Read on Twitter
Last week, I wrote about the four trends driving universities to rethink their plans for fall.
The issues #MLB is having with the #Marlins put the challenge for universities into even sharper relief. #Thread https://twitter.com/AlexBloomEdu/status/1286392793733181440
The issues #MLB is having with the #Marlins put the challenge for universities into even sharper relief. #Thread https://twitter.com/AlexBloomEdu/status/1286392793733181440
For those unfamiliar, the story is as follows:
On Friday, 1 Marlin tested positive. Friday night, the Marlins played the Phillies in Philadelphia
On Saturday, they played again.
Sunday morning, 3 more Marlins tested positive.
On Sunday afternoon, they played again.
On Friday, 1 Marlin tested positive. Friday night, the Marlins played the Phillies in Philadelphia
On Saturday, they played again.
Sunday morning, 3 more Marlins tested positive.
On Sunday afternoon, they played again.
By Monday, there were reports that a number of additional Marlins players (9) and staff (2) had tested positive, bringing the total number of infected in the Marlins traveling party to at least 15.
By Monday afternoon, the Marlins home opener that night had been postponed (the team stayed in Philadelphia), and the Phillies game against the Yankees Monday night had been postponed as well.
Why does this concern me as someone interested in higher education's return to in-person instruction?
Because MLB had some of the most advanced containment measures there are, and they still couldn't avoid something approaching a worst case scenario in the first weekend.
Because MLB had some of the most advanced containment measures there are, and they still couldn't avoid something approaching a worst case scenario in the first weekend.
MLB isn't hamstrung by the testing shortfalls I noted in my piece. They have independent testing that they are paying for and every player, coach, and staff member in Tier 1 (their most interactive tier) gets tested every other day. https://twitter.com/AlexBloomEdu/status/1286395455115538437
That's 50% of their population per day in an environment that's a lot less dense than, say, a college campus. For reference, UCSD was piloting a program testing 2-3% of their population. https://eab.com/insights/expert-insight/enrollment/covid-testing-allow-campus-return/
But even more important than the testing is what this scenario has taught us about incubation periods.
If roughly 1/3 of the Marlins' clubhouse was infectious on tests that returned results Monday morning, let's assume those tests were taken Sunday.
It's possible that some Marlins' behaviors changed after the first test, or the second wave of results (3 positives), but even if that's the case, the players who tested positive on Sunday were likely infectious on Saturday.
I think that makes it likely more Marlins will test positive in the coming days. Of course, it's possible (though I would guess unlikely) that only those not following social distancing and mask-wearing guidelines will become infected and those people are already positive.
The more complicated picture is actually that of the Phillies. They immediately tested everyone on Monday, and are apparently using those results to determine whether or not to play tonight (Tuesday) 
https://twitter.com/JSalisburyNBCS/status/1288087133794828298
https://twitter.com/JSalisburyNBCS/status/1288087133794828298
If the Phillies were exposed on Friday, tests taken Monday *might* show some infections. But we *know* the Phillies were also exposed Sunday, and that exposure would almost certainly not be captured in tests taken Monday.
In other words, an entire batch of negative test results today shouldn't actually change anyone's thinking. Maybe it discounts the possibility of infections 5-10% if you think that exposure Friday was pretty high and this means no one was infected from that exposure.
I know I'm going on a bit about the details of two baseball teams' testing and results' timelines, but the implications here for universities are significant.
So... let's talk about the timeline from exposure --> test results.
Day 1 (exposure)
Day ~5 (begins to be infectious)
Day 8 (gets a test and begins quarantine)
Day 9 (close contacts traced)
Day 15 (gets test results)
Day 1 (exposure)
Day ~5 (begins to be infectious)
Day 8 (gets a test and begins quarantine)
Day 9 (close contacts traced)
Day 15 (gets test results)
In this scenario, we have contact traced *suspected* infections (day 9), rather than *known* infections (day 16). The discourse on contact tracing has focused on doing it only for those who test positive.
But you can see where this breaks down. If you don't contact trace until Day 16, that person is already ~11 days past the date of exposure themselves. That means they've *already infected* anyone they were going to infect. In fact, they're probably past peak infectiousness.
Let's assume for a moment that the % of tests positive is 5%. If you now decide to trace contacts of those who get tests instead of those who test positive, you're now tracing 20X the number of people.
And remember that you would only trace them in order to quarantine them. So you'd also be asking 20X the number of people to quarantine.
This is just an incredibly complicated set of protocols to follow to avoid a massive outbreak. And it's why I think more and more universities are thinking it's just not worth the risk. @rkelchen made a useful thread of such announcements: https://twitter.com/rkelchen/status/1287789333467017219
