Knowlton's first real test as a leader at Cal....

18,330 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by GoOskie
Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoCalie said:

Forgive me if (1) this question has been asked and answered in any of the threads about this topic (I haven't seen an answer thus far) - and (2) if it's a dumb question...

I don't understand how the COB has any authority over what the football team does if they practice and play games outside of Berkeley. I understand that it has control to the extent that some players live in the dorms... But, what if those freshmen players were to live with other players/in private residences for the rest of the season?

I guess my question boils down to: How does the COB have control over the extracurricular activities of its residents? Can they control the activities of all of the residents of Berkeley? (i.e. if they go shop or teach in a school outside Berkeley; or attend a public rally where people don't all wear masks, or a go to a sporting event outside Berkeley - etc., etc., etc.) Can the COB control the activities of the individuals that work in Berkeley, but reside elsewhere?

I just don't see how the COB has any authority to control what the residents of Berkeley do when they are outside the COB. Someone help me understand what I'm missing...
Yes, it is the COB....however the Public Health Division is it's own health department. Similar to those of all other counties, it's just that Berkeley has it's own. Rest assured, if Berkeley did not have it's own health department, Alameda County Health department would make the same decision....it's just that there is no PAC12 school within the boundaries of ACDPH for them to make that statement.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?
6956bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.
Greg, what bothers me is that Cal is not nimble enough after telling us for months about running all these models to be able to deal with one COVID case. What you are telling us instead is it comes down the Chancellor willing to sacrifice the football program for other objectives with the City. I have seen this before. We wert told things would be different. And I say to you and the Friends of Berkeley, actions speak louder than words.

Without a chance of success this season or the ability to play, the recruiting class will lose recruits, the donor base will lose donors, and when the pandemics continues into next year, the portal will be flooded by Cal players looking for someplace they know they can play football. And the coaching staff that was undermined by the administration will be long gone.
Unfortunately this is also how I see it. And frankly how I have seen it from the outset. I get that there are other issues etc. but do not tell us football is important, solicit me for monies etc.

I think it is relatively easy to tell everyone what is abundantly clear right now. Cal will not be playing Saturday and the balance of the season is in jeopardy. To not have an answer regarding the quarantined players today tells me there has been no change. Hence no game on Saturday. If Covid and the COB are too burdensome to play I understand. I do not like it necessarily, but I do understand.

I understand that athletics will take a backseat to the numerous other issues confronting Cal that they must interact with the COB on. Just tell us. So in the end while Christ is more supportive than past Chancellors, athletics draws the short straw. Maybe that is as it should be, but do not ever solicit me for anything ever again. I keep falling for the BS that this time it is different. Different scenario, but in the end the result is the same. No soup for you.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"
Northside91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
So do football players and coaches on a Power 5 team.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oskidunker said:

bearsandgiants said:

We have had players pass away while running up a hill. The virus ravages the lungs and heart. Just because you don't drop dead in a couple days doesn't mean you're not screwed for life if you have this virus. There is no long term data on anything. It's frankly embarrassing to see so many Cal (maybe alumni?) fans not grasp the severity of this situation.
Very true. There is nothing Knowlton can do. You cant house 109 people in a hotel for months. The cost is prohibitive . This season should be cancelled. It was never going to work.

I am as big a Cal football fan as most posters on this board. But I agree with Oski on this. We know that the Virus is very contagious and very deadly to a large segment of the population and dangerous in many ways to an even larger segment of the population. Children and younger adults might not suffer as much from the immediate effects of the Virus as older adults; but they are not immune from many of the longer-term adverse effects of the Virus.
So we should use some sane level of caution in dealing with the Virus.

In addition the Virus is spiking throughout the US at this time. Although it is spiking in CA, It is spiking here much less than in other parts of the US (yes, in many states where CA is viewed as a bunch of wussy's.

Many people (on and off this board) argue that there is no reason to cancel CFB because only a few players have died or shown immediate ill effects from contracting the Virus.
But the players and those in immediate contact with the players (coaches, staff, etc) come into contact with thousand of people (in and around where they live, eat, shop, etc) and hundreds of their own relatives.
If we could put the players coaches and staff in a bubble, it would be much easier to say don't worry about the Virus and play football. But in the current circumstances especially with the Virus about to swamp the ability of US health care facilities to deal with the Virus, there is no way that I can say that Cal should ignore the precautions that are meant to provide minimal protection against the spread of the Virus


Let's add one more factor on the scales of justice.
Today on KCBS news it was announced that people infected with COVID have been determined to encounter serious mental health problems after recovering from the virus.
There was no indication in the report whether younger people showed more, less or about the same problems as older people.

Clearly when someone "recovers" from COVID, he or she may still suffer serious negative health effects for an unknown period of time.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On the bad optics side, the Google News aggregator ha several articles on the Bay Area now spiking. If the thought process is the health department is going to cave, forget it.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.
You may be right, but I'm just saying what a lot of people on this board are thinking. No body wanted to fire the first shot.

I don't have a problem with firing the first shot.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.
Greg, what bothers me is that Cal is not nimble enough after telling us for months about running all these models to be able to deal with one COVID case. What you are telling us instead is it comes down the Chancellor willing to sacrifice the football program for other objectives with the City. I have seen this before. We wert told things would be different. And I say to you and the Friends of Berkeley, actions speak louder than words.

Without a chance of success this season or the ability to play, the recruiting class will lose recruits, the donor base will lose donors, and when the pandemics continues into next year, the portal will be flooded by Cal players looking for someplace they know they can play football. And the coaching staff that was undermined by the administration will be long gone.
Thank you. Couldn't have possibly said it better myself.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
Let me help. You posted a bunch of articles showing that some students died of Covid. Yes - you were responding to someone's question. But what is the relevance? Because we KNOW that scientifically/statistically speaking, the number of students (aka young people) dying of COVID is miniscule in comparison to many other risks - the articles you posted don't change that. And to the point of his post, covid deaths in this age group are less than the number of students dying of flu, yet we still play football and other sports - without any precautions - when there's flu.

So, if by your logic, the covid risk is unacceptable, then so would the risk of the flu. And, again, by your logic, Cal should cancel all sports due to flu risk (without regard to COVID).

Yes - covid is worse than the flu on the whole - because of the risk to older people, absence of a vaccine, etc. But the protocols established in connection with football mitigate most if not all of that. Even if a football player gets covid, the chance of spread to more vulnerable groups is drastically reduced by all the protocols.

As an aside - what percentage of football players/staff do you think would have covid if they weren't observing the football protocols? I think its safe to say more given that Cal has had ONE case. So in terms that group, the covid risk is very likely lower due to football.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.


Greg, what bothers me is that Cal is not nimble enough after telling us for months about running all these models to be able to deal with one COVID case. What you are telling us instead is it comes down the Chancellor willing to sacrifice the football program for other objectives with the City. I have seen this before. We wert told things would be different. And I say to you and the Friends of Berkeley, actions speak louder than words.

Without a chance of success this season or the ability to play, the recruiting class will lose recruits, the donor base will lose donors, and when the pandemics continues into next year, the portal will be flooded by Cal players looking for someplace they know they can play football. And the coaching staff that was undermined by the administration will be long gone.


What are these other objectives with the city?

We all know that the city is extraordinarily difficult to deal with, and that many in city government hate the university. But what are these other objectives?
hoop97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Getting a return to play plan approved, which is intended to minimize risk, is completely different than what happens if someone tests positive and the subsequent fallout. It's really starting to feel like a number of basic "what if" questions were not asked.



chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hanky1 said:

BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.
You may be right, but I'm just saying what a lot of people on this board are thinking. No body wanted to fire the first shot.

I don't have a problem with firing the first shot.


Who would have guessed that hanky1 had no qualms about being reckless by jumping to conclusions?
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
Let me help. You posted a bunch of articles showing that some students died of Covid. Yes - you were responding to someone's question. But what is the relevance? Because we KNOW that scientifically/statistically speaking, the number of students (aka young people) dying of COVID is miniscule in comparison to many other risks - the articles you posted don't change that. And to the point of his post, covid deaths in this age group are less than the number of students dying of flu, yet we still play football and other sports - without any precautions - when there's flu.

So, if by your logic, the covid risk is unacceptable, then so would the risk of the flu. And, again, by your logic, Cal should cancel all sports due to flu risk (without regard to COVID).

Yes - covid is worse than the flu on the whole - because of the risk to older people, absence of a vaccine, etc. But the protocols established in connection with football mitigate most if not all of that. Even if a football player gets covid, the chance of spread to more vulnerable groups is drastically reduced by all the protocols.

As an aside - what percentage of football players/staff do you think would have covid if they weren't observing the football protocols? I think its safe to say more given that Cal has had ONE case. So in terms that group, the covid risk is very likely lower due to football.

Actually, it was Okaydo who did the research and pulled up the multiple articles of college students who died of Covid-19. I only pulled up one article of a recent student who died of Covid-19. Even then, I was clear I was unsure whether that was the most recent college student who died of Covid-19.

That said, your argument ignores the other arguments that have been made about how (1) there is a wide range of consequences between health and death re Covid-19 and (2) no one knows what the long term health consequences will be for those who "recover" from Covid-19. Finally, you now assert that Covid-19 is less deadly to college students than the flu, something no one has argued before and for which you proffer no evidence.

But let's pretend your arguments are well made. Let's assume that the flu is more deadly for college students than is Covid-19. Let's also assume that the only negative consequence of Covid-19 is death and that those who recover recover fully. Under these assumptions, sure, the balance tilts toward allowing the students to play. However, it should be noted that this does not mean the risk of the spread of Covid-19 won't increase among the ranks of the coaching staff, the support staff, the cleaning staff, etc. who are not college students. Neither does it mean their risk of death from Covid-19 won't unnecessarily increase as a result.

Now, getting back to reality and facts, the assumptions that had to be made to support your rosy scenario are too many and have no basis in fact. (At least to my knowledge. Of course, if you have access to any evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated if you shared that evidence.) While it may be true that Covid-19 is less deadly than the flu for college-aged kids (again, this seems to be an assumption based on no facts), there are numerous cases where some otherwise healthy people have been left with long-term damage after they "recovered." Worse, it is unknown what triggers this ling term damage. Furthermore, no one knows how long the damage will last (i.e., whether they're permanent).

While for some people, death may be the only tragedy they fear, there are others who recognize that tragedies do not have to be fatal to be serious. Organ failure, for example. Scarred lung tissue would be another. Mental health disease would be a third. At present, no one knows just what are the risks of these or other maladies to anyone, let alone to college-aged kids.

All things being equal, it makes little sense to risk the health and well-being of anyone (let alone kids whose care has been entrusted to Cal) for something as unnecessary and frivolous as mass entertainment. While I am a sports fan (and really a Cal sports fan), I tend not to believe sports is the end all and be all (not even Cal sports).

That said, I recognize that not everyone may feel the same. That's completely fine. If others believe sports is the end all be all, more power to them. I'd just ask that they be the ones to participate in the activities and not put others at risk.

Of course, I'm merely a Cal alumnus and a Cal fan. I have no voice in how the school (let alone the City of Berkeley) chooses to move forward. Whatever I have to say on this matter really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

wifeisafurd said:

BearGreg said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?


Let's be clear that no one knows anything about the machinations between the University, the COB and the broader P12 as it relates to Cal's single asymptomatic player. The P12s protocols were unclear and non-specific about the instance that has occurred with the Cal program. The COB interpreted it in a way that went against how everyone else nationally has interpreted it. The notion that the P12, Chancellor Christ and/or Jim Knowlton would first be omniscient enough to know where and how subjective interpretation could occur is a stretch. Remember that the COB approved the P12s protocols prior to the season being approved. Secondly, even if Knowlton could have predicted that somehow, someway the COB would be a fundamental problem, it's not his call to allow the program to move out of Berkeley to circumvent it. That's the Chancellor's purview. The relationship between the University and the COB spans a host of issues and they do their best to manage that relationship to the benefit of all the outstanding issues.

Blame and judgment are easy. Being open and curious require more effort. When and if the details come out, we can then have a more objective discussion on Cal's leadership.


Greg, what bothers me is that Cal is not nimble enough after telling us for months about running all these models to be able to deal with one COVID case. What you are telling us instead is it comes down the Chancellor willing to sacrifice the football program for other objectives with the City. I have seen this before. We wert told things would be different. And I say to you and the Friends of Berkeley, actions speak louder than words.

Without a chance of success this season or the ability to play, the recruiting class will lose recruits, the donor base will lose donors, and when the pandemics continues into next year, the portal will be flooded by Cal players looking for someplace they know they can play football. And the coaching staff that was undermined by the administration will be long gone.


What are these other objectives with the city?

We all know that the city is extraordinarily difficult to deal with, and that many in city government hate the university. But what are these other objectives?

suggest you ask Greg, He was the one who indicated the Chancellor had more important objectives to balance.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period). Does you employer say people recovered from COVID can't do their work? I'm a little appalled that you make presumptions about other people and their motives. I'm a little appalled that the players who are being screwed mean so little to you. I'm a little appalled that you don't know the facts on the ground, but make judgments, and make assumptions about the COB policy rather than side with Cal. I'm a little appalled that you want to penalize 100 plus student athletes for something science doesn't support. I know you mean well, but save the elitist I know better than you crap for someone else.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
Let me help. You posted a bunch of articles showing that some students died of Covid. Yes - you were responding to someone's question. But what is the relevance? Because we KNOW that scientifically/statistically speaking, the number of students (aka young people) dying of COVID is miniscule in comparison to many other risks - the articles you posted don't change that. And to the point of his post, covid deaths in this age group are less than the number of students dying of flu, yet we still play football and other sports - without any precautions - when there's flu.

So, if by your logic, the covid risk is unacceptable, then so would the risk of the flu. And, again, by your logic, Cal should cancel all sports due to flu risk (without regard to COVID).

Yes - covid is worse than the flu on the whole - because of the risk to older people, absence of a vaccine, etc. But the protocols established in connection with football mitigate most if not all of that. Even if a football player gets covid, the chance of spread to more vulnerable groups is drastically reduced by all the protocols.

As an aside - what percentage of football players/staff do you think would have covid if they weren't observing the football protocols? I think its safe to say more given that Cal has had ONE case. So in terms that group, the covid risk is very likely lower due to football.

Actually, it was Okaydo who did the research and pulled up the multiple articles of college students who died of Covid-19. I only pulled up one article of a recent student who died of Covid-19. Even then, I was clear I was unsure whether that was the most recent college student who died of Covid-19.

That said, your argument ignores the other arguments that have been made about how (1) there is a wide range of consequences between health and death re Covid-19 and (2) no one knows what the long term health consequences will be for those who "recover" from Covid-19. Finally, you now assert that Covid-19 is less deadly to college students than the flu, something no one has argued before and for which you proffer no evidence.

But let's pretend your arguments are well made. Let's assume that the flu is more deadly for college students than is Covid-19. Let's also assume that the only negative consequence of Covid-19 is death and that those who recover recover fully. Under these assumptions, sure, the balance tilts toward allowing the students to play. However, it should be noted that this does not mean the risk of the spread of Covid-19 won't increase among the ranks of the coaching staff, the support staff, the cleaning staff, etc. who are not college students. Neither does it mean their risk of death from Covid-19 won't unnecessarily increase as a result.

Now, getting back to reality and facts, the assumptions that had to be made to support your rosy scenario are too many and have no basis in fact. (At least to my knowledge. Of course, if you have access to any evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated if you shared that evidence.) While it may be true that Covid-19 is less deadly than the flu for college-aged kids (again, this seems to be an assumption based on no facts), there are numerous cases where some otherwise healthy people have been left with long-term damage after they "recovered." Worse, it is unknown what triggers this ling term damage. Furthermore, no one knows how long the damage will last (i.e., whether they're permanent).

While for some people, death may be the only tragedy they fear, there are others who recognize that tragedies do not have to be fatal to be serious. Organ failure, for example. Scarred lung tissue would be another. Mental health disease would be a third. At present, no one knows just what are the risks of these or other maladies to anyone, let alone to college-aged kids.

All things being equal, it makes little sense to risk the health and well-being of anyone (let alone kids whose care has been entrusted to Cal) for something as unnecessary and frivolous as mass entertainment. While I am a sports fan (and really a Cal sports fan), I tend not to believe sports is the end all and be all (not even Cal sports).

That said, I recognize that not everyone may feel the same. That's completely fine. If others believe sports is the end all be all, more power to them. I'd just ask that they be the ones to participate in the activities and not put others at risk.

Of course, I'm merely a Cal alumnus and a Cal fan. I have no voice in how the school (let alone the City of Berkeley) chooses to move forward. Whatever I have to say on this matter really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I didn't provide a link because, in all candor, the information has been so widely disseminated I took it for granted.

"In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that "the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19." Same applies to deaths in that age range.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/08/ron-johnson/johnson-mostly-track-claim-flu-harder-kids-covid-1/

Here is the actual CDC report - applicable to children under 17. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

Here is an article discussing people under 25 - -same conclusions.

https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-vs-influenza-by-age-d33a1c76c198

"Based on that analysis, what is striking is that those under the age of 25 are at significantly lower risk of death from COVID-19 than of the flu. Under our assumptions, for example, school-aged children between 5 and 14 have a 1 in 200,000 chance of dying of influenza, but a 1 in 1.1 million chance of dying of COVID-19.

For toddlers, the relative risk is even more pronounced. We estimate that Americans between ages 14 are 6 times more likely to die of influenza than of COVID-19"

You're correct that there is a generalized concern about spread from young people to other more vulnerable populations. That is why old (and otherwise vulnerable people) are staying at home and avoiding contact with young people. And no doubt, the players and staff are being told to stay in a semi-bubble both to protect themselves and others. Given this reality and the testing protocols, the chance of a player and/or coach spreading the disease to a vulnerable party is very low.

The larger question is how do we protect the vulnerable groups? Do we lock down people under 25 (e.g., cancel in person school/college and all of their social activities), tell football players they can't play, etc., to avoid spread to more vulnerable groups? Or do we tell the vulnerable people to be careful and adopt stringent testing protocols for anyone coming into contact with old people? I have college aged children and they stay away from the grandparents for exactly this reason.

There's no "correct" answer here. But I do think that "older or vulnerable people" (including politicians and many of the white collar works least affected by the pandemic) are asking the young people to make a huge sacrifice without a full and fair assessment of the cost/burden so imposed. We are asking young people who are not at personal risk (certainly no more risk than the flu) to absorb massive costs and consequences which will affect them for a long time (lost education, employment, increased mental health issues).

And that is where the comparison to the flu becomes interesting. We don't make the same risk allocations for flu, which comparatively speaking is more deadly for the young and less deadly for the old. Why do you suppose that is? Hint: who has the economic and political power?

BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period). Does you employer say people recovered from COVID can't do their work? I'm a little appalled that you make presumptions about other people and their motives. I'm a little appalled that the players who are being screwed mean so little to you. I'm a little appalled that you don't know the facts on the ground, but make judgments, and make assumptions about the COB policy rather than side with Cal. I'm a little appalled that you want to penalize 100 plus student athletes for something science doesn't support. I know you mean well, but save the elitist I know better than you crap for someone else.
I was going to post something like this but you beat me to it. Virtually all of the players want to play and the ones that don't opted out.

Regarding the players who had covid, the current CDC guidelines provide that after close contact,

"People who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not need to quarantine or get tested again for up to 3 months as long as they do not develop symptoms again. "

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/quarantine.html

It would be interesting to know when the Cal players had it.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period).



I will have to step back from previous defense of.COB as acting in line with health departents evwrywhere if thats true. It in itself is a reason to move - if it's confirmed the new locale will treat past infections within 90 days differently. Very different than not knowing the rule re: 15 minutes of contact. The 90 days rec by the CDC seems very conservative too, people likely have immunity after that for a while, but also everyone immune response is different.

It's too bad Wilner didn't ask the COB about this -instead he lobbed them softball questions about the 14 day rule which was easy for them to answer then dismiss him as 14 days is the norm for all of CFB it seems... And the country at this moment.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period).



I will have to step back from previous defense of.COB as acting in line with health departents evwrywhere if thats true. It in itself is a reason to move - if it's confirmed the new locale will treat past infections within 90 days differently. Very different than not knowing the rule re: 15 minutes of contact. The 90 days rec by the CDC seems very conservative too, people likely have immunity after that for a while, but also everyone immune response is different.

It's too bad Wilner didn't ask the COB about this -instead he lobbed them softball questions about the 14 day rule which was easy for them to answer then dismiss him as 14 days is the norm for all of CFB it seems... And the country at this moment.

14 day quarantine is when you cannot test. I think it is pretty standard to allow someone out of quarantine after 3 days with a negative test.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period). Does you employer say people recovered from COVID can't do their work? I'm a little appalled that you make presumptions about other people and their motives. I'm a little appalled that the players who are being screwed mean so little to you. I'm a little appalled that you don't know the facts on the ground, but make judgments, and make assumptions about the COB policy rather than side with Cal. I'm a little appalled that you want to penalize 100 plus student athletes for something science doesn't support. I know you mean well, but save the elitist I know better than you crap for someone else.
I was going to post something like this but you beat me to it. Virtually all of the players want to play and the ones that don't opted out.

Regarding the players who had covid, the current CDC guidelines provide that after close contact,

"People who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not need to quarantine or get tested again for up to 3 months as long as they do not develop symptoms again. "

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/quarantine.html

It would be interesting to know when the Cal players had it.
Have not heard that any of the sequestered DLs have turned up positive, let alone shown symptoms. It's been over 5 days since the one guy tested positive (asymptomatically). Is there anything they're not telling us?

Re COB? Injunctive relief. Test the extent of their legal authority over the Uni.

LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Your post assumes the players are pawns and doesn't answer this question: What if the players want to play?
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hope they don't try to play with no defensive line.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
touchdownbears43 said:

Frankly all of CFB is a waste this year.
Tell that to players across the country who love to play, understand the risks and still want to play. Tell it to the players who are depending on games this season in order to have game films by which they may chart their career course.

Tell it to the small businesses across the country that depend on college fb to sell food, clothing, etc. You may denigrate the intellectual status of such businesses, but they are owned, built and run by hard working Americans.

Tell it to the students, faculties, parents, and fans whose spirits are lifted seeing their family and friends play. OK, tell it even to the professional gamblers (which activity I detest, but which have a right to do it) who have chosen that as their profession.

Need I go on?

Oh, yest, I forgot. Some players tend to ignore the risk they pose to others if they test positive, but have no symptoms. They could unknowingly pass it on to others. But, so could the people in front of me at the checkout counter. Who should be the one to decide what constitutes avoidable risk and therefore able to ban the subject behavior?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period).



I will have to step back from previous defense of.COB as acting in line with health departents evwrywhere if thats true. It in itself is a reason to move - if it's confirmed the new locale will treat past infections within 90 days differently. Very different than not knowing the rule re: 15 minutes of contact. The 90 days rec by the CDC seems very conservative too, people likely have immunity after that for a while, but also everyone immune response is different.

It's too bad Wilner didn't ask the COB about this -instead he lobbed them softball questions about the 14 day rule which was easy for them to answer then dismiss him as 14 days is the norm for all of CFB it seems... And the country at this moment.

14 day quarantine is when you cannot test. I think it is pretty standard to allow someone out of quarantine after 3 days with a negative test.


7 days!
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, it gets much worse when all this comes out. Let's hope they find a solution today. But if you read what Greg said, and I believe is accurate, JK had plans to move the team and was rejected. You can't put this on JK.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

01Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

Northside91 said:

01Bear said:

NVBear78 said:

okaydo said:

Yogi Bear said:

hanky1 said:

I feel terrible for our players who work their butt off only to have their season threatened by complete lack of imagination and foresight by our athletic department leader.

The blanket contact tracing quarantine required by the city of Berkeley makes no sense because
1) it goes against what every other medical professional in every other sports league has recommended and
2) it just makes no freakin common sense. None whatsoever.

This should've been apparent to Knowlton from the very beginning and he should've just either 1) cancelled the whole damn season or 2) found another city to play in.

Under these rules, the only way we could play football is if every player and coach on the roster made it through the year without contracting COVID (which is >99% harmless to people in their age group anyways). This was always unrealistic. Plans should've been made to play/practice/live elsewhere.

The failure to recognize this was a failure in leadership. Complete failure.

Strike 1 for Knowlton. Considering how catastrophic this strike was, does he even deserve another at-bat?
How long has it been since our last high-profile COVID-19 death? We have a lot of old-as-hell politicians getting it and even they seem to be recovering OK. Assuming that the infected players are properly quarantined during recovery, if you're going to have a season at all, it would seem that one positive test shouldn't derail a game.

We have a bad habit of letting the City push us around.

Yes, old-as-hell politicians get the best health care.
When was the last College Student to die from Covid?

I don't know if this is the last college student to die of COVID-19, but this college student did die of it.
https://www.wndu.com/2020/11/03/coroner-releases-report-in-death-of-grace-college-student/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2018-19, per CDC. Over 2,000 flu deaths and 60,000 hospitalizations in the 18-49 age group. That should cover 98%+ of our players and coaches. Pretty unacceptable risk if you ask me. That's why I'm thinking of petitioning the Chancellor and AD to cancel all sports and on campus activities during peak cold/flu/COVID season, which is roughly November 1 through mid-March. If they go with it, Cal can wind up football and basketball, like many faculty members and administrators have long wanted, and get on with the much more important business of spinning false/unscientific narratives and assimilating all living souls in plain sight.

I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Are you just trying to troll?

You realize my post was in reply to NVBear78's question as to when a college student last died of Covid-19. I replied with a link to a news report of such a death.
I absolutely realize that. I also realize that you're holding out the information in your post as something relevant to the broader discussion. I'm doing the same thing. Clear enough?

You read more into my comment than I wrote. I only answered a question asked by NVBear78.

As for your comment, what exactly is the relevance of it to the "broader discussion?" Also, what exactly do you think is the "broader discussion?"


Cal. Its athletic programs. The administration. The CoB. Young to relatively young people in the context of COVID.

The kind thing would be to say you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

Aside from the last sentence, which is just a pathetic veiled attempt at continued trolling, your last comment was just a jumble of words. It's unclear what exactly is the point you're trying to make or whether it's even in response to (the questions in) my last comment.
Let me help. You posted a bunch of articles showing that some students died of Covid. Yes - you were responding to someone's question. But what is the relevance? Because we KNOW that scientifically/statistically speaking, the number of students (aka young people) dying of COVID is miniscule in comparison to many other risks - the articles you posted don't change that. And to the point of his post, covid deaths in this age group are less than the number of students dying of flu, yet we still play football and other sports - without any precautions - when there's flu.

So, if by your logic, the covid risk is unacceptable, then so would the risk of the flu. And, again, by your logic, Cal should cancel all sports due to flu risk (without regard to COVID).

Yes - covid is worse than the flu on the whole - because of the risk to older people, absence of a vaccine, etc. But the protocols established in connection with football mitigate most if not all of that. Even if a football player gets covid, the chance of spread to more vulnerable groups is drastically reduced by all the protocols.

As an aside - what percentage of football players/staff do you think would have covid if they weren't observing the football protocols? I think its safe to say more given that Cal has had ONE case. So in terms that group, the covid risk is very likely lower due to football.

Actually, it was Okaydo who did the research and pulled up the multiple articles of college students who died of Covid-19. I only pulled up one article of a recent student who died of Covid-19. Even then, I was clear I was unsure whether that was the most recent college student who died of Covid-19.

That said, your argument ignores the other arguments that have been made about how (1) there is a wide range of consequences between health and death re Covid-19 and (2) no one knows what the long term health consequences will be for those who "recover" from Covid-19. Finally, you now assert that Covid-19 is less deadly to college students than the flu, something no one has argued before and for which you proffer no evidence.

But let's pretend your arguments are well made. Let's assume that the flu is more deadly for college students than is Covid-19. Let's also assume that the only negative consequence of Covid-19 is death and that those who recover recover fully. Under these assumptions, sure, the balance tilts toward allowing the students to play. However, it should be noted that this does not mean the risk of the spread of Covid-19 won't increase among the ranks of the coaching staff, the support staff, the cleaning staff, etc. who are not college students. Neither does it mean their risk of death from Covid-19 won't unnecessarily increase as a result.

Now, getting back to reality and facts, the assumptions that had to be made to support your rosy scenario are too many and have no basis in fact. (At least to my knowledge. Of course, if you have access to any evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated if you shared that evidence.) While it may be true that Covid-19 is less deadly than the flu for college-aged kids (again, this seems to be an assumption based on no facts), there are numerous cases where some otherwise healthy people have been left with long-term damage after they "recovered." Worse, it is unknown what triggers this ling term damage. Furthermore, no one knows how long the damage will last (i.e., whether they're permanent).

While for some people, death may be the only tragedy they fear, there are others who recognize that tragedies do not have to be fatal to be serious. Organ failure, for example. Scarred lung tissue would be another. Mental health disease would be a third. At present, no one knows just what are the risks of these or other maladies to anyone, let alone to college-aged kids.

All things being equal, it makes little sense to risk the health and well-being of anyone (let alone kids whose care has been entrusted to Cal) for something as unnecessary and frivolous as mass entertainment. While I am a sports fan (and really a Cal sports fan), I tend not to believe sports is the end all and be all (not even Cal sports).

That said, I recognize that not everyone may feel the same. That's completely fine. If others believe sports is the end all be all, more power to them. I'd just ask that they be the ones to participate in the activities and not put others at risk.

Of course, I'm merely a Cal alumnus and a Cal fan. I have no voice in how the school (let alone the City of Berkeley) chooses to move forward. Whatever I have to say on this matter really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I didn't provide a link because, in all candor, the information has been so widely disseminated I took it for granted.

"In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that "the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19." Same applies to deaths in that age range.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/08/ron-johnson/johnson-mostly-track-claim-flu-harder-kids-covid-1/

Here is the actual CDC report - applicable to children under 17. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

Here is an article discussing people under 25 - -same conclusions.

https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-vs-influenza-by-age-d33a1c76c198

"Based on that analysis, what is striking is that those under the age of 25 are at significantly lower risk of death from COVID-19 than of the flu. Under our assumptions, for example, school-aged children between 5 and 14 have a 1 in 200,000 chance of dying of influenza, but a 1 in 1.1 million chance of dying of COVID-19.

For toddlers, the relative risk is even more pronounced. We estimate that Americans between ages 14 are 6 times more likely to die of influenza than of COVID-19"



You've been consistent in your attempts to underplay the impacts of COVID and I urge everyone to read what you've written very closely, including your sources, and not accept your statements at face value.

This is completely misleading analysis and I think you know it. The question isn't whether a college student is more likely to die from an illness that infects 1 in 4 college students per year than they are of an illness assumed to infect only a very small number of students. The appropriate question is "if I contract the flu or COVID, which one is more likely to kill me". More people die each year crossing the street than from lightning, that doesn't make lightning less dangerous than crossing the street. And of course this ignores any other harmful effects from COVID that aren't as common with the flu.

Here is the more relevant data, in case people are interested in the truth. According to the CDC, 7.6 million kids 5-17 in age got the flu last season and 211 died. That's a mortality rate of 27 per million cases. Also according to the CDC, there have already been 93 COVID deaths of kids 5-18 so far in 570k cases. That's a mortality rate of 163 per million cases - 6 times higher than the seasonal flu. It could turn out that we have 6 or even more times as many COVID cases among that age group than have been tested, but it's clearly premature, if not incorrect, to say that the flu poses a bigger threat to kids than COVID.

For what it's worth, I would imagine we will see far fewer seasonal flu deaths this year than we have in the past because MASKS WORK.


BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Oh, it gets much worse when all this comes out. Let's hope they find a solution today. But if you read what Greg said, and I believe is accurate, JK had plans to move the team and was rejected. You can't put this on JK.
This goes beyond football and imperils the season for basketball and every other sport.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

ColoradoBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

dimitrig said:


I won't pretend to know all of the legalities involved in this, but I will relate that this week my employer is allowing non-essential personnel to return to work on-site on a voluntary basis. There haven't been a lot of takers - perhaps 10%.

What we were told is that if anyone tests positive in an area where two or more employees were identified as being present by contact tracing - regardless if all safety protocols were in place and being followed or what the test results of the other employees are - it is ultimately up to the health department of our city to determine if and when those individuals in contact with the person who tested positive can go back to work.

In that sense, it doesn't seem that much different from City of Berkeley. I know some of you would like to blame COB as an outlier - and maybe it is - but it is certainly not the only city with a conservative policy with respect to COVID-19.

To be honest, as an employee I am rather glad to see that policy versus, say, letting my employer decide how much risk they are willing to take on my behalf.

I know it is frustrating, but what is the point in rushing a lot of kids who may or may not be infected with COVID out to play against (and possibly infect) another team?

I am a little appalled that so many so-called fans are willing to put the health of others on the line for the sake of football.

I know people who have survived COVID and while there are asymptomatic cases, it's not really a lot of fun even for healthy young people if you do develop symptoms.

The way I would sell it is to players and potential recruits is that when you come to Cal you are family and not just a commodity. We won't stand for you getting sick just for our entertainment and revenues. Sadly, it seems that's not true and a lot of fans don't feel the same way I do.



Since Wilner has disclosed this and it is public, what is the rational for holding out two dline players that had and are now recovered from COVID? With the two players, Cal probably plays. No one but the COB requires this. Where is the science to justify this? The CDC sayys if they had COVID w/i 90 days they are not going to get infected again (more than 90 days they say quarantine - Colorado they are in the 90 day period).



I will have to step back from previous defense of.COB as acting in line with health departents evwrywhere if thats true. It in itself is a reason to move - if it's confirmed the new locale will treat past infections within 90 days differently. Very different than not knowing the rule re: 15 minutes of contact. The 90 days rec by the CDC seems very conservative too, people likely have immunity after that for a while, but also everyone immune response is different.

It's too bad Wilner didn't ask the COB about this -instead he lobbed them softball questions about the 14 day rule which was easy for them to answer then dismiss him as 14 days is the norm for all of CFB it seems... And the country at this moment.

14 day quarantine is when you cannot test. I think it is pretty standard to allow someone out of quarantine after 3 days with a negative test.


Uh that's even not remotely true.

You might be thinking about testing out of a travel quarantine, if the local government allows it. This is about testing out of a close contact quarantine.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.