The University of Michigan is adding clarity and specificity to the factors used when considering further responses and strategies regarding campus operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A set of campus response metrics are measured continuously by the Campus Health Response Committee, and mitigation measures are considered based on those factors.
more information
The Metrics and Mitigation Strategies document spells out specific information that will prompt consideration of actions such as increased testing and monitoring, increased physical distancing requirements and further campus density-reduction efforts.
“We have been using this type of data all along to help guide the university’s response. This document is a way to formalize the data and put it in one place, but these data points are not new,” said Preeti Malani, U-M’s chief health officer. “Whenever possible, potential responses to increases of COVID-19 transmission will be targeted toward the source of the increase.”
Recommended by the CHRC, a 15-member advisory and coordinating group tasked with supporting the health of the university, the metrics are being tracked across multiple streams of indicators.
The metrics focus on disease spread, public health capacity and health care capacity. Response triggers include:
- Large increases of test positivity.
- Inability to provide prompt case investigation and contact tracing.
- Seriously diminished critical care bed capacity in local hospitals.
- Diminished supply of personal protection equipment.
“The recommended approach aligns with what is in place at the state level, not surprisingly because several of the public health experts advising the governor on COVID response are also working closely with the Campus Health Response team,” said Robert Ernst, associate vice president for student life and director of the CHRC.
When any of the situations are identified, a broader review by U-M public health and medical experts as well as leadership would be prompted to evaluate the use of enhanced mitigation strategies. These strategies could include restricting in-person activities; a pause of in-person classes; and switching to remote classes for the remainder of the semester.
Closing all residence halls and sending students home is noted as one potential strategy, but the guidelines also note the care that would need to be taken if that choice was made to minimize the risk of infection to hometown communities.
“Our COVID-19 response metrics detail the range of data around viral spread, public health factors and health care capacity we are using in our decision-making,” President Mark Schlissel said.
“I commend the faculty and staff of the Campus Health Response Committee who worked to develop the metrics as part of their work to support the health and safety of our community during this pandemic. We understand that the university community will have questions and feedback about these plans, and we look forward to hearing them at our Friday forum.”
The president and Provost Susan Collins invited the university community to the first Campus Weekly COVID-19 Briefing set for 1-1:45 p.m. Oct. 2. Campus leaders will provide updates and information about campus conditions during the briefing, and it will include a discussion about the metrics and mitigation strategies.
The weekly briefing will be recorded and shared for those unable to attend. Community members are invited to submit questions or topics for discussion.
Epidemiologist Emily Toth Martin, a professor in the School of Public Health and member of the committee, said responses to an epidemic are multilayered.
“Responding to COVID-19 spread is complex and needs to happen within the context of the situation on the ground. We are looking at signals from campus and from our surrounding community to understand the changing impacts of the virus and where more intervention is needed,” Martin said
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Martin has been collaborating with the state of Michigan’s pandemic response and was part of the team that developed the state’s dashboard. Along with several SPH colleagues, she developed the Framework for Monitoring COVID-19 Public Health Indicators, which provided the framework for the current document.
Information, including a dashboard, is updated daily on the Campus Maize & Blueprint website.
Michael Atzmon
The newly-published criteria for “review of campus operations” reflect either shocking, extreme. disregard for human lives or equally extreme incompetence. New York City uses 3% positivity rate in the population as an automatic cutoff for school shutdown. The newly-stated UM criterion is 20%, similar to the rate at the height of the pandemic in NY City. Furthermore, UM does not conduct sufficient testing to provide reliable information. In effect, the administration is saying that no course change will be considered until it is far too late. It may already be too late. Per UM dashboard, 229 students were diagnosed as positive last week, more than double the number of the prior week, 103 . For comparison, NY state universities were ordered to close if they reached 100 in two weeks. 20% of UM students, that’s 10,000 infected human beings. Maybe our public health experts can tell us how many of them would suffer severe chronic health effects, and how many community members will be infected by them and die as a result of these callous policies.
Silke-Maria Weineck
Could you point me to the 20% positivity rate benchmark in the MI state guidelines? If I recall, that’s about where NYC was when they had to bring in refrigerator trucks to store the bodies. And surely, Washtenaw, already at orange, would go deep red far earlier.
Silke-Maria Weineck
I am completely perplexed here. We have ALREADY met several of the triggers for rethinking. What is going on?