Omicron certainly entered with a bang. As Cornell detected its first cases of the infamous variant, the daily confirmed-positive count leapt into the hundreds. For many the timing could not have been worse, with students gearing up for finals and preparing to go home for winter break.
The outbreak, some will claim, is evidence that Cornell’s COVID restrictions and mask-requirements have been justified. Surely, the outbreak would have been even larger had Cornell not left its many restrictions in place, they argue.
There may be some truth to that; according to an email from Cornell’s Provost Michael Kotlikoff, Vice-President Ryan Lombardi and Vice President Mary Opperman, most transmission has occurred in nonacademic settings, where restrictions cannot be enforced. However, this calculation could be affected by a host of factors, such as students not reporting classroom contacts.
It is important to note that this new COVID-19 surge happened in spite of existing restrictions. In a community that is 97% vaccinated, masking indoors, and testing at least once a week, outbreaks still occur.
Furthermore, as the Provost and the Vice-Presidents indicated in their email, Cornell has yet to experience a single case requiring hospitalization or serious treatment. While encouraging, this information raises questions about the scale of Cornell’s restrictions. At what point is COVID mild enough that we no longer need restrictions?
Currently, a COVID infection in a vaccinated student means enduring several days with the symptoms of a bad cold, or perhaps a bout of the flu (which is also going around). As nearly every student can attest, the student body was wracked with a particularly bad cold (or perhaps several) during the months of October and November. Coughing filled the classrooms, and many students missed class with sore throats. Yet no one was clamoring for restrictions to protect against colds, or the flu. One wonders if COVID’s current severity still justifies restrictions on campus.
The next question is that of the legitimacy of the vaccine mandate. The original rationale was that an individual could be required to vaccinate because it would protect those around them. Since the vaccine had the power to protect others, its use was not a “personal choice.”
But, as we’ve seen, the vaccine has become fairly useless for preventing transmission, with reduced severity of infection now the main benefit. This would indicate that vaccination should be a personal choice, as it has little effect on the outcomes of others. Yet Cornell already seems poised to issue yet another vaccine mandate–this time for the booster.
Cornell will also likely still be requiring masks, distancing and testing next semester. However, the administration has some glaring questions to ponder. Since traditional measures have not prevented this outbreak, should Cornell add even more restrictions? Should the students stay home again? Are we going to return to the muted student existence of last year? Or should we learn to live with the virus, and return to life as usual?
