnation two weeks ago, then radio silence.
It's not just unjust to the researchers who were pilloried for their part in this triumph. It perpetuates a false narrative that control is impossible.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
7. Even if people don't feel that they owe @Illinois_Alma, @sergei_maslov, @NigelGoldenfeld, @rlsdvm_epivet, and the rest the team an apology (and I concede they may want to wait a bit longer and see), dropping this story when it turns for the better is a disservice to everyone.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
8. Huge credit to schools like @Illinois_Alma, @Cornell, @AF_Academy, and others who put smart, innovative people on their campus in charge of figuring out a workable strategy, and stuck with them.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
9. Now the rest of the schools — @UMich, @UWMadison, @UniversityofGA, @UNC, and many others — don't *need* to be smart and innovative. All they need to do now is copy the success stories.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
10. Is UIUC completely in the clear now? Of course we don't know that. If there's anything should remember about pandemics it's that prediction is hard and things can change on a dime. But we're seeing great signs so far.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
11. The huge blast of negative press was unjustified, and I urge media outlets who contributed then to provide updates on the situation now.
I'm optimistic, if cautious. UIUC epidemiologist @rlsdvm_epivet says it well, and deserves the last word.https://t.co/RW2JZXi03d
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) September 22, 2020
EVERY news organization needs to report on what’s happening now:
THREAD: "The huge blast of negative press was unjustified, and I urge media outlets who contributed then to provide updates on the situation now."
Maybe newsrooms that provoke outrage but then don't follow up to see what happened are generating externalities— like power plants. https://t.co/jvIsn2TlSh
— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) September 23, 2020
But the media is making this mistake over and over and over again:
Read the whole thread. So often it's the case that's something is in the news for one cycle, everyone makes up their minds that they were right and moves on.
What happens when we revisit a headline from a few weeks ago? https://t.co/3vszPjzuvh
— Joe Colangelo (@Itsjoeco) September 22, 2020
Do better.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member