(08-25-2021 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry that I challenged your perspective that it hasn't been the case that it hasn't been the case that medical and religious exemptions aren't baked into COVID-19 mandates.

Man, that is a tough sentence: regret for challenging the denial of a negative!

(08-25-2021 05:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry that I challenged your perspective that it hasn't been the case that it hasn't been the case that medical and religious exemptions aren't baked into COVID-19 mandates.

Man, that is a tough sentence: regret for challenging the denial of a negative!

Gotta keep everyone on their toes!

No regrts

Correcting my last post....

Lad, you have latched on to one single line in post 75.... 'No vaccine, no work'... and ignored everything else in that same post... as well as the following posts. Typical of you to remove something from context and then run with that... to the EXCLUSION of everything else that was said.

I'll be very simple for you...

The mandates for CoVid are not the same as the mandates for other healthcare required vaccines. The exemptions are vastly more limited both in scope and in time.,... and NO 'work-around' exists. When someone says they assume that 'reasonable' accommodations are in place, the question now becomes, what it reasonable. I don't know that given the inability of some to get medical advice on a brand new vaccine (except perhaps through an affiliate of their employer) ... that such requirements are necessarily 'reasonable'.
That was essentially line one of post 75 as well as those that followed.

That said.... If 'proof and acceptance of a limited number of exemptions' (medical or religious) is considered 'reasonable' (and that is ALL that is mentioned in the MEthodist policy you brought to the discussion)... then how do we amend/adopt/apply that to situations beyond healthcare, like Rice Stadium?
That was line 2 of it.

NOTHING in there takes the position you've assigned to me.... that I'm being some sort of 'extremist' and claiming that NO exemptions whatsoever exist. That is an interpretation YOU made of a single line in a longer post, REMOVED from all of the context around it.

No vaccine (or APPROVAL of a VERY limited in scope and time number of exemptions), no work. That's NOT the case for flu. Given that RIce is not a healthcare facility and the risk of infection is a small fraction of that in one... are those same rules... proof of a vaccine (or an exemption) reasonable?? Are we going to apply the same 'acceptance by hr' of said exemption?? If so, HOW?? If not, then we're following their rules for the flu... so rather than ask people for proof OR wear a mask... which we can't enforce once they enter... why don't we just require masks??

Pretty simple, really.

(08-26-2021 09:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Correcting my last post....

Lad, you have latched on to one single line in post 75.... 'No vaccine, no work'... and ignored everything else in that same post... as well as the following posts. Typical of you to remove something from context and then run with that... to the EXCLUSION of everything else that was said.

I'll be very simple for you...

The mandates for CoVid are not the same as the mandates for other healthcare required vaccines. The exemptions are vastly more limited both in scope and in time.,... and NO 'work-around' exists. When someone says they assume that 'reasonable' accommodations are in place, the question now becomes, what it reasonable. I don't know that given the inability of some to get medical advice on a brand new vaccine (except perhaps through an affiliate of their employer) ... that such requirements are necessarily 'reasonable'.
That was essentially line one of post 75 as well as those that followed.

That said.... If 'proof and acceptance of a limited number of exemptions' (medical or religious) is considered 'reasonable' (and that is ALL that is mentioned in the MEthodist policy you brought to the discussion)... then how do we amend/adopt/apply that to situations beyond healthcare, like Rice Stadium?
That was line 2 of it.

NOTHING in there takes the position you've assigned to me.... that I'm being some sort of 'extremist' and claiming that NO exemptions whatsoever exist. That is an interpretation YOU made of a single line in a longer post, REMOVED from all of the context around it.

No vaccine (or APPROVAL of a VERY limited in scope and time number of exemptions), no work. That's NOT the case for flu. Given that RIce is not a healthcare facility and the risk of infection is a small fraction of that in one... are those same rules... proof of a vaccine (or an exemption) reasonable?? Are we going to apply the same 'acceptance by hr' of said exemption?? If so, HOW?? If not, then we're following their rules for the flu... so rather than ask people for proof OR wear a mask... which we can't enforce once they enter... why don't we just require masks??

Pretty simple, really.

Actually, the line that I have been "struggling" with from post 75 is bolded below:

(08-25-2021 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:23 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?

Not at all. Maybe there's some edge cases where that's not acceptable, like a NICU or other sensitive medical facility, but I also assume reasonable exemptions are a standard that nobody is fighting over.

You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case.

I keep going back to how I have assumed that when we talk about vaccine mandates for organizations, exemptions are included in that mandate.

I think you're wrong about the "position I've assigned to you." What I've said is that you seem to disagree that we should assume that exemptions are included in vaccination mandates for organizations. That is NOT saying you think no exemptions exist, or that you're an extremist.

(08-26-2021 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 09:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Correcting my last post....

Lad, you have latched on to one single line in post 75.... 'No vaccine, no work'... and ignored everything else in that same post... as well as the following posts. Typical of you to remove something from context and then run with that... to the EXCLUSION of everything else that was said.

I'll be very simple for you...

The mandates for CoVid are not the same as the mandates for other healthcare required vaccines. The exemptions are vastly more limited both in scope and in time.,... and NO 'work-around' exists. When someone says they assume that 'reasonable' accommodations are in place, the question now becomes, what it reasonable. I don't know that given the inability of some to get medical advice on a brand new vaccine (except perhaps through an affiliate of their employer) ... that such requirements are necessarily 'reasonable'.
That was essentially line one of post 75 as well as those that followed.

That said.... If 'proof and acceptance of a limited number of exemptions' (medical or religious) is considered 'reasonable' (and that is ALL that is mentioned in the MEthodist policy you brought to the discussion)... then how do we amend/adopt/apply that to situations beyond healthcare, like Rice Stadium?
That was line 2 of it.

NOTHING in there takes the position you've assigned to me.... that I'm being some sort of 'extremist' and claiming that NO exemptions whatsoever exist. That is an interpretation YOU made of a single line in a longer post, REMOVED from all of the context around it.

No vaccine (or APPROVAL of a VERY limited in scope and time number of exemptions), no work. That's NOT the case for flu. Given that RIce is not a healthcare facility and the risk of infection is a small fraction of that in one... are those same rules... proof of a vaccine (or an exemption) reasonable?? Are we going to apply the same 'acceptance by hr' of said exemption?? If so, HOW?? If not, then we're following their rules for the flu... so rather than ask people for proof OR wear a mask... which we can't enforce once they enter... why don't we just require masks??

Pretty simple, really.

Actually, the line that I have been "struggling" with from post 75 is bolded below:

(08-25-2021 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:23 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?

Not at all. Maybe there's some edge cases where that's not acceptable, like a NICU or other sensitive medical facility, but I also assume reasonable exemptions are a standard that nobody is fighting over.

You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case.

I keep going back to how I have assumed that when we talk about vaccine mandates for organizations, exemptions are included in that mandate.

I think you're wrong about the "position I've assigned to you." What I've said is that you seem to disagree that we should assume that exemptions are included in vaccination mandates for organizations. That is NOT saying you think no exemptions exist, or that you're an extremist.

Fine. Either way, it's still 'on you' for not including the rest of the quote. For not considering the comment in its full context but instead, reacting 'line by line'.

Note that I actually responded to Frankly, not you. HE mentioned a NICU and sensitive medical facilities. I noted that the rules apply to the entire hospital... and not just 'sensitive' or 'intensive care' providers.

Here is the entire quote.

Quote:You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case. For the flu vaccine in a healthcare setting, all you have to do is 'decline' the vaccine and then wear a mask while working... No 'test' (religious, medical or otherwise) is required and it applies to everyone from NICU to the guy who waters the plants or pushes paper in an office. For Houston hospitals... this has not been the case for CoVid thus far. No vaccine, no work at some places. Emergency sort of protocols.

That's what I'm getting at. Because this is a pandemic, the rules don't really apply. More below.

OBVIOUSLY I'm differentiating between the rules for CoVid and the 'normal' (and one would assume, generally agreed as REASONABLE) rules (since they are what we do during 'normal' times).

And the rules are clearly different.

The reason it matters is because LOTS of things like this 'sound reasonable' on paper... but when you put them in practice, they start to fall apart. I'm not saying they fall apart for Methodist... I'm saying they fall apart in other settings trying to follow 'best practices'.

Whether or not these specific exemptions exist was NEVER my point, that doesn't mean that ALL 'reasonable exemptions' exist or are built in nor assumed. The government absolutely CAN (and have) suspend(ed) all sorts of 'normal' rules during an emergency.

I think it reasonable that my friend not take the vaccine based on her history... and that she be very careful with her kids who share her genetic makeup. I don't know that she would be able to provide sufficient evidence to convince her company's HR department that the risks outweigh the benefit for her in a timely manner... There certainly ARE people and companies who wouldn't accept her situation. Is that 'reasonable' to you?? My service dog (in full gear) gets denied entry to places ALL THE TIME. It's a violation of Federal and state law, but is it really worth it for me to contest it?? Do I really want to give that place my business anyway?? Can someone just claim to be a practicing Methodist who doesn't believe in vaccines based on their personal understanding of the Gospel?? I KNOW people like that, btw.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of putting such things into context beyond 'the front lines' (since the thread is about RIce and COVID, not Methodist Hospital and COVID.... not that its a problem to discuss Methodist, but the purpose of speaking about them is clearly 'in comparison to' Rice)

and YOU choose to focus on a pedantic point.

If the exemptions in place are for medical or religious reasons only... and subject to review by a PARTIAL third party and not some objective standard... I'd say that the exemptions in place are THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM... and not 'all reasonable' exemptions that people aren't fighting over.

(08-26-2021 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 09:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Correcting my last post....

Lad, you have latched on to one single line in post 75.... 'No vaccine, no work'... and ignored everything else in that same post... as well as the following posts. Typical of you to remove something from context and then run with that... to the EXCLUSION of everything else that was said.

I'll be very simple for you...

The mandates for CoVid are not the same as the mandates for other healthcare required vaccines. The exemptions are vastly more limited both in scope and in time.,... and NO 'work-around' exists. When someone says they assume that 'reasonable' accommodations are in place, the question now becomes, what it reasonable. I don't know that given the inability of some to get medical advice on a brand new vaccine (except perhaps through an affiliate of their employer) ... that such requirements are necessarily 'reasonable'.
That was essentially line one of post 75 as well as those that followed.

That said.... If 'proof and acceptance of a limited number of exemptions' (medical or religious) is considered 'reasonable' (and that is ALL that is mentioned in the MEthodist policy you brought to the discussion)... then how do we amend/adopt/apply that to situations beyond healthcare, like Rice Stadium?
That was line 2 of it.

NOTHING in there takes the position you've assigned to me.... that I'm being some sort of 'extremist' and claiming that NO exemptions whatsoever exist. That is an interpretation YOU made of a single line in a longer post, REMOVED from all of the context around it.

No vaccine (or APPROVAL of a VERY limited in scope and time number of exemptions), no work. That's NOT the case for flu. Given that RIce is not a healthcare facility and the risk of infection is a small fraction of that in one... are those same rules... proof of a vaccine (or an exemption) reasonable?? Are we going to apply the same 'acceptance by hr' of said exemption?? If so, HOW?? If not, then we're following their rules for the flu... so rather than ask people for proof OR wear a mask... which we can't enforce once they enter... why don't we just require masks??

Pretty simple, really.

Actually, the line that I have been "struggling" with from post 75 is bolded below:

(08-25-2021 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:23 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?

Not at all. Maybe there's some edge cases where that's not acceptable, like a NICU or other sensitive medical facility, but I also assume reasonable exemptions are a standard that nobody is fighting over.

You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case.

I keep going back to how I have assumed that when we talk about vaccine mandates for organizations, exemptions are included in that mandate.

I think you're wrong about the "position I've assigned to you." What I've said is that you seem to disagree that we should assume that exemptions are included in vaccination mandates for organizations. That is NOT saying you think no exemptions exist, or that you're an extremist.

Fine. Either way, it's still 'on you' for not including the rest of the quote. For not considering the comment in its full context but instead, reacting 'line by line'.

Note that I actually responded to Frankly, not you. HE mentioned a NICU and sensitive medical facilities. I noted that the rules apply to the entire hospital... and not just 'sensitive' or 'intensive care' providers.

Here is the entire quote.

Quote:You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case. For the flu vaccine in a healthcare setting, all you have to do is 'decline' the vaccine and then wear a mask while working... No 'test' (religious, medical or otherwise) is required and it applies to everyone from NICU to the guy who waters the plants or pushes paper in an office. For Houston hospitals... this has not been the case for CoVid thus far. No vaccine, no work at some places. Emergency sort of protocols.

That's what I'm getting at. Because this is a pandemic, the rules don't really apply. More below.

OBVIOUSLY I'm differentiating between the rules for CoVid and the 'normal' (and one would assume, generally agreed as REASONABLE) rules (since they are what we do during 'normal' times).

And the rules are clearly different.

The reason it matters is because LOTS of things like this 'sound reasonable' on paper... but when you put them in practice, they start to fall apart. I'm not saying they fall apart for Methodist... I'm saying they fall apart in other settings trying to follow 'best practices'.

Whether or not these specific exemptions exist was NEVER my point, that doesn't mean that ALL 'reasonable exemptions' exist or are built in nor assumed. The government absolutely CAN (and have) suspend(ed) all sorts of 'normal' rules during an emergency.

I think it reasonable that my friend not take the vaccine based on her history... and that she be very careful with her kids who share her genetic makeup. I don't know that she would be able to provide sufficient evidence to convince her company's HR department that the risks outweigh the benefit for her in a timely manner... There certainly ARE people and companies who wouldn't accept her situation. Is that 'reasonable' to you?? My service dog (in full gear) gets denied entry to places ALL THE TIME. It's a violation of Federal and state law, but is it really worth it for me to contest it?? Do I really want to give that place my business anyway?? Can someone just claim to be a practicing Methodist who doesn't believe in vaccines based on their personal understanding of the Gospel?? I KNOW people like that, btw.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of putting such things into context beyond 'the front lines' (since the thread is about RIce and COVID, not Methodist Hospital and COVID.... not that its a problem to discuss Methodist, but the purpose of speaking about them is clearly 'in comparison to' Rice)

and YOU choose to focus on a pedantic point.

If the exemptions in place are for medical or religious reasons only... and subject to review by a PARTIAL third party and not some objective standard... I'd say that the exemptions in place are THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM... and not 'all reasonable' exemptions that people aren't fighting over.

Call it pedantic, but this is the comment that started it all, when you asked is these specific exemptions exist (not how they are executed):

(08-24-2021 03:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:00 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The University of Virginia did the right thing by disenrolling students who would not get vaccinated.

What if they CAN not get vaccinated (medical reasons)?? I won't get into religious objections... but how is this not discrimination based on health? It's like saying you can't attend college if you have a disability?

I asked about these exemptions being baked in, because I don't get why people keep asking questions like you did originally. Yes, medical exemptions exist from what I've seen.

(08-26-2021 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Call it pedantic, but this is the comment that started it all, when you asked is these specific exemptions exist (not how they are executed):

(08-24-2021 03:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:00 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The University of Virginia did the right thing by disenrolling students who would not get vaccinated.

What if they CAN not get vaccinated (medical reasons)?? I won't get into religious objections... but how is this not discrimination based on health? It's like saying you can't attend college if you have a disability?

I asked about these exemptions being baked in, because I don't get why people keep asking questions like you did originally. Yes, medical exemptions exist from what I've seen.

1) That was a question for someone else. The fact that my comment there was similar to my comment to you doesn't mean they are the same comment. I'd also note that I was given the answer to my question... in facts.... and that effectively closes a line of question.

Still and again though, the context matters... to wit...

2) if the above is your argument, then why does a 'healthcare policy' at Methodist have to do with what UVA is doing? I understand that Frankly answered my question with some facts, but what the hell are YOU throwing in??

OF COURSE people are going to try and follow the Constitution... or at least not ADVERTISE that they're not going to... but there is still plenty of gray area here... and you're ignoring it.... to wit....

3) The comparison between UVA and Methodist is similar to my comparison between HRS and Methodist.

How is the above to be enforced?? Is there a committee at UVA that will review medical records to determine if your medical concern is valid? If so, who is on that committee and what are their credentials or positions on vaccines?? How are they qualified to tell me what I should or should not be concerned about when it comes to my life or health?? Or can I just contact Dr Good Owl and ask them for a letter?? If so, then what really is the point?? There seem to be PLENTY of people with MD after their name willing to sign off on what I would consider to be 'loose' concerns, much less some very real ones, like my friend.

BTW, she just told me that she looked into it... After about 3 months, Her PCP said he wouldn't provide such a letter. He understood her concerns and they were valid, but it was not in his area to recommend. Her specialist said he would write the letter, but that it was going to be 'open'... which is what I expected most doctors to do... in other words, he wasn't going to 'decide for her' that she couldn't get the vaccine... he would simply say that she has 'greater than average' probability of sensitivity to the vaccine, but that he would not speculate on how high that probability was, nor how severe the reaction might be.

It's a purely subjective 'guess'... and this is from an expert in 'reactions' to external impetus and someone who was already a LONG way into a relationship with her specialist in perhaps the most familiar field. I don't have that sort of specialist... do you?? I suspect the wait for a new patient is months

(08-26-2021 01:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 12:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Call it pedantic, but this is the comment that started it all, when you asked is these specific exemptions exist (not how they are executed):

(08-24-2021 03:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 11:00 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The University of Virginia did the right thing by disenrolling students who would not get vaccinated.

What if they CAN not get vaccinated (medical reasons)?? I won't get into religious objections... but how is this not discrimination based on health? It's like saying you can't attend college if you have a disability?

I asked about these exemptions being baked in, because I don't get why people keep asking questions like you did originally. Yes, medical exemptions exist from what I've seen.

1) That was a question for someone else. The fact that my comment there was similar to my comment to you doesn't mean they are the same comment. I'd also note that I was given the answer to my question... in facts.... and that effectively closes a line of question.

Still and again though, the context matters... to wit...

2) if the above is your argument, then why does a 'healthcare policy' at Methodist have to do with what UVA is doing? I understand that Frankly answered my question with some facts, but what the hell are YOU throwing in??

As I responded to Frankly originally...

"At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?"

I think that's pretty clear as to what I was throwing in - the idea that the organizations mandating people they oversee (e.g. employees, students, etc.) get a COVID-19 vaccine include exemptions, so that select people do not have to get the vaccine.

Literally, I was stopping my commentary at that - that it's proper to assume that organizations include these "normal" exemptions (health and religion).

Quote:OF COURSE people are going to try and follow the Constitution... or at least not ADVERTISE that they're not going to... but there is still plenty of gray area here... and you're ignoring it.... to wit....

3) The comparison between UVA and Methodist is similar to my comparison between HRS and Methodist.

How is the above to be enforced?? Is there a committee at UVA that will review medical records to determine if your medical concern is valid? If so, who is on that committee and what are their credentials or positions on vaccines?? How are they qualified to tell me what I should or should not be concerned about when it comes to my life or health?? Or can I just contact Dr Good Owl and ask them for a letter?? If so, then what really is the point?? There seem to be PLENTY of people with MD after their name willing to sign off on what I would consider to be 'loose' concerns, much less some very real ones, like my friend.

BTW, she just told me that she looked into it... After about 3 months, Her PCP said he wouldn't provide such a letter. He understood her concerns and they were valid, but it was not in his area to recommend. Her specialist said he would write the letter, but that it was going to be 'open'... which is what I expected most doctors to do... in other words, he wasn't going to 'decide for her' that she couldn't get the vaccine... he would simply say that she has 'greater than average' probability of sensitivity to the vaccine, but that he would not speculate on how high that probability was, nor how severe the reaction might be.

It's a purely subjective 'guess'... and this is from an expert in 'reactions' to external impetus and someone who was already a LONG way into a relationship with her specialist in perhaps the most familiar field. I don't have that sort of specialist... do you?? I suspect the wait for a new patient is months

All of this is a good conversation, but I really wasn't trying to wade into how these would be enforced or if they're valid or so on. I was stopping at the idea that we do not see organizations without exemptions (i.e. organizations with mandates also include exemptions).

(08-26-2021 02:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As I responded to Frankly originally...

"At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?"

I think that's pretty clear as to what I was throwing in - the idea that the organizations mandating people they oversee (e.g. employees, students, etc.) get a COVID-19 vaccine include exemptions, so that select people do not have to get the vaccine.

Literally, I was stopping my commentary at that - that it's proper to assume that organizations include these "normal" exemptions (health and religion).

Dude... I've got it. Please quit explaining that.

The problem is, I wasn't responding to YOUR comment in post 75... I was responding to Frank's response to you in post 75.

To the extent that your comment was 'related', you are IMO, once again not talking about 'normal' exemptions... but instead MINIMUM, CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED exemptions.... and ones that require acceptance by a company and not a more objective standard.

NORMAL to me is 'what we do in normal times'... and what we do with vaccines in normal times is not only do we have these constitutionally mandated exemptions, but we ALSO have simple opt-outs and work-arounds... BECAUSE (as in the Hobby Lobby case) it would be up to a COURT to determine an 'earnestly held religious belief' or what constituted a 'reasonable health risk' for someone to take. That seems to have been circumvented here in favor of 'corporate policy'.

I'm not saying that MH is acting inappropriately... I have no idea... but I AM saying that its not NORMAL for an employer to decide how big a health risk you should be willing to take.... or what constitutes a religious belief.

I mean seriously, can you imagine someone saying... 'I believe the Gospel does not support vaccines' and Methodist Hospital saying, 'despite your claim to this, the church you attend doesn't agree with you so we are denying you'?

I don't know that they would do this. They might just say... Ok, you say you have a religious exemption so we're going to accept it and you wear a mask... but my point is, if that is the case.... why bother with this?? Why not just do EXACTLY what we do with flu?? You get the vaccine OR you wear a mask at all times... and to Frankly's comment... that means everyone in the place and not just NICU.

Quote:All of this is a good conversation, but I really wasn't trying to wade into how these would be enforced or if they're valid or so on. I was stopping at the idea that we do not see organizations without exemptions (i.e. organizations with mandates also include exemptions).

Then you probably shouldn't have ventured into a conversation where I was clearly going further. I didn't challenge your comment... I merely challenged the definition of 'normal'. These aren't normal times... and IMO, what we're doing (giving corporations or schools such power over literally Constitutional issues) is not normal.

Provost DesRoches sent out an e-mail this morning. They're moving to fully in-person on Sept 20 (Monday). The only exceptions are for instructors that have an exemption (presumably medical) and for classes that include international students who could not enter the US (which still must have an in-person component unless the instructor is exempt). Classes with enrollment of at least 50 get an additional week to go in-person. The main driver seemed to be that campus had an overall COVID positivity rate of 0.22% with no in-class transmission. I think they're still requiring masking and distancing precautions.

(09-16-2021 09:52 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  Provost DesRoches sent out an e-mail this morning. They're moving to fully in-person on Sept 20 (Monday). The only exceptions are for instructors that have an exemption (presumably medical) and for classes that include international students who could not enter the US (which still must have an in-person component unless the instructor is exempt). Classes with enrollment of at least 50 get an additional week to go in-person. The main driver seemed to be that campus had an overall COVID positivity rate of 0.22% with no in-class transmission. I think they're still requiring masking and distancing precautions.

Yes, masking is still required indoors anywhere on campus.