Thread by @Cybermatron

So this article is interesting from an “f2f teaching” perspective mostly because it acknowledges that some of the variables remain undefined and require further research.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1298408460615213056

Those variables include what counts as “prolonged exposure” that increases risk, and where the low/high occupancy threshhold is, particularly indoors. Those seem to me the two most important ones, although level of ventilation and airflows come a close second.

I teach solely at PG level. This means that my class size is normally capped at 25 students. My Uni has recently informed us that on the basis of applying 2m social distance, there is exactly ONE teaching room in our entire building that is big enough to accommodate this.

I know that room. It has a small entrance door to the reception with an airlock coming in. It has windows only to one side, which can be opened, but ventilation is likely only soso. It has high ceilings, though, so the air has somewhere to go at least.

One would assume that 26 people in a room like that qualifies as high occupancy.

On exposure time, the article notes that most studies put 15 min as the highest point where they think risk will increase. We are currently scheduled to teach for one-hour periods. So well over.

We will obviously speak in class, which would normally put us in the medium risk category, but because of socially distancing we may have to speak louder, so this might nudge us up on risk. As the lecturer, my voice will certainly have to project.

So on the scale developed as part of this article, our risk during teaching would be anywhere from yellow, if we assume good ventilation (which we really can’t) and everyone wearing a mask for the duration, to red in all other cases.

Add to that other research that assumes that the virus in aerosol form can circulate in the air for up to three hours, this means that unless we leave that amount of time between sessions in each room, ...

... each class is not only exposed to its own viral load, but to the viral load of up to three other classes.

Obviously vigorous ventilation inbetween classes may help. But as I said, this may be difficult in this particular room.

In practice, this and the fact that we don’t have a lot of rooms this size, this may mean that we cannot teach classes of 25 but will be asked to reduce class sizes. I understand that on current assumptions most of our seminar rooms can hold up to 8 people.

This means that I would either have to teach the same session three times to three different groups, assuming three times the risk of extended exposure, or one “lucky” group would get to be in the room with me while the rest are zoomed in by video link.

Add to that further that Unis are desperately hoping that the government will reduce social distancing to 1m before term starts. Because it would change the maths entirely, allow them to bring more rooms into work for bigger groups and make large-scale f2f teaching possible.

So if that happens, you can take all of the above and multiply it by x.

And that is without taking into account traffic in really badly ventilated narrow corridors between sessions, traffic in and out of our professional services rooms, which are located in some badly ventilated mezzanine with next to no natural light ...

... and any period students spend with each other socialising (in and outside of campus).

Needless to say that I’m unwilling to visit my elderly highly vulnerable mother while I’m forced to work in this environment. So that’s my social cost.

You can look at it whichever way you want, but by insisting on f2f teaching, Unis are forcing both staff and students into “red risk” scenarios every day. These risks may be worth taking if there was no alternative. But there is.

My School is a market leader in online distance education. We could have capitalised on that and put all of our hard-earned skills on display to attract the best students this year.

Instead, our Uni management team informed us that we need to do f2f because we want to show the world that we are “a serious research-led institution and not the @OpenUniversity “ (this is a direct quote!).

I don’t know what else to tell you.

We are walking clear-sightedly into a potential second wave, helping to cause it even, because of the money. Because we are told that the students won’t come, if we don’t do this.

I don’t know who talked to which students and who assessed everyone’s willingness to assume these risks. I know that hardly any of my colleagues want to assume them, but most feel that we have no choice.

We are told about voluntary and possibly compulsory redundancies that may come. This keeps many of us in line. We see how our employer has already axed casual staff and we have no illusions.

We are told the halt to pay increases and promotions is likely to happen next year, even if the students don’t stay away.

This smacks of the kind of employer opportunism that doesn’t want to waste a good crisis. Everything is possible right now.

Academia is my dream job. Being an academic isn’t something I do, it’s something I am.

But what the technology-supported workload transfer from admin staff to academics hasn’t managed to do (even as it brought me and others to the brink of burn out breakdown), ...

... this next year may finally manage to achieve. I may actually quit.

I assume there is life outside academia. So if you have any ideas for what else a slightly worn, middle-aged data protection expert, four careless previous owners, could do with her life, I’m all ears. Right now I’m considering landscape gardening but I’m open to suggestions.