![](\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2021\/02\/24\/business\/00virus-campustesting2\/merlin_184218453_874f0b95-9b4e-4f93-a406-9df7b48c7962-articleLarge.jpg\")
<\/p>\nBefore the University of Idaho welcomed students back to campus last fall, it made a big bet on new virus-screening technology.<\/p>\n
The university spent $90,000 installing temperature-scanning stations, which look like airport metal detectors, in front of its dining and athletic facilities in Moscow, Idaho. When the system clocks a student walking through with an unusually high temperature, the student is asked to leave and go get tested for Covid-19.<\/p>\n
But so far the fever scanners, which detect skin temperature, have caught fewer than 10 people out of the 9,000 students living on or near campus. Even then, university administrators could not say whether the technology had been effective because they have not tracked students flagged with fevers to see if they went on to get tested for the virus.<\/p>\n
The University of Idaho is one of hundreds of colleges and universities that adopted fever scanners, symptom checkers, wearable heart-rate monitors and other new Covid-screening technologies this school year. Such tools often cost less than a more validated health intervention: frequent virus testing of all students. They also help colleges showcase their pandemic safety efforts.<\/p>\n
But the struggle at many colleges to keep the virus at bay has raised questions about the usefulness of the technologies. A New York Times effort has recorded more than 530,000 virus cases on campuses since the start of the pandemic.<\/p>\n
One problem is that temperature scanners and symptom-checking apps cannot catch the estimated 40 percent of people with the coronavirus who do not have symptoms but are still infectious. Temperature scanners can also be wildly inaccurate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cautioned that such symptom-based screening has only \u201climited effectiveness.\u201d<\/p>\n
The schools have a hard time saying whether \u2014 or how well \u2014 the new devices have worked. Many universities and colleges, including prominent research institutions, are not rigorously studying effectiveness.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo why are we bothering?\u201d said Bruce Schneier, a prominent security technologist who has described such screening systems as \u201csecurity theater\u201d \u2014 that is, tools that make people feel better without actually improving their safety. \u201cWhy spend the money?\u201d<\/p>\n
More than 100 schools are using a free virus symptom-checking app, called CampusClear, that can clear students to enter campus buildings. Others are asking students to wear symptom-monitoring devices that can continuously track vital signs like skin temperature. And some have adapted the ID card swiping systems they use to admit students into dorms, libraries and gyms as tools for tracing potential virus exposures.<\/p>\n
Administrators at Idaho and other universities said their schools were using the new tech, along with policies like social distancing, as part of larger campus efforts to hinder the virus. Some said it was important for their schools to deploy the screening tools even if they were only moderately useful. At the very least, they said, using services like daily symptom-checking apps may reassure students and remind them to be vigilant about other measures, like mask wearing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Some public health experts said it was understandable that colleges had not methodically assessed the technology\u2019s effectiveness against the coronavirus. After all, they said, schools are unaccustomed to frequently screening their entire campus populations for new infectious diseases.<\/p>\n
Even so, some experts said they were troubled that universities lacked important information that might help them make more evidence-based decisions on health screening.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a massive data vacuum,\u201d said Saskia Popescu, an infectious-disease epidemiologist who is an assistant professor at George Mason University. \u201cThe moral of the story is you can\u2019t just invest in this tech without having a validation process behind it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other medical experts said increased surveillance of largely healthy college students seemed unduly intrusive, given that symptom checkers have limited usefulness and the effectiveness of wearable health monitors against Covid-19 is not yet known.<\/p>\n
The introduction of campus screening tools has often been bumpy. Last fall, the University of Missouri began requiring all students, faculty and staff to use CampusClear, a free app that asks users about possible symptoms, like high temperature or loss of smell. Users who say they have no symptoms then receive a \u201cGood to Go!\u201d notification that can clear them to enter campus buildings.<\/p>\n
The school initially did not enforce the use of CampusClear at building entrances, however, and some students used the app only infrequently, according to reporting by The Missourian, the campus newspaper. In October, the university began requiring people to show their app pass code to enter certain buildings, like the student center and library. The university has promoted the app as a tool to help educate students.<\/p>\n
But how effective it has been at hindering coronavirus outbreaks on campus is unknown. A spokesman for the University of Missouri said the school was unable to provide usage data on CampusClear \u2014 including the number of students who had reported possible symptoms through the app and later tested positive for the virus \u2014 requested by a Times reporter.<\/p>\n
Jason Fife, the marketing director at Ivy.ai, the start-up behind CampusClear, said nearly 425,000 people at about 120 colleges and universities used the app last semester, generating about 9.8 million user reports. Many schools, he noted, use data from the app not to follow individual virus cases but to look for symptom trends on their campuses.<\/p>\n
Ivy.ai, however, cannot gauge the app\u2019s effectiveness as a virus-screening tool, he said. For privacy reasons, the company does not track individual users who report symptoms and later test positive for the infection.<\/p>\n
At some universities, administrators acknowledged that the tech they adopted this school year did not pan out the way they had hoped.<\/p>\n
Bridgewater State University in Bridgewater, Mass., introduced two tools last semester that recorded students\u2019 whereabouts in case they later developed virus infections and administrators needed to trace their contacts. One system logged students\u2019 locations every time they swiped their ID cards to enter campus buildings. The other asked students to scan printed-out QR codes posted at certain locations around campus.<\/p>\n
By the end of the semester, however, only about one-third of the 1,200 students on campus were scanning the bar codes. Ethan Child, a Bridgewater senior, said he had scanned the QR codes but also skipped them when walking by in the rain.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s reasonable to ask students to do it \u2014 whether or not they\u2019ll actually do it is another thing,\u201d he said. \u201cPeople might just pass it by.\u201d<\/p>\n
Updated March\u00a01, 2021<\/p>\n
The latest on how the pandemic is reshaping education.<\/p>\n
Administrators discovered that the key to hindering coronavirus outbreaks was not technology but simply frequent testing \u2014 once a week, for on-campus students \u2014 along with contact tracing, said Chris Frazer, the executive director of the university\u2019s wellness center.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m glad we didn\u2019t spend an exorbitant amount of money\u201d on tech tools, Dr. Frazer said. \u201cWe found what we need is tests and more tests.\u201d<\/p>\n
The location-tracking tools ultimately proved most useful for \u201cpeace of mind,\u201d he added, and to confirm the findings of contact tracers, who often learned much more about infected students\u2019 activities by calling them than by examining their location logs.<\/p>\n
Other schools that discovered location tracking was not a useful pandemic safety tool decided not to deploy it at all.<\/p>\n
At Oklahoma State University, in Stillwater, administrators said they had planned to log students\u2019 locations when they used campus Wi-Fi for possible later use in contact tracing. But the school never introduced the system, said Chris Barlow, the school\u2019s health services director, partly because administrators realized that many students had contracted the virus off campus, in situations where public health measures like mask wearing were not followed.<\/p>\n
At the University of Idaho and other schools, administrators described devices like fever scanners as add-ons to larger campus safety efforts involving student testing and measures like social distancing.<\/p>\n
Last fall, for instance, the University of Idaho tested its students for the virus at the beginning and middle of the semester, with some random testing as well. The school also used a wastewater testing program to identify an impending virus outbreak at fraternity and sorority houses, proactively quarantining more than a dozen chapters before cases could spread widely through the community.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe got out in front of it early,\u201d C. Scott Green, the president of the University of Idaho, said. \u201cWe were able to isolate those that were sick, and we got back under control.\u201d<\/p>\n
Still, there were hiccups. The university required food service employees who worked at the dining hall to undergo temperature checks using hand-held scanners. But several developed virus infections anyway, and the university was forced to temporarily close the dining hall over a weekend for deep cleaning.<\/p>\n
As for the free-standing temperature-scanning stations, Mr. Green himself has experienced their limitations. He said one mistakenly stopped him from entering an athletic building right after he got out of a hot car.<\/p>\n