The communication is terrible to an incompetent degree here. I completely understand why a positive test would keep a player off the field. But he's right that "shoulds" aren't "musts." And right now the Uni and City have silently left the players to take full responsibility for the debacle instead of admitting to their own roles. The players certainly aren't blameless but they're not alone.
Well I think it is the AD, athletic department and university that owes them an explanation. Chase and all these athletes aren’t the students and student athletes of CoB. My employer follows the County of San Diego guidelines for testing, when questions arise about testing and quarantining I don’t expect an answer from the county, I expect it from my employer.
Agree, the University is fumbling this more than a rec squad running back. The City owes its explanation to the public (which would include the university).
It's odd that they're both being silent instead of blaming each other, though maybe they're just treating it like a prisoner's dilemma.
The CoN silence I can understand. They probably feel like this is a university matter and if they want to speak on it they can. Imagine if this were Target, would the city release a statement about quarantining 24 Target employees due to them testing positive? Perhaps if it were Black Friday but otherwise, absolutely not.
I get it, but they're a single-city health department dealing with their main industry (the university). I'd understand if the State of California doesn't comment but I don't see Berkeley itself ducking this responsibility.
This is a total clusterfuck, Chase and Josh specifically call out UHS while Luc specifically calls out CoB. So, even with members of the team that presumably were, in the "meetings" this week, there is confusion.
It sounds to me like the confusion is with the AD. As was suggested elsewhere in these comments, the players do what they are told by their coaches, who do what they are told by the AD, who does what he is told by CoB/Chancellor. The fact that we have not heard anything from the AD suggests to me that either the Athletic Department fucked this up or that they are not getting clarity from the CoB. Either way, not good.
Luc Bequette also chiming in further down Garbers' thread, saying that Cal is following more stringent standards than any other school, that others don't test nearly as much.
I'm guessing this is the big sticking point: other schools aren't testing vaccinated players, but Cal insisted upon it (maybe due to pressure from the City of Berkeley).
I just read Bequette's tweets. He seems to say the same thing as Chase. If they don't test, they would never have found positive cases and they would have played. If that's their point, I can't support it. (Not that anyone cares about my opinions)
Maybe other schools don't test as often as Cal, but Chase had covid, and this strict testing policy was able to detect Covid outbreak that might have been missed, so I think that is a good thing. If he's negative and couldn't play, I understand his frustration but if he was positive and didn't play, then I don't know what he's mad at. If there's more to the story, I would like to know, but from Chase's tweets, it doesn't reveal anything else. I would like to know what Josh Drayden is referring to.
How do we know he had Covid? Maybe initial tests were false positives and/or testing was not properly calibrated? All reports are that multiple subsequent tests were negative.
I don't. But I am talking about his tweet. He said he was forced to take the test and held out of team activities. If he was negative, wouldn't he complain about it? That he was negative and was not allowed to travel. Instead, they are only complaining about how they had to take a test. I want to know more details too.
I find it hard to believe that Cal has been more stringent with testing throughout the season and never had a case and then all of a sudden 24 players tested positive this week.
I am willing to bet that Cal football hasn’t been testing any players unless they show symptoms. Last week a few players showed some symptoms and were tested and came back positive. Now it triggered further testing and they found many asymptomatic positives. I am willing to concede that other programs may not have casted as wide a net in terms of testing and may not test as many players who aren’t showing symptoms.
My guess is that the OSU win combined with Halloween weekend led the players to go to parties, which led to exposure. Not unreasonable, but perhaps a bit irresponsible from a COVID prevention standpoint.
Yes, my guess is that other programs are not testing vaccinated players without symptoms, but Cal and/or City of Berkeley insisted. Perhaps after originally making vaccinated players think they wouldn't have to be (that's my guess about why they feel like UHS moved the goal posts on them).
Just in thinking about the policy itself, I think there is a good argument that you don't really need to test asymptomatic vaccinated people, and also a good argument that even if you do get a positive result it should be overridden by two negative results after that (seems to me that shows that the individual is no longer contagious).
I know it is just my pure speculation but I just bet Chase is part of the 1% of unvaccinated players. He is a QB, he is from Orange County, and he tweeted this statement out. The only thing shocking is he didn’t it with a LGB.
You can take Chase out of Orange County, but you can't take Orange County out of Chase.
This pandemic is not over. The risky behavior by these players is apalling. The lack of guidance and leadership from the coaching staff is damning. These players knew the consequences prior to the beginning of the season, yet they allowed their own selfishness and self-absorption to win the day for them.
By directing their ire at everyone else other than themselves, the refusal of these players to take personal responsibility for their actions speaks volumes about the character of this team.
Uh, I would encourage people not to assume things about Chase Garbers' vaccination status based solely on where he's from. If 99% of the team is vaccinated, chances are he is as well.
You also have no idea what the players' behavior has been. What's with all the jumping to conclusions here?
Well that's just assumption too. We don't know what has really happened other than that players had to take "unnecessary" test and many came out positive. Did they follow it with negative results? Did they go out and party? What is the "lack of guidance or lack of communication" they speak about?
Have you listened to the whole Pat McAfee interview with Rodgers, instead of just a 30-second sound bite? I think Rodgers could have been more forthcoming with the public, but his teammates all knew he wasn't vaccinated. He made a lot of valid points as to why he didn't get the jab, and although I chose to get vaccinated, I do not fault him in the least for doing what he thought was right for him.
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.
What?! What's interesting is that he says UHS told him this, though only the City would even theoretically have the power to follow through. It's possible that someone at UHS is VERY confused or that Luc misinterpreted it, but it does not sound like UHS was very clear, forthright, or knowledgeable when discussing with players.
No idea what he's trying to say about the Walgreens thing.
He also writes " If I understand correctly, I can go to San Francisco, steal a bunch of items in a Walgreens, and not be arrested. " Saying things like that loses credibility though because that's obviously not true.
I don't expect him to have super nuanced knowledge about that. Probably just saw some news about Walgreens closing stores in SF because of so much shoplifting.
More relevant is his direct experience. If that happened that's a big problem.
Want to be clear that by "special population" I don't mean the stupid "they're healthy young people" argument. I'm referring to their 99% vaccinated status in the context as being semi-isolated in a surrounding community with relatively high vaccination and low viral prevalence. That really does set you up for a lot of false positives if your test is calibrated to be too sensitive/not specific enough for a non-representative population. Of course, it's normally silly to adjust the test to every population. The judgment is folded into the interpretation and policy.
Yea it seems like CoB testing policy seems to trump the Pac 12 testing policy where:
"Fully vaccinated (to COVID-19) individuals:
No surveillance testing required (except as indicated in the Sustained Increased
Transmission section below)."
The thing is and what I think players like Garbers and bequette are PISSED about is how they got to the sustained increased transmission testing regimen, or even an enhanced CoB testing protocol, and a lack of explanation within that. That's really all I got but no matter what it is a shitshow.
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 agree, his tweet was poorly written. Had he confirmed his results: initially +, with 2 tests -, and asymptomatic, his tweet would have more relevance. He did not take full advantage of his tweet that is for sure.
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.
Or maybe the players and everyone got a bit lose with the protocols. They figured they had made it 3 months without any issues. Whatever the Covid protocols were seemed to have worked just fine for the first 8 games of the season.
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.
And also this talk about CoB changing policy at the last minute and failing to communicate. I still haven't found the answer to what policy changed on the fly.
Putting our mind in an 17 - 22 year-old mind frame, I believe Chase among others are thinking: "I initially tested +, subsequent tests were -, I feel great (asymptomatic) and there is no reason for me to keep testing or not play."
I really do not think that Chase or any player testing + and symptomatic is crying foul. Rather it is the players (majority??) that are asymptomatic that are pissed off. If that is the case, I don't blame them.
That's my thought as well. I'd also add to this that they are almost all vaccinated, so adding to the thought process would be: "I did my part and got the shot, and I'm still being restricted from doing what I want to do. This sucks!"
I kind of hope this leads to a re-evaluation of the COVID policy. Regardless of what the letter of the law is, my thinking is that a player who is vaccinated, asymptomatic, and has had a positive test followed by two negative ones is not really a risk for spreading the disease. It also seems like other schools besides Cal see it this way too, which adds to the feeling of unfairness among our players.
The real story is what exactly was done (or not done) in response to the subsequent negative tests, not the fact that testing found positive cases in the first place. Like you say, vaccinated + asymptomatic + multiple negative tests seems like it should be enough to play. What’s strange is that the players seem to be focused on the first round of testing that discovered the outbreak.
Absolutely, that’s very possible. What I meant was, the questions we really need answered are:
How many of the players who initially tested positive later tested negative?
If they tested negative multiple times, why weren’t they allowed to play? Was that a policy that was already in place and that was communicated to the team?
Yeah, I would like to know too. And I hope someone releases a statement about it so that we have all the facts straight. Too many assumptions and myths floating around right now and not sure why or what the fans or players are mad at.
Maybe, though Larry Beil reported that some players had delivered 2 negative tests and that the city would not accept them. I believe he was relaying claims from players/parents, so maybe they're wrong.
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.
It's a really high positive rate for a 99% vaxxed population with low community prevalence. Coupled with reports of subsequent negative tests (that weren't accepted), it makes me wonder if the testing got screwed up.
Avi had said elsewhere that the positives were symptomatic (thus negating this theory) but I haven't heard confirmation of that.
There were SOME players showing symptoms. It's not clear that all of the players who got positive tests were showing symptoms (I'd bet most of them weren't).
That's what my understanding is too. It would be helpful to know the symptomatology and vaccination status of each case (in aggregate and anonymous, even).
Truth. Large, well-functioning organizations do exist but they don't typically earn the "bureaucracy" monicker. If disaster strikes and the reaction is to avoid blame instead of engaging with the issue, then it's clear which group you're dealing with.
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...
There should be some clarity (one would hope) at today's presser with Wilcox. That said, the beat writers need to ask the important questions, which they never do.
For example:
How many players tested + and were symptomatic?
How many players tested +, subsequently were tested -, and were asymptomatic? Of this cohort, will any of them be cleared to play this week?
Note this does not ask for names of players, just statistics. Hopefully one beat writer will have the cajones to ask some fucking questions. Granted Wilcox likely won't answer, but if he chooses NOT to provide stats then he should just STFU and stop acting all pissed off.
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??
Chase Garbers isn’t an NFL QB. I imagine he will transfer out. He has already been at Cal for 6 years so it isn’t like Wilcox and staff haven’t had enough time to find and groom a replacement.
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...
I don't disagree with Chase's stance here though. The team deserves more transparent answers that they're allegedly not getting.
The communication is terrible to an incompetent degree here. I completely understand why a positive test would keep a player off the field. But he's right that "shoulds" aren't "musts." And right now the Uni and City have silently left the players to take full responsibility for the debacle instead of admitting to their own roles. The players certainly aren't blameless but they're not alone.
Well I think it is the AD, athletic department and university that owes them an explanation. Chase and all these athletes aren’t the students and student athletes of CoB. My employer follows the County of San Diego guidelines for testing, when questions arise about testing and quarantining I don’t expect an answer from the county, I expect it from my employer.
Agree, the University is fumbling this more than a rec squad running back. The City owes its explanation to the public (which would include the university).
It's odd that they're both being silent instead of blaming each other, though maybe they're just treating it like a prisoner's dilemma.
The CoN silence I can understand. They probably feel like this is a university matter and if they want to speak on it they can. Imagine if this were Target, would the city release a statement about quarantining 24 Target employees due to them testing positive? Perhaps if it were Black Friday but otherwise, absolutely not.
I get it, but they're a single-city health department dealing with their main industry (the university). I'd understand if the State of California doesn't comment but I don't see Berkeley itself ducking this responsibility.
Our current and former quarterbacks are letting us down lately.
Worth noting that it's not just Garbers who said something. Josh Drayden also tweeted: "UHS even admitted to moving the goalpost on us last week"
https://twitter.com/RealJoshDrayden/status/1457920783326400515
I think something more is going on here than just players being entitled or whiny.
This is a total clusterfuck, Chase and Josh specifically call out UHS while Luc specifically calls out CoB. So, even with members of the team that presumably were, in the "meetings" this week, there is confusion.
It sounds to me like the confusion is with the AD. As was suggested elsewhere in these comments, the players do what they are told by their coaches, who do what they are told by the AD, who does what he is told by CoB/Chancellor. The fact that we have not heard anything from the AD suggests to me that either the Athletic Department fucked this up or that they are not getting clarity from the CoB. Either way, not good.
Luc Bequette also chiming in further down Garbers' thread, saying that Cal is following more stringent standards than any other school, that others don't test nearly as much.
https://twitter.com/LucBequette/status/1457953453368438785
I'm guessing this is the big sticking point: other schools aren't testing vaccinated players, but Cal insisted upon it (maybe due to pressure from the City of Berkeley).
I just read Bequette's tweets. He seems to say the same thing as Chase. If they don't test, they would never have found positive cases and they would have played. If that's their point, I can't support it. (Not that anyone cares about my opinions)
Maybe other schools don't test as often as Cal, but Chase had covid, and this strict testing policy was able to detect Covid outbreak that might have been missed, so I think that is a good thing. If he's negative and couldn't play, I understand his frustration but if he was positive and didn't play, then I don't know what he's mad at. If there's more to the story, I would like to know, but from Chase's tweets, it doesn't reveal anything else. I would like to know what Josh Drayden is referring to.
How do we know he had Covid? Maybe initial tests were false positives and/or testing was not properly calibrated? All reports are that multiple subsequent tests were negative.
I don't. But I am talking about his tweet. He said he was forced to take the test and held out of team activities. If he was negative, wouldn't he complain about it? That he was negative and was not allowed to travel. Instead, they are only complaining about how they had to take a test. I want to know more details too.
I find it hard to believe that Cal has been more stringent with testing throughout the season and never had a case and then all of a sudden 24 players tested positive this week.
I am willing to bet that Cal football hasn’t been testing any players unless they show symptoms. Last week a few players showed some symptoms and were tested and came back positive. Now it triggered further testing and they found many asymptomatic positives. I am willing to concede that other programs may not have casted as wide a net in terms of testing and may not test as many players who aren’t showing symptoms.
My guess is that the OSU win combined with Halloween weekend led the players to go to parties, which led to exposure. Not unreasonable, but perhaps a bit irresponsible from a COVID prevention standpoint.
Yes, my guess is that other programs are not testing vaccinated players without symptoms, but Cal and/or City of Berkeley insisted. Perhaps after originally making vaccinated players think they wouldn't have to be (that's my guess about why they feel like UHS moved the goal posts on them).
Just in thinking about the policy itself, I think there is a good argument that you don't really need to test asymptomatic vaccinated people, and also a good argument that even if you do get a positive result it should be overridden by two negative results after that (seems to me that shows that the individual is no longer contagious).
I know it is just my pure speculation but I just bet Chase is part of the 1% of unvaccinated players. He is a QB, he is from Orange County, and he tweeted this statement out. The only thing shocking is he didn’t it with a LGB.
You can take Chase out of Orange County, but you can't take Orange County out of Chase.
This pandemic is not over. The risky behavior by these players is apalling. The lack of guidance and leadership from the coaching staff is damning. These players knew the consequences prior to the beginning of the season, yet they allowed their own selfishness and self-absorption to win the day for them.
By directing their ire at everyone else other than themselves, the refusal of these players to take personal responsibility for their actions speaks volumes about the character of this team.
Uh, I would encourage people not to assume things about Chase Garbers' vaccination status based solely on where he's from. If 99% of the team is vaccinated, chances are he is as well.
You also have no idea what the players' behavior has been. What's with all the jumping to conclusions here?
Well that's just assumption too. We don't know what has really happened other than that players had to take "unnecessary" test and many came out positive. Did they follow it with negative results? Did they go out and party? What is the "lack of guidance or lack of communication" they speak about?
They're following the lead of the name on the locker room wall.
I hope Jared Goff doesn't say anything stupid. I'm sure he has a lot of frustrations going on now.
Have you listened to the whole Pat McAfee interview with Rodgers, instead of just a 30-second sound bite? I think Rodgers could have been more forthcoming with the public, but his teammates all knew he wasn't vaccinated. He made a lot of valid points as to why he didn't get the jab, and although I chose to get vaccinated, I do not fault him in the least for doing what he thought was right for him.
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.
Now Luc says that UHS told the players they could be arrested for not testing? What?
https://twitter.com/LucBequette/status/1458142012872425473
If that's true then I 100% understand why the players are pissed.
What?! What's interesting is that he says UHS told him this, though only the City would even theoretically have the power to follow through. It's possible that someone at UHS is VERY confused or that Luc misinterpreted it, but it does not sound like UHS was very clear, forthright, or knowledgeable when discussing with players.
No idea what he's trying to say about the Walgreens thing.
This article kind of lays out the Walgreens thing.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/More-than-meets-the-eye-to-Walgreens-S-F-16555962.php
He also writes " If I understand correctly, I can go to San Francisco, steal a bunch of items in a Walgreens, and not be arrested. " Saying things like that loses credibility though because that's obviously not true.
I don't expect him to have super nuanced knowledge about that. Probably just saw some news about Walgreens closing stores in SF because of so much shoplifting.
More relevant is his direct experience. If that happened that's a big problem.
Want to be clear that by "special population" I don't mean the stupid "they're healthy young people" argument. I'm referring to their 99% vaccinated status in the context as being semi-isolated in a surrounding community with relatively high vaccination and low viral prevalence. That really does set you up for a lot of false positives if your test is calibrated to be too sensitive/not specific enough for a non-representative population. Of course, it's normally silly to adjust the test to every population. The judgment is folded into the interpretation and policy.
Yea it seems like CoB testing policy seems to trump the Pac 12 testing policy where:
"Fully vaccinated (to COVID-19) individuals:
No surveillance testing required (except as indicated in the Sustained Increased
Transmission section below)."
The thing is and what I think players like Garbers and bequette are PISSED about is how they got to the sustained increased transmission testing regimen, or even an enhanced CoB testing protocol, and a lack of explanation within that. That's really all I got but no matter what it is a shitshow.
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 agree, his tweet was poorly written. Had he confirmed his results: initially +, with 2 tests -, and asymptomatic, his tweet would have more relevance. He did not take full advantage of his tweet that is for sure.
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.
Or maybe the players and everyone got a bit lose with the protocols. They figured they had made it 3 months without any issues. Whatever the Covid protocols were seemed to have worked just fine for the first 8 games of the season.
I think the tweet isn't about the protocols but communication.
Maybe with his tweet, it will make national news and force the university, Knowlton, and CoB to speak up about it.
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.
And also this talk about CoB changing policy at the last minute and failing to communicate. I still haven't found the answer to what policy changed on the fly.
Putting our mind in an 17 - 22 year-old mind frame, I believe Chase among others are thinking: "I initially tested +, subsequent tests were -, I feel great (asymptomatic) and there is no reason for me to keep testing or not play."
I really do not think that Chase or any player testing + and symptomatic is crying foul. Rather it is the players (majority??) that are asymptomatic that are pissed off. If that is the case, I don't blame them.
That's my thought as well. I'd also add to this that they are almost all vaccinated, so adding to the thought process would be: "I did my part and got the shot, and I'm still being restricted from doing what I want to do. This sucks!"
I kind of hope this leads to a re-evaluation of the COVID policy. Regardless of what the letter of the law is, my thinking is that a player who is vaccinated, asymptomatic, and has had a positive test followed by two negative ones is not really a risk for spreading the disease. It also seems like other schools besides Cal see it this way too, which adds to the feeling of unfairness among our players.
The real story is what exactly was done (or not done) in response to the subsequent negative tests, not the fact that testing found positive cases in the first place. Like you say, vaccinated + asymptomatic + multiple negative tests seems like it should be enough to play. What’s strange is that the players seem to be focused on the first round of testing that discovered the outbreak.
maybe there were no subsequent negative results (2)?
Absolutely, that’s very possible. What I meant was, the questions we really need answered are:
How many of the players who initially tested positive later tested negative?
If they tested negative multiple times, why weren’t they allowed to play? Was that a policy that was already in place and that was communicated to the team?
Yeah, I would like to know too. And I hope someone releases a statement about it so that we have all the facts straight. Too many assumptions and myths floating around right now and not sure why or what the fans or players are mad at.
Maybe, though Larry Beil reported that some players had delivered 2 negative tests and that the city would not accept them. I believe he was relaying claims from players/parents, so maybe they're wrong.
Well if there are negative results for some players, including Chase, then I will be happy to be wrong and love to see them play this week
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.
It's a really high positive rate for a 99% vaxxed population with low community prevalence. Coupled with reports of subsequent negative tests (that weren't accepted), it makes me wonder if the testing got screwed up.
Avi had said elsewhere that the positives were symptomatic (thus negating this theory) but I haven't heard confirmation of that.
There were SOME players showing symptoms. It's not clear that all of the players who got positive tests were showing symptoms (I'd bet most of them weren't).
That's what my understanding is too. It would be helpful to know the symptomatology and vaccination status of each case (in aggregate and anonymous, even).
That's exactly what I don't understand either.
When bureaucracies collide...
Has the university or City said anything? Because people are just going to get more upset as things trickle out.
This is how bureaucracies "work." Communication? Sharing information? How would thr fiefdoms that exist sustain themselves if they did that?
Truth. Large, well-functioning organizations do exist but they don't typically earn the "bureaucracy" monicker. If disaster strikes and the reaction is to avoid blame instead of engaging with the issue, then it's clear which group you're dealing with.
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?
There should be some clarity (one would hope) at today's presser with Wilcox. That said, the beat writers need to ask the important questions, which they never do.
For example:
How many players tested + and were symptomatic?
How many players tested +, subsequently were tested -, and were asymptomatic? Of this cohort, will any of them be cleared to play this week?
Note this does not ask for names of players, just statistics. Hopefully one beat writer will have the cajones to ask some fucking questions. Granted Wilcox likely won't answer, but if he chooses NOT to provide stats then he should just STFU and stop acting all pissed off.
The university or the football team has never answered these types of questions, always citing federal and state student privacy laws.
Also ask, of the 24 players and 12 coaches:
How many were detected last Monday?
How many were detected last Tuesday?
How many were detected last Wednesday?
How many were detected last Thursday?
How many were detected last Friday?
This will give fans and the public an idea of who may be back w/o revealing names.
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??
Chase Garbers isn’t an NFL QB. I imagine he will transfer out. He has already been at Cal for 6 years so it isn’t like Wilcox and staff haven’t had enough time to find and groom a replacement.
I get that but for CG it is still his dream and what he is thriving for. But your mind in his mind, mate.
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.