12 Responses to End of the beginning for Omicron, or just more slow data entry?

  1. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    OK, if the data for the latest week are accurate — I have no reason to think not, other than a certain cynicism — it has receded some from the week before, both for students and staff. The staff infection rate of 19/5000 in the latest week is about 0.4% — higher than I’d like, but not a disaster (unless you are one of the unlucky ones).

    Really, they could relieve a lot of angst and paranoia if they’d just update the graph daily — assuming, of course, that the rates continue to go down rapidly.

    • Dog says:

      as I said in another post, what is significant here in this latest data release is the increase in ON campus cases. I think this reflects under reporting and likely under testing of the ON campus population.

      Lane county does update daily (and actually several times daily) so that has always been the more accurate source. No one should be rely on UO dashboard (for this or anything else..).

  2. I call bullshit... says:

    partly because as I stepped outside during a break from one of my classes to get some fresh air last week, a student walked by talking on his cell phone (full volume) to his friend bragging that he wasn’t going to report to covid corps so he wouldn’t have to isolate… I promptly put my KN95 back on and jumped back into the foxholes we call classrooms.

    • uomatters says:

      What with UO’s gonfleur based ventilation strategy being no more effective than prayer, I wonder if the subject line from the next message from our Provost will be “There are no atheists in the classrooms”.

  3. Amy Adams says:

    The reporting for week 1/3-1/9 was done daily, or just about…that’s what made the non-reporting for week 1/10-1/16 notable. I’ve been wondering about the radio silence, other than the (inexplicably) low daily case counts…

    I took a screenshot on Saturday 1/15 of the then-recent daily counts. At that time, there were four cases reported for the date 1/13. Today, it shows 131 cases on 1/13.

    I doubt our angst and paranoia is going to have reason to go down, as the numbers continue to be updated this week.

  4. It's Classified. says:

    UO and Trust are like oil and water.

  5. thatswhatImhearing says:

    Anyone else hearing that most students have no idea they’re supposed to report that they’re covid positive?

  6. Craig O'ThePlague says:

    I’m very skeptical that on campus cases went up but off campus cases did not.

  7. Busfac says:

    From the faculty perspective the data look quite promising. Looking at the descriptions of the employee cases most of them seem to be workers in other roles, with a majority being student workers.

    While it may be plausible to argue that the university as a whole needs more mitigation, it seems that in person class does not seem to be a danger, at least to the instructor.

  8. FoolMeOnce... says:

    I have no reason to think that the data IS accurate. I know that reporting by employees is not 100%. What about temp employees? Since they aren’t “employees of the University” are they included? Are contractors? Who else may be excluded from the data?

    I don’t believer this is cynical at all.

    • uomatters says:

      I know of 2 faculty with PLC offices who have tested positive since classes started. I don’t see any PLC employees listed in the employee data. Weird.

  9. thedude says:

    The rate of growth is slowing in Oregon and the IMHE model predicted peaks on Jan 18th for the statewide numbers. In a heavily vaccinated population, despite widespread vaccine leakage, the population should get to “herd immunity” thresholds sooner because the effective Rt would be lower, so it’s possible the numbers are right.

    But if they had more timely case reporting we’d definitely trust the numbers more.