Why USyd’s Event Cancellation Policy Due to COVID-19 Doesn’t Go Far Enough
Pulp Editors
Yesterday, the University of Sydney (USyd)’s Office of the Vice-Chancellor and Principal sent an email to students informing them that from Monday 16 March all “student, academic, and public events and conferences” will be cancelled indefinitely in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19. The University’s ban does not extend to “teaching and research.” This means students and staff will still be required to attend classes in person on campus until further notice. While this action is a step towards reduce the spread of the virus among the university community, it does not go far enough.
The email states the University is “prioritising the safety and wellbeing of everyone in our community in this daily-changing situation” and “over the next few weeks [the university] will progressively move to delivering many units of study online.” It also states that the temporary closure of the University “will depend on a number of factors, including the number of confirmed cases in our University community, the location of these cases across campus, and the advice of NSW Health.”
First, and perhaps most concerning, is the University’s decision to wait until “confirmed cases” of COVID-19 are within the University community. According to global health expert Alanna Shaikh, “[COVID-19] could have a period where you’re infected and show no symptoms that’s as long as 24 days.” This means that for almost one month students and staff could be infected, not even know it, and be spreading the virus among their peers.
Consequently, the University’s decision raises more questions than it does comfort; just how many confirmed cases will it take for USyd to close? What advice will NSW Health give that is critical enough to enforce a closure, if not the cases that have already been confirmed across the state and country? What good does a reactive rather than proactive policy achieve for the health and wellbeing of students and staff, especially when we can look to other countries who have taken the latter approach as an example?
In the past week, Universities such as Harvard, UC Berkeley, and Laurentian University, have closed their doors and moved classes online overnight. As of 12 March, 49 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America announced or implemented the closure of schools and universities, according to UNESCO. USyd’s hesitance to follow suit is concerning to say the least. Social distancing is a social responsibility, not a choice.
Second, I can appreciate the move to a reliable and effective online platform takes time. I can also appreciate that education has been classed as an “essential service” by Prime Minister Scott Morrison in his announcement yesterday advising the cancellation of mass gatherings of over 500 people. However, to make the move online over weeks rather than immediately or even in the coming days seems an insufficient means of effectively implementing a social distancing policy or leveling out the spread of the virus in the face of this unprecedented global pandemic.
Moreover, the fact international students have been taking online classes for several weeks already, indicates the University has the resources to deliver the same service to its domestic students. Under normal circumstances it is imprudent to encourage unwell students to meet stringent attendance policies; to continue asking students and staff, both generally as well as those who are disproportionately affected by the virus (the immuno-compromised or over 50 years old), to attend university now, when there may be unconfirmed cases and an online solution is immediately available, is illogical.
Third, USyd’s decision to cancel events such as graduations is a good but underwhelming and flawed step. What is the benefit of cancelling a cohort’s graduation ceremony when the University is asking similar sized cohorts who are enrolled to continue attending lectures, mid-semester exams, and laboratory-based classes that can expose them, and as a result members of the wider community, to undue risk? If one is cancelled, surely the rest should be as well.
Fourth, the University’s failure to temporarily close today, means that it has also chosen to continue to impose public transport travel on many students and staff, rather than prioritising social distancing. For many, attending university involves multiple modes of transport where they are in contact with an innumerable number of people who may be older or immuno-compromised; travelling long distances from Wollongong to Cronulla to the Blue Mountains, meaning they are exposed for longer periods of time; and being in immediate contact with Epping and Macquarie, “Australia’s coronavirus epicentre”, because of the Sydney Metro. The University community should not be asked to choose between health and education; it should be able to have both simultaneously, and it can – if the University moves classes online.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) concurs, with the Guardian reporting that school and university closures will “almost certainly” follow Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s announcement today that mass gatherings should be cancelled.
“People talk about flattening the curve, and what that means is we want to avoid a huge lump of people getting sick at one time and overwhelming our health system,” said Chris Moy, South Australian President of the AMA.
“Schools are pigeon-holed into the same category as other large gatherings, and if the safety of children can be maintained then I think the schools will need to be looking at closing very soon.”
However, “soon” is not soon enough.
According to highly-respected Medium writer, Tomas Pueyo’s analysis on containing the spread of COVID-19, “the only way to prevent [coronavirus] is social distancing. Not tomorrow. Today. That means keeping as many people home as possible, starting now.”
In Australia, companies such as EY, law firms such as King & Wood Mallesons, and sporting events like the Grand Prix have been shut down or cancelled in the past two days alone. Why should universities, which by their very nature involve mass gatherings in the form of lectures, tutorials, libraries, labs, and walking around campus with approximately 73,000 other enrolled students (not counting for professors, staff, cleaners, visitors etc.) be any different?
Given the growing spread of COVID-19, the University’s hesitance to move to solely online classes cannot be ignored. While this virus may only develop into a sniff and a tickle in the throat for some, the events unfolding in Asia, Europe and the US clearly indicate that for many the situation will be dire. Shaikh estimates “about 20% of people infected with COVID-19 are going to need hospitalisation,” and that the “US medical system can just cope with that.” Arguably, Australia is in a similar position, currently facing a shortage of COVID-19 test kits. In Italy, the medical unpreparedness that coincided with the rapid spread of the virus from 322 cases two weeks ago to over 10,000 cases today means doctors and nurses are being faced with the impossible moral decision of who should live and die. Moreover, it demonstrates just how quickly the virus can spread when proactive measures are not put in place.
The University of Sydney – as well as all other universities and the government more broadly – has the chance and the ability to both limit the spread of COVID-19 among its own and the broader community, and avoid or at the very least alleviate what will potentially be a cumbersome burden on the Australian health system, while simultaneously continuing to provide the “essential services” of education to its students and work for its employees. The way things are going, I expect this will happen soon. The question is, will the University act soon enough?