Luc Bequette is also upset. I think some of the frustration was that the players assumed getting vaccinated would remove the testing requirement, thus keeping them on the field.
Point 8 of the October 28 quarantine order seems to reinforce this. However, I'm guessing the testing in Point 9 is what swept everyone up. It's labeled as a "should" and not a "must" though the Uni seems to be treating it as a "must" per player complaints.
Anyway, if someone tests positive, isolation policy kicks in instead of quarantine. Keeping players who test positive at home is the correct action. However, the players have a point about the city's language and the University using the strictest interpretation (I made this point elsewhere, where bureaucrats may interpret rules beyond their intent.) So players will be mad at the City, Uni, or both in how they perceive this.
There is more to public health than detecting every single instance of a disease. If we had that ability then the policies would look different. I'm this case, the players really are a unique population when compared to the general public, being highly-vaccinated and spending much of their time around each other (even living together). And I've brought up my questions about the testing elsewhere (it may be fine, but that's significantly higher positivity rate than I'd expect and reports of subsequent negative tests make me also wonder. We need more info since not all tests are equal.)
Best I can piece together is that this policy was interpreted in the most rigid way possible when it's not clear that was most appropriate for this specific subpopulation. But having done the testing, the decision to keep players home was correct. The whole situation seems like it was poorly communicated. Players presumably took personal risks (or not) under one set of conditions and the outcome was statistically worse than chance (or anyone) would predict. It may just be really bad luck, that we're undertesting the general population, or that not every positive test represents the same transmissibility. Converting between the population and the individual level is far from exact, especially when there are extrinsic pressures. Which is why the University HAS to explain what happened if they indeed feel they did everything right. That's a hell of a lot smarter than letting angry players do the talking.
Wasn't/ isn't Wilcox angry about the lack of communication from City of Berkeley/ UCB too? I thought I read something about that in the post-game press.
Is this additional testing a competitive disadvantage? Probably so. But it did uncover a COVID outbreak. It’s not a great look for Chase to essentially say, “I should’ve been allowed to play because we never should’ve known that I was infected with COVID.”
I wish Chase Garbers the very best of luck in trying to get UC administrators to be transparent and account for what they did and are continuing to do regarding COVID protocols for the football team, not because they're conspiring against Cal football but because their protocols sound arbitrary and the way they communicate, if Garbers is being truthful, is imperious.
For me the core part of this is that Garbers and the athletes apparently don't think the Covid policy was clearly communicated to them and now feel tricked. The question now becomes, why do they think that?
Maybe it's just sour grapes about being forced to sit out a game, but given some of the outside reporting by Jon Wilner, Larry Beil, etc., there is also reason to think there's something else going on here too. Failures of communication. That's what I'd want to know about.
Mandated or not, had they tested negative they would have played, right? If they tested positive I don’t see why they would think they were duped or why they should be entitled to travel or play.
Great leadership from Chase. The players deserve answers and transparency about the process they’re being held to. Anything short of that is a complete failure of the administration.
Does anybody know when we'll have a sense of how many players (in particular starters) will be missing for the USC game due to COVID? I hate to sound so self-centered, but I really don't feel like going through the same ordeal as last week, but with the added frustration of the 6 hours of travel and logistics that go along with attending in person (for my family). I have better things to do with my time...
If CG comes to the conclusion that he is not ready for the League next year and needs one more year of seasoning, based on his tweet I'm guessing he will transfer out. I suspect other student-athletes (not just football players) will transfer as well. When you have a lack of direction, clarity, and communication from your leadership group trust is broken. That trust is rarely if ever regained. I picture the mass migrations on the plains of the Serengeti as athletes and students flee Cal. Knowlton is a putz. Greater than a week into this and still nada from the AD office. WTF is wrong with Cal??
From Chase's tweet, it doesn't seem like he knows exactly what his rights are. I don't know what his rights here are either, but then I'm not trying to play Cal football.
Shorter version:
"If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, actually,"
Oh wait, that wasn't Chase who said that. Sorry...
Luc Bequette is also upset. I think some of the frustration was that the players assumed getting vaccinated would remove the testing requirement, thus keeping them on the field.
https://twitter.com/LucBequette/status/1457953453368438785?t=Mncq3gKtpU5DjvEnTYLWHQ&s=19
Point 8 of the October 28 quarantine order seems to reinforce this. However, I'm guessing the testing in Point 9 is what swept everyone up. It's labeled as a "should" and not a "must" though the Uni seems to be treating it as a "must" per player complaints.
Anyway, if someone tests positive, isolation policy kicks in instead of quarantine. Keeping players who test positive at home is the correct action. However, the players have a point about the city's language and the University using the strictest interpretation (I made this point elsewhere, where bureaucrats may interpret rules beyond their intent.) So players will be mad at the City, Uni, or both in how they perceive this.
There is more to public health than detecting every single instance of a disease. If we had that ability then the policies would look different. I'm this case, the players really are a unique population when compared to the general public, being highly-vaccinated and spending much of their time around each other (even living together). And I've brought up my questions about the testing elsewhere (it may be fine, but that's significantly higher positivity rate than I'd expect and reports of subsequent negative tests make me also wonder. We need more info since not all tests are equal.)
Best I can piece together is that this policy was interpreted in the most rigid way possible when it's not clear that was most appropriate for this specific subpopulation. But having done the testing, the decision to keep players home was correct. The whole situation seems like it was poorly communicated. Players presumably took personal risks (or not) under one set of conditions and the outcome was statistically worse than chance (or anyone) would predict. It may just be really bad luck, that we're undertesting the general population, or that not every positive test represents the same transmissibility. Converting between the population and the individual level is far from exact, especially when there are extrinsic pressures. Which is why the University HAS to explain what happened if they indeed feel they did everything right. That's a hell of a lot smarter than letting angry players do the talking.
Wasn't/ isn't Wilcox angry about the lack of communication from City of Berkeley/ UCB too? I thought I read something about that in the post-game press.
Is this additional testing a competitive disadvantage? Probably so. But it did uncover a COVID outbreak. It’s not a great look for Chase to essentially say, “I should’ve been allowed to play because we never should’ve known that I was infected with COVID.”
I wish Chase Garbers the very best of luck in trying to get UC administrators to be transparent and account for what they did and are continuing to do regarding COVID protocols for the football team, not because they're conspiring against Cal football but because their protocols sound arbitrary and the way they communicate, if Garbers is being truthful, is imperious.
For me the core part of this is that Garbers and the athletes apparently don't think the Covid policy was clearly communicated to them and now feel tricked. The question now becomes, why do they think that?
Maybe it's just sour grapes about being forced to sit out a game, but given some of the outside reporting by Jon Wilner, Larry Beil, etc., there is also reason to think there's something else going on here too. Failures of communication. That's what I'd want to know about.
This whole thing sounds worse than the advice I got from L&S counselors
There seems to be two different factors. Are the players mad at lack of communication? Or are they mad they couldn't play?
Bequette seems to be mad that he couldn't play because he tested positive.
Wilcox seems to be mad at lack of communication.
What is Chase mad at? What are the fans mad at?
Mandated or not, had they tested negative they would have played, right? If they tested positive I don’t see why they would think they were duped or why they should be entitled to travel or play.
When bureaucracies collide...
Has the university or City said anything? Because people are just going to get more upset as things trickle out.
Mettauer weighs in, claims that the Health Department only demanded the football players be tested and not other students.
https://twitter.com/Mckade64/status/1458164360740630533
Might be getting to the basis for the claim that CoB was unfairly targeting Cal Football. Again, if this is accurate.
The silence is deafening. Where the hell is Knowlton?
Great leadership from Chase. The players deserve answers and transparency about the process they’re being held to. Anything short of that is a complete failure of the administration.
Does anybody know when we'll have a sense of how many players (in particular starters) will be missing for the USC game due to COVID? I hate to sound so self-centered, but I really don't feel like going through the same ordeal as last week, but with the added frustration of the 6 hours of travel and logistics that go along with attending in person (for my family). I have better things to do with my time...
Any chance we'll know by Thursday or Friday?
If CG comes to the conclusion that he is not ready for the League next year and needs one more year of seasoning, based on his tweet I'm guessing he will transfer out. I suspect other student-athletes (not just football players) will transfer as well. When you have a lack of direction, clarity, and communication from your leadership group trust is broken. That trust is rarely if ever regained. I picture the mass migrations on the plains of the Serengeti as athletes and students flee Cal. Knowlton is a putz. Greater than a week into this and still nada from the AD office. WTF is wrong with Cal??
From Chase's tweet, it doesn't seem like he knows exactly what his rights are. I don't know what his rights here are either, but then I'm not trying to play Cal football.