NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the thoughtful response. There has not been enough of that around here lately, and this thread has been a good one.A college campus is no more "relatively contained" than a very large apartment complex in any given city is "relatively contained". It's not. Not unless there some restrictions on to or off of campus.
And while you're correct that there is lower risk among that population, it's not zero risk. Any sizable university is going to have a percentage of students with risky medical histories and some students with no foreknowledge of medical conditions that may put them greater risk. Yes, you can mitigate that, but you can't eliminate it. There is still the risk of some deaths, and I can't imagine college students would be OK being used that way.
I get what you're saying. I do understand. But regardless of the population your talking about you're still essentially saying "You guys are going to have to take some bullets for everyone else. Some of you won't survive." That's still true even if you're talking about a younger population with less risk of death. There is still risk.
I'm not saying the idea is unfounded or without merit. But such a plan would still result in deaths and that can't be glossed over.
I acknowledge there will be deaths. But, we are losing a 1,000 people a day as is and its getting worse. I am not saying we force these kids to be exposed. They can stay home, social distance, wear a mask, etc. but, I think if explained to them in the way we are discussing, they can make the choice and for the vast majority of them, this will be of no consequence.
We have to way the deaths with the other approach. You allow a slow burn on campus for 3 months and then send a lot of kids home to mom and dad with an active infection. There are no easy choices.