The Student News Site of University of New Hampshire

The New Hampshire

The New Hampshire

The New Hampshire

Follow Us on Twitter

UNH reports 20 active COVID-19 cases; zero since Oct. 3


The University of New Hampshire (UNH) reported zero new COVID-19 cases on campus since Oct. 3, 2020.

The University of New Hampshire (UNH) released its coronavirus (COVID-19) statistics for the week of Sept. 30 through Oct. 6 for all three campuses.

It is important to note that UNH releases its results daily. These results are accurate as of 8 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2020. 

Between these results, UNH has seen a decrease in its seven-day total from a high of six to a low of zero cases between its three campuses. Its active cases for students remain at eight while cases for faculty have dropped to 11. 

The number of students quarantining on the Durham campus has dropped three, while there are currently no students isolating on campus. The number of students quarantining off-campus stands at 41, while the number of students isolating off-campus is eight. 

UNH makes a distinction between quarantining and isolation. Students in quarantine are located in Babcock Hall and have been in close contact with a student who has tested positive for COVID-19. A close contact is defined as an individual within 6 feet for 10 minutes or more within two days of illness onset, regardless of mask usage. Isolation is defined as an individual who has symptoms of COVID-19 and/or has tested positive for COVID-19.  

Three students have ended quarantine, and one student has ended isolation. 

UNH has seen three COVID-19 clusters, one as a result of an off-campus party at the Theta Chi Fraternity, one at the Gables, and one within UNH Dining.  All three have been managed by UNH, and the administration has since allowed organizations to meet on campus, as well as visitors in the Gables Apartments. UNH Dining recently shut down the Dairy Bar in part due to staffing issues as a result of COVID-19.

The average number of daily tests has remained steady, topping off at 3,337 as of 8 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2020. 

UNH has tested 17,620 students, faculty and staff since reporting began on July 29, 2020. This includes results from ConvenientMD, Quest Diagnostics and the UNH Lab. 

UNH has performed 152,314 tests on 13,138 individual students. Of these tests, 91 have returned positive. UNH has also performed 5,613 on 931 individual faculty members, of which 27 have returned positive. Of the 1,779 staff, 112,902 tests have been performed with 76 positive cases. 

In a recent email from UNH President James W. Dean Jr., he continues to urge community members to “stay safe, careful and vigilant.”

Students, faculty and staff are urged to monitor their symptoms and schedule a contact Health & Wellness immediately if they have symptoms of COVID-19. 

Photo courtesy of the University of New Hampshire

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

All The New Hampshire Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • J

    James KelleyOct 15, 2020 at 5:32 pm

    As an add on, I’ll note that if the Limit of Detection is defined as the level at which >=95% of positive results are capture, that would mean that the 35.8 number is itself already 2 standard deviations above the mean, so in reality the PRC test is being run at 5.2 standard deviations above the mean; a ridiculously high level of sensitivity designed to create “cases” and perpetuate this scandal.

  • J

    James KelleyOct 15, 2020 at 5:03 pm

    Students across the country and around the world are being used as pawns in a sinister game of control and deceit, and the administration at the University of New Hampshire is dutifully following orders in much the same way the Nazis at Nuremberg had in order to perpetuate this scandal.
    The PCR test as it’s being used is wholly inadequate as a method of testing for viral infection. For starters, the CDC admits on page 39 of this linked document ( that ” Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA” meaning that as of July of this year, not a single lab around the world had managed to isolate and purify the pathogen we’re being told is responsible for causing COVID-19. A proxy test control was developed using “characterized stocks” based on the original SARS virus which was introduced to humanity back in 2002.
    Adding to the insanity of this spectacle is the fact that the CDC is instructing labs to run these PCR tests to a cycle threshold of 40 when even within their own literature they have defined the Limit of Detection, or the cycle threshold at which >= 95% of positive samples will identify the RNA control strand in controlled tests, is 35.8 cycles with a standard deviation of 1.3 cycles. I may have taken Business Statistics twice while at UNH, but one thing I do remember is that 99.7% of all observations within a standardized distribution should fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. By my math, 40 cycles minus 35.8 cycles means these tests are uniformly being run at a sensitivity that’s 3.2 standard deviations above the level at which they can successfully detect a minute trace control strand; a virtual recipe for false positives.
    Adding to the aforementioned point regarding cycle thresholds is that the Limit of Detection is a test designed to identify the concentration at which these PCR “tests” are able to amplify the starting genetic material enough to elicit a chemical reaction which qualifies as a positive return. What has systematically, cynically, and intentionally been left out of not only these test procedures but also all reporting on the same is the cycle rate at which these positive results are returned. This is important because this information would speak to the alleged viral load a given test subject was carrying at the time the test was taken. A lower cycle rate of positivity would inherently mean a higher amount of starting material and conversely, a higher cycle rate would mean a lower amount of starting material and thus a lower likelihood of either active infection or of contagiousness. Again, these important metrics have been let out on purpose so as to allow these tests to be used as a bludgeon to perpetuate lock downs, mask mandates, anti-social distancing, and the ongoing destruction of our economy and society on a global level.
    Perhaps some intrepid young reporter at the New Hampshire should inquire to the administration as to whether or not the $15 million in CARES Act money they accepted came with any strings attached. In other words, are all of these students being forced to wear their slave muzzles, being denied their first amendment rights to peacefully assemble, and having the actual value of their education greatly diminished through reliance on remote learning and draconian punishments for administrative infractions of arbitrary and capricious rules as a condition of the acceptance of that money? If so, then I would imagine certain members of the administration should probably start polishing up their resumes if not making sure their affairs are in order in general, because they could find themselves losing their personal assets and freedom as a result of their collaboration in a criminal attack on humanity. Just a thought.
    I’ll end this by saying that none of what’s being done to us as a society and a species is justified. Nothing we’ve been told since this episode started can withstand even a modicum of scrutiny, and the overt censorship of both the mainstream and social media voices of dissent supports that statement. Forcing students to subject themselves to an invasive and largely arbitrary form of medical testing is an affront to the concept of Informed Consent, and requiring vaccinations as a condition of their education flies in the face of the Nuremberg Code. Humanity is on the ropes right now and it’s not being helped by the myriad would-be Eichmann’s dutifully following orders and helping to maintain the fear and paranoia. History will not treat these collaborators any better than it has their Nazi forefathers, so they should think carefully before they continue down the path they’re on.