It's the same debate over and over again. There are different issues. First, using actual data to gauge the potency of the virus (cases going up is just one metric that sounds scary, but may better explain the virus in cases:hospitalizations and cases:death as we test more). Secondly, the actual raw data of hospitalizations as that will lead quicker to lockdowns than just cases going up because it starts taxing resources. Let's say 1 out of 10 versus 20 out of 1,000. Yeah, rate is much better, but you have 20x the amount.
Plus our math is totally skewed because we could not test at this level early on. It gets manipulated shamelessly.
Lockdowns pause transmission so pandemic plans can implemented, especially if you have a serious shortage somewhere or have no idea what you're really dealing with like the U.S. in March with a dearth of even testing available. You're not getting rid of a virus with a lockdown.
Back to Seton Hall. They should test their way out of it. Someone is positive, fine, isolate them and monitor them. Why should the entire team get shutdown? It's ludicrous.