Cal8285 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

calwhoyou? said:

---

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but there is a *zero* percent chance of college football in the fall. None. In short, four reasons:
(a) universities may be held liable for putting their student-athletes at risk,
(b) 10-15% of student-athletes would likely refuse to play for fear of catching the virus (percentage is a guess based on OCD/anxiety rates),
(c) the absurd logistics of quarantining positive cases (and those who have been in close contact with the infected person...which could be the entire team?). So, for instance, if Will Craig were to test positive for the coronavirus, what would happen? WC would be sidelined for 1-2 months. The entire OL group would be quarantined for 2 weeks (this could be lowered with daily testing, if available). The D line would also have to be quarantined? Other close friends on the team would be quarantined, as well? Do you think Justin Wilcox would put student-athletes in harm's way? Would JW say, "You can play. You only did a few drills with him. The NFL is waiting." or "We need to practice. The virus won't kill you if you catch it. It only kills old people." I don't think so, either.
and (d), Coaches JW, DeRuyter, BM, GA, and the angry/scared parents of the players. What percent of parents would have a conniption if "their boy was out there being exposed to the coronavirus?" Would Wilcoxwho uses the "lower-body injury" descriptor famerisk his players' health? Or more importantly, would the AD and/or the rather anti-athletics admin allow for contact sports to be played when there is a chance of spreading the virus and/or death (and risk the PR nightmare that would follow from "killing one of their own student-athletes" and "putting profits ahead of education/lives")?

Watching the discussion on BI on the pandemic has been eye-opening. Reading the responses from a population of posters (some of whom I had held in some regard over the past 10-15 years) reminds me of "the frog in boiling water" fable. Those posters who think that football is likely appear to me as the frogs slowly boiling in the water of a political/media atmosphere. Please allow me a moment to explain.
I moved to Australia a year ago (for a better academic job), specifically, Western Australia. The state (of 2.5 million) has had three positive cases...this month. Only now are things starting to open ("Step 1" was launched on May 18th). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-data-reveals-how-covid-19-spreads-in-australia/12060704 . I, and to a large degree, Cal/Wife Strong! (whose on the east coast somewhere?), live in a place in which it is entirely possible, within a few weeks, to live in a state with zero COVID cases. The (a) absence of a threat of contracting the virus and (b) the absence of the hellscape that is the US media/political complex allows for a different view. I've read posters justify their views based on standards that are not sufficiently stringent to create a safe environment (e.g., "We have had days with fewer than 30 deaths," "It is their own choice if they...," "It only kills old people," "It doesn't kill *that* many more people than the flu."). Step outside the political/media landscape and realize the absurdity of these statements and justificationsparticularly as they relate to playing football.

I know, it hurts. 2020 would have been Cal's best shot at a Rose Bowl in 15 years.

From the outside looking in, here is what is going to happen. If everything holds to pattern, at some point over the summer, stanfurd (spelled correctly with a u *and* lower case) will announce that all Fall sports will be cancelled (or maybe just "contact" sports, I haven't decided yet what I think they'll do). Seven to ten days later, Cal will announce something similar. A week later, the LA schools will follow suit. Again, I'm sorry, it would've been a great season. 2021!

---

And I respectfully think there is zero percent chance we don't have a football season. Luckily we'll get to see who is right shortly. I would bet you but I just spent all of my money buying extra season tickets.

---

Actually, we won't ever get to see who is right, we'll only get absolute proof that one of you is definitely wrong. But the truth is that regardless of the outcome, both of you are definitely wrong. The chances of having a football season aren't zero. The chances of not having a football season are not zero.

None of us knows exactly what the chances really are, and when we see whether or not there is a football season, we still won't know what the chances were as of today. Personally, I peg the chances of having a football season at 83.21%. How's that for a number to pull out of my rear? You might peg them at 99%, maybe 99.99%. Someone else might peg them at 1%. We'll never be able to prove who's right. Is my 83.21% estimate too optimistic or too pessimistic? If the football season doesn't happen, it doesn't mean my 83.21% guess was wrong.

At halftime of the 2018 Cal-SC football game, my friend said we have a zero percent chance of winning. I said 2%. ESPN gametracker said 7%. I know my friend was wrong, I knew it at the time, and Cal's victory proved without a doubt he was wrong. But who was closer to right, me or gametracker? Just because Cal won doesn't mean we'll ever know. I might have thought it was one in 50, but I was saying there's a chance, at at least I was right about that. And there's a chance of no season. If my friend had said at halftime we had a one in 10,000 chance of winning, we'd never be able to prove he was wrong, but zero? Definitely wrong.

Given the current trajectory we are on, I believe the chances of a season are really close to 100%. But the chances that circumstances change sufficiently such that we don't have a football season are definitely not zero.

I appreciate your optimism, however. If you'd said at halftime of 2018 Cal-SC that we had a 38% chance of winning, I'd have thought you were crazy, but I would have appreciated the optimism, and I appreciate your optimism here, even if zero isn't the right number for the chances of no season.

---

I stand corrected but I'm still right.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

If this forum has revealed anything over the years it's the monumental confidence of the rabble. We know everything. And we know it better than the rubes so stupid to dedicate their lives to it. Let's do cold fusion next.

---

Well cold fusion may still be a long way off. But I have almost perfected the perpetual-motion machine I have been working on since my days at Cal. Just one or two more steps to go. Or maybe three. ;-)

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Great news for the entering freshmen especially. NCAA clears FB, WBB, and MBB to practice starting June 1 too.

---

Is it? A former Cal roommate of mine is keeping his son out of school next fall because of Coronavirus. Other issue as well. But his main justification is that it won't be the "typical freshman" experience and is willing to wait it out a year in the hopes that 2021 will be normal.

So I kinda feel bad for the incoming Fall freshmen because I'm sure things will be different. Like the campus plans on stuffing thousands of kids into the dorms? We all know that mononucleosis is THE college bug because of the lack of social distancing. Ironic that I had it and was misdiagnosed at the time. So what are the plans for the dorms? They are really planning on business as usual?

I read the Mercury's article and there was nothing specific said about dorm living. No way they're returning to the normal dorm density of before. I don't think dorm living is tenable, unless it's one student per room, extensive bathroom hygiene requirements and some pretty creative food service changes (like in-room eating). Otherwise, just open it up and let the virus take over.

BearGreg said:

---

I deleted a bunch of thoughtful posts of folks expressing their opinions on COVID and the politics behind it.

As we've asked the community to take ALL of those discussions to the OT board. It's too easy for those to devolve into overly spirited political debates that lose sight of the original intent of this thread which was around Cal having a football season this Fall.

I understand that it's easy for that topic to head into politics and that my edits and deletions are subjective. However, we aren't going to have Growls turn this community into divisive debates that quickly lead to personal attacks.

Please refrain here and everywhere other than the OT from anything that gets into anything political.

---

Good move. Thanks.

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

But, "I" have to complete my mission in order for my team to reach our goal. So, does every other "I" on our team. Our team breaks down when one or more "I"s don't complete their missions, forcing other team "I"s to do it for them. The resulting resentments are compounded when the non-productive "I"s take full, public credit for the team's success.

Oh boy.... this isn't going to end well.

Grigsby said:

---

Oh boy.... this isn't going to end well.

---

Absent a second wave:

1) It is rather apparent that most college campuses will be open, though possibly on a hybrid type system for large classes, PPE, etc.

2) There is a very good chance that college football will be played as scheduled. Most conferences are now saying either we are playing fall sports or we likely will be playing fall sports, starting with football.

3) What you seem to hear in the media (yes I know they have a horrible track record) is that almost all college football venues will have crowds, subject to possible mitigation actions like spacing, masks and taking temps, etc. The mitigation restrictions will vary by jurisdiction. I think you will see refs and others wearing masks. The crowds could be small. A lot depends on data over the next few months.

We know a lot more about the virus, and the tide has a changed for opening things-up has shifted, even in the medical community. Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause 'irreparable damage' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

I'm more optimistic it will end well with respect to the original topic on this thread and the topic of this board, Cal football. .

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

Oh boy.... this isn't going to end well.

---

Absent a second wave:

1) It is rather apparent that most college campuses will be open, though possibly on a hybrid type system for large classes, PPE, etc.

2) There is a very good chance that college football will be played as scheduled. Most conferences are now saying either we are playing fall sports or we likely will be playing fall sports, starting with football.

3) What you seem to hear in the media (yes I know they have a horrible track record) is that almost all college football venues will have crowds, subject to possible mitigation actions like spacing, masks and taking temps, etc. The mitigation restrictions will vary by jurisdiction. I think you will see refs and others wearing masks. The crowds could be small. A lot depends on data over the next few months.

We know a lot more about the virus, and the tide has a changed for opening things-up has shifted, even in the medical community. Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause 'irreparable damage' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

I'm more optimistic it will end well with respect to the original topic on this thread and the topic of this board, Cal football. .

---

Fauci's data sensing protocol seems to be licking his finger and holding it up to the

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-scientists-change-their-mind-and-disagree.html

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Grigsby said:

---

Oh boy.... this isn't going to end well.

---

Absent a second wave:

1) It is rather apparent that most college campuses will be open, though possibly on a hybrid type system for large classes, PPE, etc.

2) There is a very good chance that college football will be played as scheduled. Most conferences are now saying either we are playing fall sports or we likely will be playing fall sports, starting with football.

3) What you seem to hear in the media (yes I know they have a horrible track record) is that almost all college football venues will have crowds, subject to possible mitigation actions like spacing, masks and taking temps, etc. The mitigation restrictions will vary by jurisdiction. I think you will see refs and others wearing masks. The crowds could be small. A lot depends on data over the next few months.

We know a lot more about the virus, and the tide has a changed for opening things-up has shifted, even in the medical community. Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause 'irreparable damage' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/dr-anthony-fauci-says-staying-closed-for-too-long-could-cause-irreparable-damage.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

I'm more optimistic it will end well with respect to the original topic on this thread and the topic of this board, Cal football. .

---

Fauci's data sensing protocol seems to be licking his finger and holding it up to the

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-scientists-change-their-mind-and-disagree.html

---

10-4. Just trying to add a leitmotif to what has become a subject studied from every conceivable and inconceivable angle.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

I think it is a bit misguided to think that those that want independence and liberty don't mean it for all. Even the preamble you mention includes "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." This country was founded on the premise of independence and liberty for all, and with Memorial Day around the corner it is important to remember that many have fought and paid the ultimate price so that we could all maintain that freedom.

Nick Saben appears to be taking the pandemic seriously:

And there is this from Fauci with direct mention of college football

https://sports.yahoo.com/dr-anthony-fauci-gives-colleges-advice-on-testing-bringing-in-fans-as-studentathletes-return-160518846.html

MugsVanSant said:

---

Didn't the CDC tell the public that masks wouldn't help? Doesn't Fauci head the CDC? If the answer to my two preceding questions is affirmative, why should anyone believe a word out of Fauci's mouth?

---

No, the head of the CDC is Robert Redfield. Fauci heads a different institution, the national Institute of Allegy and Infectious Diseases.

StillABear1 said:

---

calwhoyou? said:

---

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but there is a *zero* percent chance of college football in the fall. None. In short, four reasons:
(a) universities may be held liable for putting their student-athletes at risk,
(b) 10-15% of student-athletes would likely refuse to play for fear of catching the virus (percentage is a guess based on OCD/anxiety rates),
(c) the absurd logistics of quarantining positive cases (and those who have been in close contact with the infected person...which could be the entire team?). So, for instance, if Will Craig were to test positive for the coronavirus, what would happen? WC would be sidelined for 1-2 months. The entire OL group would be quarantined for 2 weeks (this could be lowered with daily testing, if available). The D line would also have to be quarantined? Other close friends on the team would be quarantined, as well? Do you think Justin Wilcox would put student-athletes in harm's way? Would JW say, "You can play. You only did a few drills with him. The NFL is waiting." or "We need to practice. The virus won't kill you if you catch it. It only kills old people." I don't think so, either.
and (d), Coaches JW, DeRuyter, BM, GA, and the angry/scared parents of the players. What percent of parents would have a conniption if "their boy was out there being exposed to the coronavirus?" Would Wilcoxwho uses the "lower-body injury" descriptor famerisk his players' health? Or more importantly, would the AD and/or the rather anti-athletics admin allow for contact sports to be played when there is a chance of spreading the virus and/or death (and risk the PR nightmare that would follow from "killing one of their own student-athletes" and "putting profits ahead of education/lives")?

Watching the discussion on BI on the pandemic has been eye-opening. Reading the responses from a population of posters (some of whom I had held in some regard over the past 10-15 years) reminds me of "the frog in boiling water" fable. Those posters who think that football is likely appear to me as the frogs slowly boiling in the water of a political/media atmosphere. Please allow me a moment to explain.
I moved to Australia a year ago (for a better academic job), specifically, Western Australia. The state (of 2.5 million) has had three positive cases...this month. Only now are things starting to open ("Step 1" was launched on May 18th). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/coronavirus-cases-data-reveals-how-covid-19-spreads-in-australia/12060704 . I, and to a large degree, Cal/Wife Strong! (whose on the east coast somewhere?), live in a place in which it is entirely possible, within a few weeks, to live in a state with zero COVID cases. The (a) absence of a threat of contracting the virus and (b) the absence of the hellscape that is the US media/political complex allows for a different view. I've read posters justify their views based on standards that are not sufficiently stringent to create a safe environment (e.g., "We have had days with fewer than 30 deaths," "It is their own choice if they...," "It only kills old people," "It doesn't kill *that* many more people than the flu."). Step outside the political/media landscape and realize the absurdity of these statements and justificationsparticularly as they relate to playing football.

I know, it hurts. 2020 would have been Cal's best shot at a Rose Bowl in 15 years.

From the outside looking in, here is what is going to happen. If everything holds to pattern, at some point over the summer, stanfurd (spelled correctly with a u *and* lower case) will announce that all Fall sports will be cancelled (or maybe just "contact" sports, I haven't decided yet what I think they'll do). Seven to ten days later, Cal will announce something similar. A week later, the LA schools will follow suit. Again, I'm sorry, it would've been a great season. 2021!

---

As with just about everything in life, simply follow the dollars. There WILL be a football season in 2020.

---

follow the dollars? sure, because they point in the opposite direction.

first student, worker, professor that gets sick and students will go on lockdown or scatter to the wind.
the stadium won't even get half full.

and if that is not enough, the liability is way too high, administration will shut down the games, because the lawsuit of a student or even an alumn dying that gets traced back to a football game...that risk scenario is too high. the money points to the opposite of your argument. and if a football player gets sick...forget it.

only way this happens is empty stadiums, televised football, and athletes that are on held under quarantine conditions with limited contact with non-athletes.

Then why are we still selling tickets?

They need the money.

Rushinbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

But, "I" have to complete my mission in order for my team to reach our goal. So, does every other "I" on our team. Our team breaks down when one or more "I"s don't complete their missions, forcing other team "I"s to do it for them. The resulting resentments are compounded when the non-productive "I"s take full, public credit for the team's success.

---

From what you are saying I would conclude that "I" can't accomplish my mission unless "WE" all accomplish our individual missions and do it TOGETHER.

Hmmm... maybe that is what is meant by There is no "I" in TEAM.

I continue to be shocked by the caliber and content of argument in favor of why football will be played. Over the past day or so, the following reasons have be submitted for consideration:
1. "because people have self-determination"
2. "follow the money"
3. "any positive test will be covered up" (a simplification of the argument, but this is the gist)
4. "the number of deaths in the players' age group is zero"

CALiforniALUM proposed that such arguments resulted from a lack of empathy, such that they resulted from a lack of "caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good" (I'm generalizing your argument a bit, sorry if I did so erroneously).

I argue for a different mechanism. I submit it is the overwhelmingly politicized hellscape that is the US media/political environment (combined with sustained high levels of local COVID rates) that has changed the worldview of a population that is usually quite levelheaded.

For example, if I were to have asked this board whether JW (or any recent Cal coach) would ever place his players' health at risk, each and every person on this board would say not. I recall vociferous defenses of the Cal coaching staff during the Ted Agu fallout. Everyone on this board agreed that that the coaches would not willfully do anything to put his life at risk. But some members on this board now argue that JW would absolutely willfully put his players' health at risk. Remember: JW would not only have to believe that each of his players would act responsibly over the course of the football season (e.g., essentially a self-quarantine to avoid infection), but that every single player on each other team would act responsibly (remember, Cal plays teams that play other teams that plays other teams...).

No one on here has yet mentioned that professional sports are back in Germany and set to be back in Spain (starting June 1st). Major League Baseball has purportedly made a proposal to its player's union. I would recommend taking a look at that proposal (which emphasizes maintaining social distance at all timesfrom one's own teammates!and thus includes limited use of the locker room, players sitting in the stands rather than the dugout, no mound visits, etc...). Imagine what safeguards would need to be in place for it to work not just in football, but in *college* football. Keep in mind that MLB's system was developed by an organization with unlimited cash/funding, professionals (rather than student-athletes), a much smaller roster, and with a population who could be mostly isolated (e.g., all games are played at one large complex in Arizona/Florida) and who could sign a liability waiver (without obvious coercion).

I have yet to hear an argument that addresses any/all of the reasons for why there is a *zero* percent chance of playing in the fall (and, to Cal8285's comment, how about "a percentage that is rapidly asymptoting to zero"?):
(a) universities may be held liable for putting their student-athletes at risk,
(b) 10-15% of student-athletes would refuse to play for fear of catching the virus (percentage is a guess based on OCD/anxiety rates),
(c) the absurd logistics of quarantining positive cases (...which could be the entire team), and
(d) coaches, parents, the AD, and Cal's administration are all risk-averse; and playing football during a pandemic is alllll risk.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

But, "I" have to complete my mission in order for my team to reach our goal. So, does every other "I" on our team. Our team breaks down when one or more "I"s don't complete their missions, forcing other team "I"s to do it for them. The resulting resentments are compounded when the non-productive "I"s take full, public credit for the team's success.

---

From what you are saying I would conclude that "I" can't accomplish my mission unless "WE" all accomplish our individual missions and do it TOGETHER.

Hmmm... maybe that is what is meant by There is no "I" in TEAM.

---

No, you can complete your mission, but someone else may not, in which case, the team may not complete IT'S mission. If it does, another team member has to take up the slack in order to do both - his mission and that of the slacker.

It is rare that a team does things TOGETHER, that is all doing the same thing at once. It may do things at the same time. Fifty people carving pumpkins together for the Halloween Festival is one thing. A ROT pass blocking his guy while the ROG repeatedly misses his block is not. If the team wins and the ROG boasts about how the team dominated the other guys, you got a problem.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

But, "I" have to complete my mission in order for my team to reach our goal. So, does every other "I" on our team. Our team breaks down when one or more "I"s don't complete their missions, forcing other team "I"s to do it for them. The resulting resentments are compounded when the non-productive "I"s take full, public credit for the team's success.

---

From what you are saying I would conclude that "I" can't accomplish my mission unless "WE" all accomplish our individual missions and do it TOGETHER.

Hmmm... maybe that is what is meant by There is no "I" in TEAM.

---

What happens when those "I" missions are in direct conflict with each other in terms of results? You sound blinded by the desire to see your result and be dammed with how that effects everyone else and their "I" mission. The shoe certainly fits on the other foot too. I'm not arguing for one side or the other, just that both sides don't show enough selflessness and caring for others.

What if I told you of the 130 or so Cal football players, coaches and staff that 20 of them are or live with people who are in a known high risk group for COVID. How many of those 20 would be acceptable to die so we can watch college football? How many more would be acceptable to die from other teams in the same circumstance? And the teams they each play the following week? What if a player who doesn't necessarily fear for their own safety but the safety of a loved one says they don't want to practice much less play? Do we pull their scholarship? What if enough players make that same decision that the team is no longer fielding its best product? - no more Rose Bowl for you. While fans may be able to self determine whether the risk of attending a game is worthwhile or not, how about all the people they put at risk who may not even be attending the game or returning home to live with them. How about the postal person who will pick up their mail 7 days later? The Pharmacist who fills their prescription next month? The EMT who responds to their house to treat a suspected heart attack?

A pandemic is the perfect social experiment that pits society against the individual. "My" interest against yours. So far what I see are perspectives based on me, what I want, what I think should happen with much of it being a direct affront to the other sides perspectives, needs and wants. I'm not saying that the other side should get what they want. I'm simply suggesting that there might be a better way to approach this if everybody tried to first put themselves in somebody else's shoes. Come at this with some compassion and caring for others. Put aside our own self interests and each sacrifice a bit for the common good of all. Be human.

calwhoyou? said:

---

For example, if I were to have asked this board whether JW (or any recent Cal coach) would ever place his players' health at risk, each and every person on this board would say not. I recall vociferous defenses of the Cal coaching staff during the Ted Agu fallout. Everyone on this board agreed that that the coaches would not willfully do anything to put his life at risk. But some members on this board now argue that JW would absolutely willfully put his players' health at risk. Remember: JW would not only have to believe that each of his players would act responsibly over the course of the football season (e.g., essentially a self-quarantine to avoid infection), but that every single player on each other team would act responsibly (remember, Cal plays teams that play other teams that plays other teams...).

---

Healthy players risk serious injury every time they suit up, so in that regard JW puts all his players' health at risk every game and practice. The question is, what is the reasonable amount of risk? If the risk of players dying from COVID-19 is less than doing the same from the seasonal flu (which I understand to be true for the age group) then one would think the risk is reasonable.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

But, "I" have to complete my mission in order for my team to reach our goal. So, does every other "I" on our team. Our team breaks down when one or more "I"s don't complete their missions, forcing other team "I"s to do it for them. The resulting resentments are compounded when the non-productive "I"s take full, public credit for the team's success.

---

From what you are saying I would conclude that "I" can't accomplish my mission unless "WE" all accomplish our individual missions and do it TOGETHER.

Hmmm... maybe that is what is meant by There is no "I" in TEAM.

---

What happens when those "I" missions are in direct conflict with each other in terms of results? You sound blinded by the desire to see your result and be dammed with how that effects everyone else and their "I" mission. The shoe certainly fits on the other foot too. I'm not arguing for one side or the other, just that both sides don't show enough selflessness and caring for others.

What if I told you of the 130 or so Cal football players, coaches and staff that 20 of them are or live with people who are in a known high risk group for COVID. How many of those 20 would be acceptable to die so we can watch college football? How many more would be acceptable to die from other teams in the same circumstance? And the teams they each play the following week? What if a player who doesn't necessarily fear for their own safety but the safety of a loved one says they don't want to practice much less play? Do we pull their scholarship? What if enough players make that same decision that the team is no longer fielding its best product? - no more Rose Bowl for you. While fans may be able to self determine whether the risk of attending a game is worthwhile or not, how about all the people they put at risk who may not even be attending the game or returning home to live with them. How about the postal person who will pick up their mail 7 days later? The Pharmacist who fills their prescription next month? The EMT who responds to their house to treat a suspected heart attack?

A pandemic is the perfect social experiment that pits society against the individual. "My" interest against yours. So far what I see are perspectives based on me, what I want, what I think should happen with much of it being a direct affront to the other sides perspectives, needs and wants. I'm not saying that the other side should get what they want. I'm simply suggesting that there might be a better way to approach this if everybody tried to first put themselves in somebody else's shoes. Come at this with some compassion and caring for others. Put aside our own self interests and each sacrifice a bit for the common good of all. Be human.

---

Speaking for myself (but I assume most would feel the same way), those players should be ineligible. Medical redshirt with maybe even an extra year of eligibility.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

From what you are saying I would conclude that "I" can't accomplish my mission unless "WE" all accomplish our individual missions and do it TOGETHER.

---

obligatory random beatles singalong,, All TOGETHER Now (sorry Axe)..

Civil Bear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

I think it is a bit misguided to think that those that want independence and liberty don't mean it for all. Even the preamble you mention includes "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." This country was founded on the premise of independence and liberty for all, and with Memorial Day around the corner it is important to remember that many have fought and paid the ultimate price so that we could all maintain that freedom.

---

I assume your response to me of not forgetting those who have died in service to this country is not intended to suggest I am being disrespectful in any way? Wrapping your argument, and you by extension, in the American flag is not a good look or respectful of what the flag represents.

I have served and know people who have served and even some who have died in service of our country but I know none of them who would have wanted their service or death to be used as a tool to quiet discourse or prevent a citizen from having the independence or liberty of thought or the ability to express their beliefs.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your inference that my post and relative timing of it so close to Memorial Day was some how disrespectful says more about you than me.

Civil Bear said:

---

calwhoyou? said:

---

For example, if I were to have asked this board whether JW (or any recent Cal coach) would ever place his players' health at risk, each and every person on this board would say not. I recall vociferous defenses of the Cal coaching staff during the Ted Agu fallout. Everyone on this board agreed that that the coaches would not willfully do anything to put his life at risk. But some members on this board now argue that JW would absolutely willfully put his players' health at risk. Remember: JW would not only have to believe that each of his players would act responsibly over the course of the football season (e.g., essentially a self-quarantine to avoid infection), but that every single player on each other team would act responsibly (remember, Cal plays teams that play other teams that plays other teams...).

---

Healthy players risk serious injury every time they suit up, so in that regard JW puts all his players' health at risk every game and practice. The question is, what is the reasonable amount of risk? If the risk of players dying from COVID-19 is less than doing the same from the seasonal flu (which I understand to be true for the age group) then one would think the risk is reasonable.

---

What's the biggest difference between a health risk due to a contact sport and a health risk due to a communicable disease? The communicable disease doesn't just impact the players on the field.

Civil Bear said:

---

calwhoyou? said:

---

For example, if I were to have asked this board whether JW (or any recent Cal coach) would ever place his players' health at risk, each and every person on this board would say not. I recall vociferous defenses of the Cal coaching staff during the Ted Agu fallout. Everyone on this board agreed that that the coaches would not willfully do anything to put his life at risk. But some members on this board now argue that JW would absolutely willfully put his players' health at risk. Remember: JW would not only have to believe that each of his players would act responsibly over the course of the football season (e.g., essentially a self-quarantine to avoid infection), but that every single player on each other team would act responsibly (remember, Cal plays teams that play other teams that plays other teams...).

---

Healthy players risk serious injury every time they suit up, so in that regard JW puts all his players' health at risk every game and practice. The question is, what is the reasonable amount of risk? If the risk of players dying from COVID-19 is less than doing the same from the seasonal flu (which I understand to be true for the age group) then one would think the risk is reasonable.

---

Comparisons made between the seasonal flu and COVID are hard to make for lots of reasons. To focus on the impact on the individual (e.g. less chance to die from) ignores the primary issue with communicable diseases is that they are communicable to others who will die who are not football players but come in contact with them. The seasonal flu also has the benefit of many high risk groups being able to get a preventative flu shot each year. There is also early evidence that we may not know as much about how COVID may spread or whether there is any survivor immunity or long term health impacts somebody might have even if you survive it. To suggest that death from COVID is less than the seasonal flu is a complete misrepresentation of the data we currently have available and the trend line is not pointing in a good direction. The lack of testing is a real problem.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

I think it is a bit misguided to think that those that want independence and liberty don't mean it for all. Even the preamble you mention includes "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." This country was founded on the premise of independence and liberty for all, and with Memorial Day around the corner it is important to remember that many have fought and paid the ultimate price so that we could all maintain that freedom.

---

I assume your response to me of not forgetting those who have died in service to this country is not intended to suggest I am being disrespectful in any way? Wrapping your argument, and you by extension, in the American flag is not a good look or respectful of what the flag represents.

I have served and know people who have served and even some who have died in service of our country but I know none of them who would have wanted their service or death to be used as a tool to quiet discourse or prevent a citizen from having the independence or liberty of thought or the ability to express their beliefs.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your inference that my post and relative timing of it so close to Memorial Day was some how disrespectful says more about you than me.

---

My apologies for offending you. My last sentence was not directed at you personally, but to convey the desire for personal liberty is not by definition a personal act. I am also a veteran and was engaging in discourse, not attempting to quiet it.

Semper Fi

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calwhoyou? said:

---

For example, if I were to have asked this board whether JW (or any recent Cal coach) would ever place his players' health at risk, each and every person on this board would say not. I recall vociferous defenses of the Cal coaching staff during the Ted Agu fallout. Everyone on this board agreed that that the coaches would not willfully do anything to put his life at risk. But some members on this board now argue that JW would absolutely willfully put his players' health at risk. Remember: JW would not only have to believe that each of his players would act responsibly over the course of the football season (e.g., essentially a self-quarantine to avoid infection), but that every single player on each other team would act responsibly (remember, Cal plays teams that play other teams that plays other teams...).

---

Healthy players risk serious injury every time they suit up, so in that regard JW puts all his players' health at risk every game and practice. The question is, what is the reasonable amount of risk? If the risk of players dying from COVID-19 is less than doing the same from the seasonal flu (which I understand to be true for the age group) then one would think the risk is reasonable.

---

What's the biggest difference between a health risk due to a contact sport and a health risk due to a communicable disease? The communicable disease doesn't just impact the players on the field.

---

True, but that is another discussion.

Civil Bear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

We aren't dealing with immutable truths in this situation. The scientists and medical community are still theorizing, observing, testing (the theories), analyzing and drawing conclusions only to try and replicate them again, again and again^10. Only then can they offer probabilities of what is likely to happen looking forward. Probabilities are not certain.

Scientists and medical professionals will be the first to say that there are more unknowns than knows right now. What they know is people are affected by this virus differently. They also know that there are groups that seem to show higher rates of death. They also know there are groups who show lower rates of death. But given the timeframe of where we are in this event, they don't know what effects survivors of COVID might have. Time hasn't allowed science to determine how this disease will impact people who survive it. It also can't be known how it will spread or what will remove it from our biology. That and a slew of other factors mean we aren't dealing with a binary choice or decision between whether you get it or not. Have they even determined with certainty whether immunity is a given (let's ask the Navy)? There are multiple layers to this issue to be considered.

The one thing I see through this experience so far is how little empathy, caring and concern people generally have for others. Arguments are about self and personal freedoms, not about others welfare and the common good. When did we get so far off the rails as a society that we don't recognize that we as a people, a species, as a community, will always be stronger acting in our collective good rather than not. Even one of our society's most precious political artifacts starts with the words " We the People of the United States..." We is not self. World War II was won by working together and through self sacrifice. Getting to the moon was as much done through collective applied science as it was by any single person's efforts. Benedict Arnold and Theodore John Kaczynski were not selfless.

Football seems like an awfully shallow lens to be looking at this situation through. We as sports fans certainly want football to return, but the selfless perspective would only want it when it is right for all. Self determination is good for one's own self but not always good for the other guy. If self determination is the principle on which we will act then you also have to be prepared for people to walk away. Just because there is an "I" in COVID doesn't change the fact there isn't an "I" in team.

Go Bear(s)!

---

I think it is a bit misguided to think that those that want independence and liberty don't mean it for all. Even the preamble you mention includes "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." This country was founded on the premise of independence and liberty for all, and with Memorial Day around the corner it is important to remember that many have fought and paid the ultimate price so that we could all maintain that freedom.

---

I assume your response to me of not forgetting those who have died in service to this country is not intended to suggest I am being disrespectful in any way? Wrapping your argument, and you by extension, in the American flag is not a good look or respectful of what the flag represents.

I have served and know people who have served and even some who have died in service of our country but I know none of them who would have wanted their service or death to be used as a tool to quiet discourse or prevent a citizen from having the independence or liberty of thought or the ability to express their beliefs.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your inference that my post and relative timing of it so close to Memorial Day was some how disrespectful says more about you than me.

---

My apologies for offending you. My last sentence was not directed at you personally, but to convey the desire for personal liberty is not by definition a personal act. I am also a veteran and was engaging in discourse, not attempting to quiet it.

Semper Fi

---

I'll take responsibility for not fully knowing where you were coming from, no need to apologize. I agree that we all benefit from all types of sacrifices which shouldn't be ignored. In that vein it is also worth noting that there are many who have lived and died in service to this country who didn't serve in the military or died by a bullet. That shouldn't be the litmus test nor should those sacrifices and service be ignored either.

This is a great thread. It covers everything so well that I have to summarize it before making a few points of my own:

• The poster in Western Australia, looking in from the outside, effectively says nothing has really changed from when shut things down in March because athletes were transmitting this virus. Considering capital-S Science and capital-D Data, it is impractical to play football considering that -- TRUE!
• HOWEVER -- The shutdowns/lockdowns were never based on rational science in the first place and we won't have enough data until this is all over the cost-benefit analysis of shutting down a modern economy is a new thing and can't be effectively calculated ahead of time. _Fear_ has always been the over-riding factor behind the lockdown.
• The typical modern Western individual wasn't intellectually equipped to handle a for-real epidemic coming in to this, for example "Epidemic" was a term most commonly used with obesity. We haven't faced the threat of truly scary epidemic disease since the 50s with polio. So today, after a few months, people have finally learned a more reasonable risk-reward ratio and decided that they don't care if there is a 1 in a 100 chance of them dying, or a chance of a player dying that is 1-1000 or less... sure players/staff some will die, but did Agu's death stop football?
• If campus is open, the intellectual honesty to play football is also present.

As for this "common good" garbage -- we live in such a heterogeneous society in California that there is nothing in common anymore.

Creeping Incrementalism said:

---

This is a great thread. It covers everything so well that I have to summarize it before making a few points of my own:

• The poster in Western Australia, looking in from the outside, effectively says nothing has really changed from when shut things down in March because athletes were transmitting this virus. Considering capital-S Science and capital-D Data, it is impractical to play football considering that -- TRUE!
• HOWEVER -- The shutdowns/lockdowns were never based on rational science in the first place and we won't have enough data until this is all over the cost-benefit analysis of shutting down a modern economy is a new thing and can't be effectively calculated ahead of time. _Fear_ has always been the over-riding factor behind the lockdown.
• The typical modern Western individual wasn't intellectually equipped to handle a for-real epidemic coming in to this, for example "Epidemic" was a term most commonly used with obesity. We haven't faced the threat of truly scary epidemic disease since the 50s with polio. So today, after a few months, people have finally learned a more reasonable risk-reward ratio and decided that they don't care if there is a 1 in a 100 chance of them dying, or a chance of a player dying that is 1-1000 or less... sure players/staff some will die, but did Agu's death stop football?
• If campus is open, the intellectual honesty to play football is also present.

As for this "common good" garbage -- we live in such a heterogeneous society in California that there is nothing in common anymore.

---

Totally disagree. Robert Reich wrote a piece about us regaining the Common Good. It is a concept that has been disparaged by people who benefit from dividing us. It is a concept that still exists and will remain as long as we try to focus on our similarities and not on our differences
Chancellor Tien took every effort to foster that feeling among Cal Students. That is why he was ever present at Cal FB and BB games. He said that was something all Cal students could get behind.
As a lawyer I often was involved in settlement negotiations. In order to accomplish my objectives, I looked for points of possible agreement and not disagreement. The point was to find something the side wanted and needed that I could provide in exchange for something I wanted and needed.

Creeping Incrementalism said:

---

This is a great thread. It covers everything so well that I have to summarize it before making a few points of my own:

• The poster in Western Australia, looking in from the outside, effectively says nothing has really changed from when shut things down in March because athletes were transmitting this virus. Considering capital-S Science and capital-D Data, it is impractical to play football considering that -- TRUE!
• HOWEVER -- The shutdowns/lockdowns were never based on rational science in the first place and we won't have enough data until this is all over the cost-benefit analysis of shutting down a modern economy is a new thing and can't be effectively calculated ahead of time. _Fear_ has always been the over-riding factor behind the lockdown.
• The typical modern Western individual wasn't intellectually equipped to handle a for-real epidemic coming in to this, for example "Epidemic" was a term most commonly used with obesity. We haven't faced the threat of truly scary epidemic disease since the 50s with polio. So today, after a few months, people have finally learned a more reasonable risk-reward ratio and decided that they don't care if there is a 1 in a 100 chance of them dying, or a chance of a player dying that is 1-1000 or less... sure players/staff some will die, but did Agu's death stop football?
• If campus is open, the intellectual honesty to play football is also present.

As for this "common good" garbage -- we live in such a heterogeneous society in California that there is nothing in common anymore.

---

Rational science is constantly changing based on new information and observations. Changes in views also be affected by social, political or religious impacts. Did the Chinese or WHO slant data? What are government agendas? But IMO the reality seems to be Western medical experts didn't know all that much about COVID when it hit, did the best they could with limited and changing information, made some mistakes and changed their minds (lockdowns (remember initially our Federal experts were against them relying on the traditional herd immunity approach for flu), masks, risks from COVID on surfaces, etc.), and, at least in most cases, were led by what they could find out. That scientists changed their minds is a good thing.

As for a common good, it is hard to look at polls and see anything more than divisiveness currently. A shout out to Newsom who when dealing with COVID didn't really seem to go be drawn into politics the way some other politicians have. But in our society, markets and freedom of action make the common good, not some demigod.