Whitt says the athletics department shared anecdotal data of students congregating after getting negative test results, and then spreading it to each other. He also targets saliva based tests (like the one the University of Illinois is using) and says it's ineffective.

The thrust of this is behavior is the best preventive measure. The obvious question then is: if the first two weeks have clearly demonstrated that behavioral changes *aren't* happening, don't you need to try something different?

Choi says the university is expanding the veterinary medicine diagnostic lab to expand testing capacity, if needed. He says tomorrow he will have a conversation with the governor to request being the first test site of Washington University's saliva-based test.

Choi also says students who need tests are getting tested, which is directly contradicted from experiences students have shared on here. On wastewater testing, Choi says that's part of a research project and tosses to Middleton.

Middleton says it's hard to gleam relevant data from the wastewater testing, in terms of numbers of cases. Scott Henderson chimes in and says students are monitoring their symptoms and are watching closely.

Choi pushing back now on the idea that Mizzou is at one "extreme" of testing. He says other universities are in a worse position because they don't have labs capable of running tests on location, like MU does.

Choi says, "we do not want our students to get COVID. But those that do, especially in that age group ... recover at a very high rate."

Whitt says there's a whole lot we don't know about the longterm impacts of COVID. He says there's a lot of good science on myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation). He says talking to his colleagues, especially in athletics departments, they haven't seen almost any cases.

Paul Anderson from veterinary pathobiology chimes in to say people are taking a Star Trek approach, likening exposure to COVID to exposure to radiation. In practice, he says, you try to minimize your exposure, but you can't necessarily eliminate it altogether.

David Singh from physics and astronomy cites a Missourian article about difficulties students have had with getting tests. He asks if there's a way of streamlining that process. (article here; https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/mu-covid-19-testing-gets-more-complicated-as-cases-soar/article_3e510536-ed42-11ea-8695-b7632901bdc8.html)

Choi once again turns it over to Whitt and Henderson. Henderson says student health turned to colleagues at the hospital for guidance on testing. Says students have been unsure of their contacts, and says testing negative despite having close contacts doesn't mean they're safe.

Henderson says making tests available to all students who want them would put too much of a strain on supply, and says that's why it's important that there's a screening process in place. He says there are many other medical conditions that present like COVID.

Whitt says you have to make a phone call, and then if you get an order you can get tested. "I know that I have also been hearing it's onerous from some students but, it's a phone call."

McCauley asks what the publicly available data threshold for moving online is. Choi says they're not looking at a single data point. He points out no students have been hospitalized. He says there was a case where a student came in for a procedure and was found to have COVID.

Choi says one thing they're watching for is faculty members getting COVID through interaction with students. He tees up the provost (and then again the medical doctors). Ramchand says if a pivot happens, it won't be like in March.

Ramchand says they want to make sure clinical students won't be negatively impacted by pivoting to online, and seeing if there are cohorts that they can keep in person, should they need to pivot. She says she doesn't think they're there yet.

On the question of when a faculty member can pivot, Ramchand says chairs have worked with faculty members to accommodate requests to teach online "as much as we can." She says all instructors need to talk to their chairs and should not make decisions unilaterally.

The meeting is wrapping up, and the general faculty meeting won't be until October 21st, which seems impossibly far away. I don't get the impression that anyone has gotten answers they're satisfied with, and certainly little new information.

McCauley raises the issue of faculty being intimidated by Choi's previous comments. Choi says he doesn't recognize anyone holding back and says he has gotten a lot of feedback. He asks faculty to ask how accurately a 500-word article would portray themselves.

McCauley closes the meeting acknowledging that there are more questions they didn't have time for, and that those will be passed on to the administration.

From what I've heard from faculty members and instructors, I don't think that was a full expression of their concerns, and I suspect many won't be satisfied by the answers they heard.