Swagag8 said:

---

They act like students aren't just going to congregate or talk after the class ends or between classes. The whole classroom thing is just to make A&M look like they are doing something, with no effectiveness.

---

Attempting to mitigate a problem is not pointless just because there's no way to completely stop it.

I have to disagree, it's definitely useless outside of having people put 1 or 2 rows between them and the professor. You're not living in the real world if you don't think those students that just got out of that class aren't going to walk together, congregate, give each other handshakes, and use public transportation. I'm all for protecting the profs, but don't act like forcing the students to distance in a classroom, apart from keeping them a good distance from profs, is a mitigation strategy.

"Lets not restrict underage kids from buying alcohol because you know they are going to be able to get alcohol anyways."

Quote:

---

Not a stadium that already has tens of thousands of seats sold as season tickets and logistical bottlenecks at multiple different points.

I'm not saying there's a good chance we socially distance classrooms, but there is almost zero chance we socially distance fans in sports arenas this year

---

you are coming from a position of antagonist. If you can come up with a plan to socially distance Biol 113 (or whatever the number) that has 300 students and 300 seats...... you can come up with a plan for any scale.

did you go to A&M?

Swagag8 said:

---

Not even close to similar. Nice try though.

---

It's exactly what you're saying -- since the students are going to co-mingle anyways, the campus doing any kind of mitigation efforts in the classrooms is pointless.

Carnwellag2 said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a stadium that already has tens of thousands of seats sold as season tickets and logistical bottlenecks at multiple different points.

I'm not saying there's a good chance we socially distance classrooms, but there is almost zero chance we socially distance fans in sports arenas this year

---

you are coming from a position of antagonist. If you can come up with a plan to socially distance Biol 113 (or whatever the number) that has 300 students and 300 seats...... you can come up with a plan for any scale.

---

If part of the plan to socially distance a class of 300 students is to move it to a bigger room and alternate remote learning then no -- that plan is not going to be applicable to a 100,000+ sports venue because there isn't a viable venue bigger, nor the option for remote viewing.

"We're gonna need a bigger boat" doesn't work when you've got one of the biggest boats in the nation.

No, a more reasonable example is having people stand 6 feet from each other waiting to get into a nightclub, and once they are in letting them just go crazy. Sure it "acts" like it solves the problem for a period of time, but it actually doesn't do anything.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Swagag8 said:

---

They act like students aren't just going to congregate or talk after the class ends or between classes. The whole classroom thing is just to make A&M look like they are doing something, with no effectiveness.

---

Attempting to mitigate a problem is not pointless just because there's no way to completely stop it.

---

I think the argument is that social distancing measures in a college setting mitigates equally as well as chakras, essential oils and lemonade cleanses. Efficacy matters and if you extrapolate the results from the restaurant infection study, social distancing may have little impact especially given repeated exposure.

tysker said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

Swagag8 said:

---

They act like students aren't just going to congregate or talk after the class ends or between classes. The whole classroom thing is just to make A&M look like they are doing something, with no effectiveness.

---

Attempting to mitigate a problem is not pointless just because there's no way to completely stop it.

---

I think the argument is that social distancing measures in a college setting mitigates equally as well as chakras, essential oils and lemonade cleanses. Efficacy matters and if you extrapolate the results from the restaurant infection study, social distancing may have little impact especially given repeated exposure.

---

I won't argue that scientifically social distancing might not end up doing a damn thing once the data is known/

I'm just pointing out act like A&M laying out plans to socially distance classrooms shouldn't be done because "students are going to co-mingle outside of class anyways" is simply illogical.

Let's be frank:

Football can social distance because cupcakes draw half a crowd and after we will inevitably have a fools gold team that will under perform that will drop attendance.

Classes that have "300 students" rarely draw 50 in a room for 400. If you offer any option for online you will have 20 students in class.

So all you have to manage is opening weekend, the first ranked opponent, and test days.

Earlier I mentioned playing Sept games at 11AM. Plenty of options for social distancing without much disruption. Also as you hinted at, mitigation strategies could also include that the only in-person classes to held at 8AM on MWF.

eta: meant to include winky face, oh well

tysker said:

---

Earlier I mentioned playing Sept games at 11AM. Plenty of options for social distancing without much disruption. Also as you hinted at, mitigation strategies could also include that the only in-person classes to held at 8AM on MWF.

---

What time we play our games (at least for conference play) is going to be dependent on the TV schedule.

The NCAA has posted some interesting information on their website titled "Core Principles of Resocialization of Collegiate Sport".

They describe several 14 day phases to get back to something close to normal.

I for one think we should keep it shut down to protect the older and at risk faculty. And before my post is sent to the Pit of Deletions, I would say that we should probably stay shut down the next two years too...just to be "safe".

queso1 said:

---

I for one think we should keep it shut down to protect the older and at risk faculty. And before my post is sent to the Pit of Deletions, I would say that we should probably stay shut down the next two years too...just to be "safe".

---

If it saves just one life...

If A&M is going to be mostly online in the fall then I'm not paying for that. Period. People need to grow the F up, look at the data, and understand the REAL risk instead of letting CNN do their thinking for them.

Charpie said:

---

queso1 is trolling. He doesn't mean that at all

---

Umm, ya, kinda obvious.