Modeling for COVID-19 college reopening decisions: Cornell, a case study.

We consider epidemiological modeling for the design of COVID-19 interventions in university populations, which have seen significant outbreaks during the pandemic. A central challenge is sensitivity of predictions to input parameters coupled with uncertainty about these parameters. Nearly 2 y into the pandemic, parameter uncertainty remains because of changes in vaccination efficacy, viral variants, and mask mandates, and because universities' unique characteristics hinder translation from the general population: a high fraction of young people, who have higher rates of asymptomatic infection and social contact, as well as an enhanced ability to implement behavioral and testing interventions. We describe an epidemiological model that formed the basis for Cornell University's decision to reopen for in-person instruction in fall 2020 and supported the design of an asymptomatic screening program instituted concurrently to prevent viral spread. We demonstrate how the structure of these decisions allowed risk to be minimized despite parameter uncertainty leading to an inability to make accurate point estimates and how this generalizes to other university settings. We find that once-per-week asymptomatic screening of vaccinated undergraduate students provides substantial value against the Delta variant, even if all students are vaccinated, and that more targeted testing of the most social vaccinated students provides further value.

The review panel process: interpretation of the findings and recommendations.

In a series of three studies, the present authors and others in this research group have examined the Review Panel process: (a) before the hearing (which patients apply for a hearing?); (b) at the hearing (how do the patients released by the Panel differ from those retained by the Panel and; (c) after the hearing, how are the Panel-released patients faring one and two years after being released by the Panel, compared to patients released by the attending psychiatrist?) In the present paper, the findings of these three studies are summarized and an attempt is made to explain the findings, some of which are surprising (for example, the 35% disagreement between Panel and attending physician with respect to suitability for discharge and the finding that Panel-released patients survive as long in the community as do physician-discharged patients). Based on the findings and the interpretation placed on them, the authors make a series of recommendations with respect to the operation of Panels, the management of defiant involuntary patients and future research in this area.