Story Poster
Photo by calbears.com
Cal Football

Multiple Cal Football Student-Athletes In COVID Protocol

November 4, 2021
63,743

BERKELEY, CA – Multiple Cal football student-athletes are in COVID protocol and will not be available to play in Saturday's game at Arizona. All student-athletes traveling to Tucson will be tested and cleared prior to departing the Bay Area. Everyone within the Cal football program is compliant with UC Berkeley's COVID-19 vaccine requirements, and 99 percent of football student-athletes are fully vaccinated. Due to state and federal student privacy laws, Cal Athletics is not able to comment on the personal health of individual student-athletes.

"Our primary concern is for the health of our student-athletes, and we continue to monitor the situation closely," Cal Director of Athletics Jim Knowlton said. "As we know, this pandemic is not over. We need to respect it and understand that it can affect much of what we do every day. Even with 99 percent of our football student-athletes fully vaccinated, we have seen that breakthrough cases are still possible."

Discussion from...

Multiple Cal Football Student-Athletes In COVID Protocol

47,908 Views | 220 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by 82gradDLSdad
sosheezy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hoop97 • 12:17p, 11/5/21
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
Which I get is a competitive disadvantage if other teams aren't testing as much but ultimately seems like doing the right thing by the players and families and those in contact with them.

I don't want to be on the side of, "we suck because we aren't sticking our heads in the sand as much as the other guy"
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hoop97 • 12:27p, 11/5/21
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Reply Quote
goldenchild
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:28p, 11/5/21
Reply Quote
4
hoop97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:43p, 11/5/21
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hoop97 • 12:52p, 11/5/21
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
Reply Quote
Strykur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:55p, 11/5/21
This isn't like the Washington opener last year which would have been in Berkeley, just get all the guys out of there to Arizona and we should be fine.
Reply Quote
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:01p, 11/5/21
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
A journalist mistaken?????

Is that possible?

Never forget rule #1: For the most part, the media is a for-profit entity. Their objective is keeping stockholders happy by generating sales through the publication of content. The accuracy of that content is secondary to the need to getting it in the hands of the paying public.

Given this journalist's penchant for sensationalism, I have no doubt regarding the fallibility of his published information.



Reply Quote
5
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:08p, 11/5/21
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
Well, I think testing positive would indeed be an issue. Even if vaccinated. Infected asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
Reply Quote
1
YamhillBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 11/5/21
In the absence of hard information, everyone seems to be rushing ahead based on whatever axe they most enjoy grinding (Knowlton, Christ, Cal in general, City of Berkeley, any COVID mandates, journalism, either political party...)

To me, it makes sense to "follow the money" in a sense: the betting lines. There was an opening line favoring Cal by around 12, it may or may not have been taken off the board when the COVID news broke, but it is now apparenty on the board at around Cal by 9. And I do subscribe that such moves likely are driven by some amount of inside knowledge, either by big bettors or by the books themselves.

The opening line was Cal -12 and Over/Under 53.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 33, UA 21.
The current line is Cal -9 and Over/Under 49.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 29, UA 20. So, if there is inside information embedded there, it seems to me that 1) it must not be very many and/or very important players for Cal as we're still favored by 9, and 2) it would appear that any important player losses are on the offense (the expected Cal score went down, the expected UA score didn't really change). I would further venture that 3) Chase Garbers will play, as I'd expect the spread to change more if we lost him.

Reply Quote
6
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YamhillBear • 1:19p, 11/5/21
YamhillBear said:
In the absence of hard information, everyone seems to be rushing ahead based on whatever axe they most enjoy grinding (Knowlton, Christ, Cal in general, City of Berkeley, any COVID mandates, journalism, either political party...)

To me, it makes sense to "follow the money" in a sense: the betting lines. There was an opening line favoring Cal by around 12, it may or may not have been taken off the board when the COVID news broke, but it is now apparenty on the board at around Cal by 9. And I do subscribe that such moves likely are driven by some amount of inside knowledge, either by big bettors or by the books themselves.

The opening line was Cal -12 and Over/Under 53.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 33, UA 21.
The current line is Cal -9 and Over/Under 49.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 29, UA 20. So, if there is inside information embedded there, it seems to me that 1) it must not be very many and/or very important players for Cal as we're still favored by 9, and 2) it would appear that any important player losses are on the offense (the expected Cal score went down, the expected UA score didn't really change). I would further venture that 3) Chase Garbers will play, as I'd expect the spread to change more if we lost him.

Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
2
Tedhead94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 1:20p, 11/5/21
71Bear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
A journalist mistaken?????

Is that possible?

Never forget rule #1: For the most part, the media is a for-profit entity. Their objective is keeping stockholders happy by generating sales through the publication of content. The accuracy of that content is secondary to the need to getting it in the hands of the paying public.

Given this journalist's penchant for sensationalism, I have no doubt regarding the fallibility of his published information.





Yep. He is an unabashed Furd homer. I would not put it by him to a twitter comment out of the side of his mouth just to watch our collective meltdown.
Reply Quote
2
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:21p, 11/5/21
Great post yamhill. I like logical people like you. Cut through the BS and go to the betting line. Its nice to read something these days that truly makes sense. I won't hold it against you even if Garbers doesn't play, or we have defensive players absent as much as offensive players.

Like many on this board, I agree, its ridiculous that there can't be more transparency in these situations from the Cal administrators.
Reply Quote
1
Bear8
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 1:29p, 11/5/21
71Bear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
A journalist mistaken?????

Is that possible?

Never forget rule #1: For the most part, the media is a for-profit entity. Their objective is keeping stockholders happy by generating sales through the publication of content. The accuracy of that content is secondary to the need to getting it in the hands of the paying public.

Given this journalist's penchant for sensationalism, I have no doubt regarding the fallibility of his published information.



I don't take the dim view of 71Bear that inaccuracy is rampant in journalism. Accuracy of journalists is at the top of the list of any story, at least on the programs and publications I listen to and read. The writer is compelled to say he/she attempted to obtain a comment or counter-statement from "the other side." Often, the counter-statement may not be forthcoming immediately, but eventually provided. In addition, I have noticed that editors assign a news item to several reporters so that one view does not dominate. In that way the journalist has provided accuracy.

What journalists often do which can raise some hackles is to state the issue in a way that might provoke comment or scare the reader by taking the issue to a final conclusion, e.g., if we don't remove the plastic in the Pacific Ocean we will be finding fish devouring the material and eliminating a food source.
Reply Quote
2
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 1:34p, 11/5/21
Big C said:
burritos said:
Look at the rest of the country. They've moved on. This bay area virtue signaling is insane.

The US is still losing upwards of 1,000 people per day to COVID and the numbers have actually been higher than that for the past ten weeks. At that rate, it's ten times the number of Americans who die from influenza every year. People have moved on, true, but the virus hasn't.

The great state of Texas is pulling even with California in number of COVID deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. Not per capita, total number. But they have moved on, so no big deal.
How many of those are vaccinated?
Reply Quote
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bear8 • 1:35p, 11/5/21
Bear8 said:
71Bear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
A journalist mistaken?????

Is that possible?

Never forget rule #1: For the most part, the media is a for-profit entity. Their objective is keeping stockholders happy by generating sales through the publication of content. The accuracy of that content is secondary to the need to getting it in the hands of the paying public.

Given this journalist's penchant for sensationalism, I have no doubt regarding the fallibility of his published information.



I don't take the dim view of 71Bear that inaccuracy is rampant in journalism. Accuracy of journalists is at the top of the list of any story, at least on the programs and publications I listen to and read. The writer is compelled to say he/she attempted to obtain a comment or counter-statement from "the other side." Often, the counter-statement may not be forthcoming immediately, but eventually provided. In addition, I have noticed that editors assign a news item to several reporters so that one view does not dominate. In that way the journalist has provided accuracy.

What journalists often do which can raise some hackles is to state the issue in a way that might provoke comment or scare the reader by taking the issue to a final conclusion, e.g., if we don't remove the plastic in the Pacific Ocean we will be finding fish devouring the material and eliminating a food source.
If the last six years haven't convinced you regarding the lows to which journalism has sunk………….
Reply Quote
3
Civil Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YamhillBear • 1:46p, 11/5/21
YamhillBear said:
In the absence of hard information, everyone seems to be rushing ahead based on whatever axe they most enjoy grinding (Knowlton, Christ, Cal in general, City of Berkeley, any COVID mandates, journalism, either political party...)

To me, it makes sense to "follow the money" in a sense: the betting lines. There was an opening line favoring Cal by around 12, it may or may not have been taken off the board when the COVID news broke, but it is now apparenty on the board at around Cal by 9. And I do subscribe that such moves likely are driven by some amount of inside knowledge, either by big bettors or by the books themselves.

The opening line was Cal -12 and Over/Under 53.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 33, UA 21.
The current line is Cal -9 and Over/Under 49.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 29, UA 20. So, if there is inside information embedded there, it seems to me that 1) it must not be very many and/or very important players for Cal as we're still favored by 9, and 2) it would appear that any important player losses are on the offense (the expected Cal score went down, the expected UA score didn't really change). I would further venture that 3) Chase Garbers will play, as I'd expect the spread to change more if we lost him.

More likely the line is being affected by betters with no more info than we have.
Reply Quote
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YamhillBear • 1:53p, 11/5/21
YamhillBear said:
In the absence of hard information, everyone seems to be rushing ahead based on whatever axe they most enjoy grinding (Knowlton, Christ, Cal in general, City of Berkeley, any COVID mandates, journalism, either political party...)

To me, it makes sense to "follow the money" in a sense: the betting lines. There was an opening line favoring Cal by around 12, it may or may not have been taken off the board when the COVID news broke, but it is now apparenty on the board at around Cal by 9. And I do subscribe that such moves likely are driven by some amount of inside knowledge, either by big bettors or by the books themselves.

The opening line was Cal -12 and Over/Under 53.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 33, UA 21.
The current line is Cal -9 and Over/Under 49.5, which means an expected score of around Cal 29, UA 20. So, if there is inside information embedded there, it seems to me that 1) it must not be very many and/or very important players for Cal as we're still favored by 9, and 2) it would appear that any important player losses are on the offense (the expected Cal score went down, the expected UA score didn't really change). I would further venture that 3) Chase Garbers will play, as I'd expect the spread to change more if we lost him.



So the line moved. Likely because money started coming in on Arizona plus 12. The smart money? How do you know? Without knowing who exactly is betting and why, it's pretty hard to tell the smart money from the dumb money.
Reply Quote
KoreAmBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:55p, 11/5/21
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
Reply Quote
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KoreAmBear • 1:59p, 11/5/21
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
Hmm, if that's accurate that could be the issue.
Reply Quote
4thGenCal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KoreAmBear • 2:03p, 11/5/21
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
Reply Quote
62bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 2:04p, 11/5/21
71Bear said:
Bear8 said:
71Bear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
A journalist mistaken?????

Is that possible?

Never forget rule #1: For the most part, the media is a for-profit entity. Their objective is keeping stockholders happy by generating sales through the publication of content. The accuracy of that content is secondary to the need to getting it in the hands of the paying public.

Given this journalist's penchant for sensationalism, I have no doubt regarding the fallibility of his published information.



I don't take the dim view of 71Bear that inaccuracy is rampant in journalism. Accuracy of journalists is at the top of the list of any story, at least on the programs and publications I listen to and read. The writer is compelled to say he/she attempted to obtain a comment or counter-statement from "the other side." Often, the counter-statement may not be forthcoming immediately, but eventually provided. In addition, I have noticed that editors assign a news item to several reporters so that one view does not dominate. In that way the journalist has provided accuracy.

What journalists often do which can raise some hackles is to state the issue in a way that might provoke comment or scare the reader by taking the issue to a final conclusion, e.g., if we don't remove the plastic in the Pacific Ocean we will be finding fish devouring the material and eliminating a food source.
If the last six years haven't convinced you regarding the lows to which journalism has sunk………….
Sports writers are also near the bottom of the barrel. At least they're not entertainment reporters or gossip columnists, I guess.
Reply Quote
KoreAmBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:05p, 11/5/21
sycasey said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
Hmm, if that's accurate that could be the issue.
Look at Section 9:

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/covid19/COB-health-order-n20-12-quarantine.pdf

I mean is this parenthetical even part of the rule or just an illustration and it just says "recommended?"

Quote:
Vaccinated contacts should be tested 5-7 days after exposure, and should follow all recommended non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., wearing a mask when around others, hand washing, avoiding crowds, and staying at least 6 feet from others) through Day 14 from last known exposure.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:11p, 11/5/21
The punter could stay six feet away and run off the field after puntiing. Maybe also field goal kicker. Everyone else, no.
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
62bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oskidunker • 2:14p, 11/5/21
oskidunker said:
The punter could stay six feet away and run off the field after puntiing. Maybe also field goal kicker. Everyone else, no.
Is the drop-kick still a thing?
Reply Quote
1
Econ141
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KoreAmBear • 2:18p, 11/5/21
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
Hmm, if that's accurate that could be the issue.
Look at Section 9:

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/covid19/COB-health-order-n20-12-quarantine.pdf

I mean is this parenthetical even part of the rule or just an illustration and it just says "recommended?"

Quote:
Vaccinated contacts should be tested 5-7 days after exposure, and should follow all recommended non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., wearing a mask when around others, hand washing, avoiding crowds, and staying at least 6 feet from others) through Day 14 from last known exposure.


How is this even enforced? What if they didn't follow the recommended rules? Not proposing that they do this just curious ... The city of Berkeley makes up a lot of rules but given the filth and crime it doesn't look like they do anything but make rules (like that one Seinfeld episode about reservations).
Reply Quote
89Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 2:20p, 11/5/21
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
O-Line worries me the most.
Reply Quote
3
KoreAmBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 2:24p, 11/5/21
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
Geez next man not exposed up.
Reply Quote
1
Econ141
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 89Bear • 2:25p, 11/5/21
89Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
O-Line worries me the most.


This is effectively the end of our season - these protocols last for two weeks ... No way we beat usc with 9 starters out. We should just forfeit the games and screw all teams out of whatever little money these games bring in.
Reply Quote
2
89Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Econ141 • 2:31p, 11/5/21
fat_slice said:
89Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
O-Line worries me the most.


This is effectively the end of our season - these protocols last for two weeks ... No way we beat usc with 9 starters out. We should just forfeit the games and screw all teams out of whatever little money these games bring in.
Lose to Zona and it might be over. A win tomorrow and there is still hope.
Reply Quote
1
bipolarbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Econ141 • 2:48p, 11/5/21
fat_slice said:
89Bear said:
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.
O-Line worries me the most.


This is effectively the end of our season - these protocols last for two weeks ... No way we beat usc with 9 starters out. We should just forfeit the games and screw all teams out of whatever little money these games bring in.
Well, if Garbers was quarantining in his apartment on Tuesday, as inferred by some here, he should be OK for USC, if testing negative. Don't know about others. I thought 10 days was the protocol.
Reply Quote
1 edit
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 2:51p, 11/5/21
71Bear said:
Rushinbear said:
The longer this goes without public information, the more far fetched the speculation. And, 90% of the time, people fear the worst. The problem is compounded by the worst getting worser by the hour.
Let me help you here…..

No one gives a damn about college athletics in the Bay Area. This is the #1 non-story of the day. Yep, it is receiving the amount of publicity it deserves - none.

No one is speculating because no one cares (other than a few dozen posters on an obscure website)….

Speaking for myself, I don't care how the sausage is made or why, I just care about the outcome. Why speculate when it is a health issue, the details of which are protected by law? Just be patient. All will be revealed soon. Reading the comments on this thread make me wonder about the sanity of Cal alums…..
Looking at Cal football over the last several decades, and that Cal fans still care so much probably should have had you wondering some time ago.
Reply Quote
1 edit
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 11/5/21
No way we beat Arizona with 9 starter out.not sure we should have gone.

Whats the best scenario? Evenly split between offense and defense? Skill players not out? Kickers out?
Go Bears!
Reply Quote
1 edit
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oskidunker • 3:10p, 11/5/21
oskidunker said:
No way we beat Arizona with 9 starter out.not sure we should have gone.

Whats the best scenario? Evenly split between offense and defense? Skill players not out? Kickers out?
Based on the complicated covid rules/restrictions, my simple minded question is: Of these 9 starters, how many of them have actually tested positive for HAVING covid? Or is it just that they have been exposed to someone else who has tested positive? Hope there is eventually some clarity on this issue.
Reply Quote
AXLBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JimSox • 3:21p, 11/5/21
JimSox said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.


Agreed. I'm getting the feeling it's requiring people to test that other places wouldn't require to do so? Then those people test positive? Just guessing but seems to be what they're hinting. Not taking a side on that debate - just trying to figure it out
Right, though again just testing positive wouldn't seem to be an issue if the players are vaccinated and not sick. Must be something else (or Wilner is mistaken).
Well, I think testing positive would indeed be an issue. Even if vaccinated. Infected asymptomatic people can spread the virus.


So what?!
Reply Quote
1
Golden One
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 3:23p, 11/5/21
4thGenCal said:
KoreAmBear said:
sycasey said:
hoop97 said:
Reading between the lines of Wilner's tweets and what info has been released. I'm starting to think it is a lot of asymptomatic people testing positive that otherwise wouldn't have been tested?
But this still doesn't square with what Wilner is saying about the City of Berkeley being the problem here. CoB doesn't require vaccinated asymptomatic people to quarantine. So why is the city the issue?

Not saying they can't be, but Wilner has not provided any details.
Someone posted on Twitter a COB rule that said while vaccinated asymptomatic people who are exposed to someone with COVID-19 don't need to quarantine, they have to remain 6 feet apart from others for 14 days. Which would be impossible to do on a football trip? I wonder if that's the snag?
latest is that 9 starters are out. Don't know the total of players not going.



If this is actually true (9 starters out), you'd think there would be some media coverage of the issue. The fact there isn't makes one wonder.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.