Changing public policy on the fly despite no medium term factors changing is bad public policy. Sows distrust in people because it communicates that regardless of what is written executive can change implementation on a whim.
How does the city of Berkeley have authority to prevent its residents from traveling?
I can see how they might legally be able to shut down a game at Memorial, but forced lockdowns of citizens who have multiple negative tests? Complete bullshit; Knowlton should have pulled an Elon Musk and told the city to fuck off.
Shocking that Knowlton is not front and center of this. WTF are we paying him for? He has to know all that transpired and should be able to speak to the facts by now!! If CoB actually did this, it is Knowlton that should be supporting/defending the players and yet nada. He is not a leader.
Agreed, it doesn’t make sense. Surely he could come out and say “X number of players tested positive early in the week. Of those X players, Y number of players were able to provide multiple negative tests before travel time.” He could then explain why (was it City of Berkeley intervening?) those Y players couldn’t play. This would clear up a LOT of confusion regarding the circumstances of this mess. And I don’t see how a statement like that would violate any privacy laws or policies.
Yes. He mentioned hypothetical "break through" cases prior to their game. Either that or even he doesn't yet understand what happened but then he should say that or that they're working with the Health Department to get clarification, to understand the protocols, etc. What I don't understand is WHY the university administrators are not doing their jobs of at least communicating "out" to the public. This is not above their pay grade.
I had to listen to radio broadcast and Knowlton came on at halftime and in pure "Knowlton Notes" form painted rosy picture of the day and future. As long as he's our AD merely scraping by will always be the benchmark. Fire him and hire Tedford.
Ironically, seeing how stringent the City is acting with regard to COVID protocols, I’d likely feel safer there than most other places in California right now, especially given the slowly rising rates of transmission across the board.
But more importantly, no one made those kids attend that now-infamous Halloween party. When all is said and done, it’s failure of the football team and the coaching staff to keep the main thing, the main thing.
And as a result of that lack of leadership, COVID decided to tell the whole damn world it had arrived in Bear Territory. 🤦🏽♂️
Just a reminder that a negative test does not mean you do not have the coronavirus in your system. It means the test could not *detect* the virus. It's absolutely possible to test negative multiple times and still have the virus in your system.
It's also absolutely a possibility that there was a testing error in the 24 positives given how high our vaccination rate allegedly is. I would hope that it was requested to directly retest those samples given how unlikely it is to have 24 positives among a group with 99% vaccination rate.
If they had a real positive and contact tracing led to 23 other individuals, then quarantining is the right call if your priorities are to minimize the spread of the virus.
At a certain point, we have to decide whether or not we are playing football. Playing football doesn’t seem to be compatible with the most aggressive interpretation of quarantining. There are ways to have it safe (like using negative test results) that, while imperfect, still allow the possibility of playing.
I think what I found most striking was the author's recognition that there is an absence of goals or maybe benchmarks to guide policy. What exactly is the city of Berkeley trying to do? Prevent infection? Disease? (as Leland notes, those are distinct) Hospitalizations? Deaths? That and the fact that these are primarily social and political questions, not scientific ones. Obviously, the city of Berkeley is not alone here, and as the article points out, there is still the unknown of long term COVID-19.
Probably many of us have been carriers of the virus without knowing it. This is an argument for vaccination where there is good evidence that the viral load of an infection is significantly less, masking, and quarantining-but maybe not 10 days from a positive test.
Let's assume all 36 tested positive in a cohort of 99% vaxed, a second test should be mandatory to confirm the validity of the first test. A second and perhaps 3rd test was given and apparently some tested negative. If it was a majority than perhaps the first test was somehow faulty, similar to what happened to 'furd last year. Their test turned out to be faulty.
If you're asymptomatic and vaccinated, though, aren't the chances of transmitting the virus to other people quite low? A negative test would seem to drive that possibility even lower, right? I assume that means that the virus might still be in you, but the viral load has diminished to the point where the test can't pick it up.
If COVID-19 is going to become endemic (which seems like a near certainty at this point) then we need public policy to recognize that some people might get the virus but be no danger to others because their immune system now knows how to knock it out quickly.
Ugh, I was going through the regulations and wondering how this happened, but it's just moving goalposts by the city of Berkeley - this will be a big recruiting point other teams will use against Cal. Just crazy.
We need some more details, but if Larry Beil is saying it live on the air then it's likely there's something legitimate to the story.
If City of Berkeley really refused two negative tests from a vaccinated, asymptomatic individual, then that is a ridiculous overreach and should be called out publicly. I'm really bothered by this as a pretty left-leaning person politically, because this kind of thing just feeds all the negative stereotypes about the "liberal Bay Area" and how poorly it's run. I cannot fathom why you wouldn't allow a healthy, vaccinated young person to travel after they've tested negative for COVID.
When I say my prayers I offer thanks to the Lord for all my blessings; those I know about and those I don’t. In this case we will never know if this abundance of caution - “fair” or not - spared the life or health of someone out there in Travel Land. I’m grateful we fielded a team and didn’t forfeit. I’m grateful for the kids who got game experience. I’m grateful we took it like adults and am willing to let this loss slip into the ocean of perspective when compared to what’s truly most important.
Yeah, this whole ordeal is really showing that the fans take college football far more seriously than I do. A lot of people are putting a game during a lost season above public health.
With all due respect, Leland, you are entitled to your opinion on the extent and efficacy of the City of Berkeley’s response to this issue...as a journalist, I would hope that while you may disagree with others that hold different opinions on the CoB’s response, you would nonetheless respect them. After back to back wins, this season was not, for all intents and purposes, lost until the final whistle yesterday, tho who knows, maybe they surprise...emotions were clearly running high, though, especially after a disastrous 2020 and loftier expectations for this season.
I would say a majority of the posters, subscribers and followers of this site take Cal football rather seriously...apparently more serious than you, by your own admission, which is totally fine...your work is fantastic, regardless of your level of devotion. Though he’ll probably be furious at me for dragging his handle into this Gaylord-M-Focker-from-the-airport-interrogation-scene-type MESS, Newellbany and I have been attending games for 40 years....countless others have as well, plus alumni, and their families and friends, etc...they should be able to be vocal in their disappointment with both the program and the stringently unique, seemingly unmatched, reaction by the local bureaucracy. Just because portions of the fan base are both frustrated and passionate does not mean they value a game above public health, however...the two are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think the CoB’s messy handling of this situation was laughable and irrevocably damages the perception of the football program on a national scale...but that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, right? Unfortunately, this is one of MANY contributing factors that makes Cal, to use your way-too-accurate observation, irrelevant to the rest of the country....sigh. You’re absolutely right - they are. But public perception IS important, and it does matter...who knows, with fewer PR nightmares like the one from this past week, maybe that 2004 team garners enough national support and makes the Rose Bowl, which is a dream of EVERY Cal fan. As such, fans can and do disagree on whether the CoB’s response was warranted or not...that’s an example of what makes this board its own little community.
On a personal note, I want to reiterate that I for one enjoy and appreciate all of the work that you and the rest of the W4C writers do on a daily basis to make this board THE place to go for Cal sports news. I meant no disrespect to you yesterday when I shortened your name, and am grateful to Rob for calling me on it - any personal slight was both regretful and unintended. I don’t apologize for being a passionate and disappointed Cal sports fan, however, and that is a bond many of us on this site share, for better or for worse...sacman called me an idiot yesterday for questioning Wilcox’s coaching acumen, but at the end of the day, while we may disagree on how to express frustration with JW, we nonetheless share a strong mutual interest in the Bears that’s forged by years of gridiron peaks and valleys, and there’s no hard feelings...at least I hope...sigh, again.
In the meantime, like so many on this site, I look forward to reading your continued work, and hope to hoist a carbonated beverage with you this Saturday at the pre-game tailgate. Beat SC.
AND, after reading the latest, it doesn't sound like the City of Berkeley is actually all that outlandish with it's COVID policy, so plenty of questions still need to be answered.....nothing to see here!!! HA - yikes!
I think a lot of the frustration is that I'm not exactly sure who these protocols are supposed to be protecting anymore.
1. The unvaccinated? - They chose to not be vaccinated, why should someone else suffer for their decisions?
2. The fellow athletes? - Statistics show that complications in 18 - 23 year olds in good health and that are vaccinated is incredibly and ridiculously rare. Playing football is probably a greater risk than complications from Covid if they are vaccinated and in good health.
3. Young children? Again statistics have shown that complications from Covid in young children is extremely rare.
4. The extremely rare instance where someone is immunocompromised and can't receive the vaccine?
Covid isn't an unknown disease anymore, its been studied, remedies and treatments have been developed, vaccines have been developed between 96% and 98% of new cases, hospitalizations and deaths are in the unvaccinated. That means Covid is overwhelmingly impacting unvaccinated, and those that are unvaccinated, choose to be unvaccinated. Why should the vaccinated be burdened by the decisions of the unvaccinated? If they want to take that risk, its on them, I shouldn't have to suffer because of their decisions.
With regards to this instance, the City of Berkeley decisions don't make sense and illustrate the underlying frustration of being continuing to be burdened by the additional rules when its not clear who exactly is at risk other than those who chose to not be vaccinated. If the players are vaccinated and have multiple negative tests and they are going to come in contact with non-vulnerable populations (other athletes), who exactly is being protected? Is the fear that they might spread it to someone who will spread it to someone else who is unvaccinated? Again, that is their choice to be unvaccinated. Is the fear hey come in contact with children, because they are not a vulnerable population. What exactly is the fear driving the quarantining of vaccinated people who have received negative tests?
It made sense for a lot of these protocols in 2020 before the research, treatments and vaccines, but it doesn't make a lot of sense now.
Each of the players has friends, families, and parents, and preventing infections & outbreaks has to be a priority.
I disagree with your characterization of immunocompromised people who can't vaccinate, or aren't protected by it, as "extremely rare". There are a lot of people who are in chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It's pretty common. Removing all the restrictions puts them, and many others, at extreme risk.
Exactly, this game isn’t the reason Cal isn’t going to the Rose Bowl or probably even a generic bowl game. People are using this game as an excuse for a lost season, while conveniently sweeping under the rug our 1-5 start.
If Cal and Wilcox wanted to end up having a successful season, they probably shouldn’t have started the season 1-5. That’s what made this season a lost and unsuccessful season and has results in players de- committing.
To me that is immaterial. If CoB is enforcing rules arbitrarily and unfairly punishing the Cal Football team then that should be called out regardless of what the team's record is.
Do we trust or know that this team is actually 99% vaccinated or are the 99% wink and a nod “Rodgers” vaccinated?
If some players got the moderna or Pfizer shot, did they follow up and the get the second shot? Have any players gotten some sort of exemption waiver? Also, because they exist, have some players gotten fake and turned in fake vaccine cards?
If you're vaccinated, then a record of your vaccination resides with the California Dept. of Public Health (CDPH). I am able to retrieve a QR code from CDPH that also shows my vaccination record.
The Athletic Dept. should require its student athletes to verify vaccination status as a condition of being on the roster of a sponsored team. It's a matter of workplace health and safety, pure and simple.
The CAIR database isn't perfect but the mistakes would err significantly toward omitting a dose rather than having fraudulent doses documented. If doses were obtained out of state then they might not be shown until someone adds them based on the card.
The lack of a national db makes forgery possible but the most likely scenario is that everyone actually is vaccinated.
I really wish we could get a very clear description of what happened and why. I really can't begrudge fully vaccinated students from attending the social events they've been deprived of.
Bureaucracies tend to opt for the strictest interpretations possible. When bureaucracies collide (UC and City of Berkeley), it's not always clear who did what, though we know toward which direction they err.
All that matters to me now is who can play vs. U$C. I will not even take my sons to the game and sit in our seats if we are missing all these starters and coaches. We will spend the day out at Point Reyes or some other Bay Area wild place, despite wanting nothing more than to see my Bears battle $C on fair grounds.
This should be an absolute scandal, but it won’t be, and that fact will be one of the most effective recruiting tools against us, for players and coaches.
It isn’t like recruiting was going well before this. I think the 1-5 start and the likely losing season will be a more effective recruiting tool against us.
Have you not watched the past 2 games?! They finally got into the rhythm after beating Oregon state which is ranked 5th in the pac 12. Arizona would have made it a 3 game winning streak if they had all their starters. That means they would have only had to win 2 more games to make it to the bowl game. We’d be tied for 3rd if The City of Berkeley didn’t screw those players over…
True and that will/would certainly help. My comment is more about the recruits we have lost through the first 8 games. We have lost our two RBs commitments, QB commit and a DL commit. That was all before this Covid outbreak issue.
But this adds the argument about institutional apathy and a systemically adversarial relationship with local authorities. It means that the argument isn’t just “oh they really aren’t executing well there”, it becomes “even if you are the best player to ever play, it won’t matter if you go there”.
Other teams won't have to work hard to point to the Berkeley buzzards circling CMS. Bears have already lost players to transfer, and probably recruits. If Wilcox stays it will demonstrate what a great man he is.
Changing public policy on the fly despite no medium term factors changing is bad public policy. Sows distrust in people because it communicates that regardless of what is written executive can change implementation on a whim.
This is incompetence on the part of the City of Berkeley. You don't make up policy "on the fly."
Since it’s Berkeley vs football tho, guess who wins
even if it's University vs football, University wins.
How does the city of Berkeley have authority to prevent its residents from traveling?
I can see how they might legally be able to shut down a game at Memorial, but forced lockdowns of citizens who have multiple negative tests? Complete bullshit; Knowlton should have pulled an Elon Musk and told the city to fuck off.
fire the city of berkeley
Shocking that Knowlton is not front and center of this. WTF are we paying him for? He has to know all that transpired and should be able to speak to the facts by now!! If CoB actually did this, it is Knowlton that should be supporting/defending the players and yet nada. He is not a leader.
Agreed, it doesn’t make sense. Surely he could come out and say “X number of players tested positive early in the week. Of those X players, Y number of players were able to provide multiple negative tests before travel time.” He could then explain why (was it City of Berkeley intervening?) those Y players couldn’t play. This would clear up a LOT of confusion regarding the circumstances of this mess. And I don’t see how a statement like that would violate any privacy laws or policies.
Yes. He mentioned hypothetical "break through" cases prior to their game. Either that or even he doesn't yet understand what happened but then he should say that or that they're working with the Health Department to get clarification, to understand the protocols, etc. What I don't understand is WHY the university administrators are not doing their jobs of at least communicating "out" to the public. This is not above their pay grade.
Lol administrators being proactive? That would take several exploratory committees to discuss.
Ad hoc ones. LOL
I had to listen to radio broadcast and Knowlton came on at halftime and in pure "Knowlton Notes" form painted rosy picture of the day and future. As long as he's our AD merely scraping by will always be the benchmark. Fire him and hire Tedford.
I agree completely. He's the AD.
Totally agree.
Yep
It's reason to be very upset. Once again the CofB screws over the university. Biting the hand that feeds it.
Somebody should start a change.org meme.
This is UFB!! CoB is so fucked up.
CoB still acting like it’s nerds vs jocks from 1969. Grow up, time has seriously passed that city by. The University deserves better.
Ironically, seeing how stringent the City is acting with regard to COVID protocols, I’d likely feel safer there than most other places in California right now, especially given the slowly rising rates of transmission across the board.
But more importantly, no one made those kids attend that now-infamous Halloween party. When all is said and done, it’s failure of the football team and the coaching staff to keep the main thing, the main thing.
And as a result of that lack of leadership, COVID decided to tell the whole damn world it had arrived in Bear Territory. 🤦🏽♂️
Did they attend a Halloween party? I saw people writing about it, and it's a possibility. But do we know that?
I doubt football players would attend a Halloween party during football season. Are there sources?
Ugh….
Just a reminder that a negative test does not mean you do not have the coronavirus in your system. It means the test could not *detect* the virus. It's absolutely possible to test negative multiple times and still have the virus in your system.
It's also absolutely a possibility that there was a testing error in the 24 positives given how high our vaccination rate allegedly is. I would hope that it was requested to directly retest those samples given how unlikely it is to have 24 positives among a group with 99% vaccination rate.
If they had a real positive and contact tracing led to 23 other individuals, then quarantining is the right call if your priorities are to minimize the spread of the virus.
At a certain point, we have to decide whether or not we are playing football. Playing football doesn’t seem to be compatible with the most aggressive interpretation of quarantining. There are ways to have it safe (like using negative test results) that, while imperfect, still allow the possibility of playing.
The best article I've seen on COVID-19 recently is here: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/what-americas-covid-goal-now/620572/
I think what I found most striking was the author's recognition that there is an absence of goals or maybe benchmarks to guide policy. What exactly is the city of Berkeley trying to do? Prevent infection? Disease? (as Leland notes, those are distinct) Hospitalizations? Deaths? That and the fact that these are primarily social and political questions, not scientific ones. Obviously, the city of Berkeley is not alone here, and as the article points out, there is still the unknown of long term COVID-19.
Probably many of us have been carriers of the virus without knowing it. This is an argument for vaccination where there is good evidence that the viral load of an infection is significantly less, masking, and quarantining-but maybe not 10 days from a positive test.
Let's assume all 36 tested positive in a cohort of 99% vaxed, a second test should be mandatory to confirm the validity of the first test. A second and perhaps 3rd test was given and apparently some tested negative. If it was a majority than perhaps the first test was somehow faulty, similar to what happened to 'furd last year. Their test turned out to be faulty.
If you're asymptomatic and vaccinated, though, aren't the chances of transmitting the virus to other people quite low? A negative test would seem to drive that possibility even lower, right? I assume that means that the virus might still be in you, but the viral load has diminished to the point where the test can't pick it up.
If COVID-19 is going to become endemic (which seems like a near certainty at this point) then we need public policy to recognize that some people might get the virus but be no danger to others because their immune system now knows how to knock it out quickly.
Ugh, I was going through the regulations and wondering how this happened, but it's just moving goalposts by the city of Berkeley - this will be a big recruiting point other teams will use against Cal. Just crazy.
We need some more details, but if Larry Beil is saying it live on the air then it's likely there's something legitimate to the story.
If City of Berkeley really refused two negative tests from a vaccinated, asymptomatic individual, then that is a ridiculous overreach and should be called out publicly. I'm really bothered by this as a pretty left-leaning person politically, because this kind of thing just feeds all the negative stereotypes about the "liberal Bay Area" and how poorly it's run. I cannot fathom why you wouldn't allow a healthy, vaccinated young person to travel after they've tested negative for COVID.
So, lets get this straight. Vaxed football players who tested negative confined to CoB but untested immigrant refugees welcomed with open arms?
Great comment, really relevant to Cal football.
the latter part of your statement is irrelevant.
When I say my prayers I offer thanks to the Lord for all my blessings; those I know about and those I don’t. In this case we will never know if this abundance of caution - “fair” or not - spared the life or health of someone out there in Travel Land. I’m grateful we fielded a team and didn’t forfeit. I’m grateful for the kids who got game experience. I’m grateful we took it like adults and am willing to let this loss slip into the ocean of perspective when compared to what’s truly most important.
Yeah, this whole ordeal is really showing that the fans take college football far more seriously than I do. A lot of people are putting a game during a lost season above public health.
With all due respect, Leland, you are entitled to your opinion on the extent and efficacy of the City of Berkeley’s response to this issue...as a journalist, I would hope that while you may disagree with others that hold different opinions on the CoB’s response, you would nonetheless respect them. After back to back wins, this season was not, for all intents and purposes, lost until the final whistle yesterday, tho who knows, maybe they surprise...emotions were clearly running high, though, especially after a disastrous 2020 and loftier expectations for this season.
I would say a majority of the posters, subscribers and followers of this site take Cal football rather seriously...apparently more serious than you, by your own admission, which is totally fine...your work is fantastic, regardless of your level of devotion. Though he’ll probably be furious at me for dragging his handle into this Gaylord-M-Focker-from-the-airport-interrogation-scene-type MESS, Newellbany and I have been attending games for 40 years....countless others have as well, plus alumni, and their families and friends, etc...they should be able to be vocal in their disappointment with both the program and the stringently unique, seemingly unmatched, reaction by the local bureaucracy. Just because portions of the fan base are both frustrated and passionate does not mean they value a game above public health, however...the two are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think the CoB’s messy handling of this situation was laughable and irrevocably damages the perception of the football program on a national scale...but that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, right? Unfortunately, this is one of MANY contributing factors that makes Cal, to use your way-too-accurate observation, irrelevant to the rest of the country....sigh. You’re absolutely right - they are. But public perception IS important, and it does matter...who knows, with fewer PR nightmares like the one from this past week, maybe that 2004 team garners enough national support and makes the Rose Bowl, which is a dream of EVERY Cal fan. As such, fans can and do disagree on whether the CoB’s response was warranted or not...that’s an example of what makes this board its own little community.
On a personal note, I want to reiterate that I for one enjoy and appreciate all of the work that you and the rest of the W4C writers do on a daily basis to make this board THE place to go for Cal sports news. I meant no disrespect to you yesterday when I shortened your name, and am grateful to Rob for calling me on it - any personal slight was both regretful and unintended. I don’t apologize for being a passionate and disappointed Cal sports fan, however, and that is a bond many of us on this site share, for better or for worse...sacman called me an idiot yesterday for questioning Wilcox’s coaching acumen, but at the end of the day, while we may disagree on how to express frustration with JW, we nonetheless share a strong mutual interest in the Bears that’s forged by years of gridiron peaks and valleys, and there’s no hard feelings...at least I hope...sigh, again.
In the meantime, like so many on this site, I look forward to reading your continued work, and hope to hoist a carbonated beverage with you this Saturday at the pre-game tailgate. Beat SC.
-Cathartically, Jimmy C.
AND, after reading the latest, it doesn't sound like the City of Berkeley is actually all that outlandish with it's COVID policy, so plenty of questions still need to be answered.....nothing to see here!!! HA - yikes!
I think a lot of the frustration is that I'm not exactly sure who these protocols are supposed to be protecting anymore.
1. The unvaccinated? - They chose to not be vaccinated, why should someone else suffer for their decisions?
2. The fellow athletes? - Statistics show that complications in 18 - 23 year olds in good health and that are vaccinated is incredibly and ridiculously rare. Playing football is probably a greater risk than complications from Covid if they are vaccinated and in good health.
3. Young children? Again statistics have shown that complications from Covid in young children is extremely rare.
4. The extremely rare instance where someone is immunocompromised and can't receive the vaccine?
Covid isn't an unknown disease anymore, its been studied, remedies and treatments have been developed, vaccines have been developed between 96% and 98% of new cases, hospitalizations and deaths are in the unvaccinated. That means Covid is overwhelmingly impacting unvaccinated, and those that are unvaccinated, choose to be unvaccinated. Why should the vaccinated be burdened by the decisions of the unvaccinated? If they want to take that risk, its on them, I shouldn't have to suffer because of their decisions.
With regards to this instance, the City of Berkeley decisions don't make sense and illustrate the underlying frustration of being continuing to be burdened by the additional rules when its not clear who exactly is at risk other than those who chose to not be vaccinated. If the players are vaccinated and have multiple negative tests and they are going to come in contact with non-vulnerable populations (other athletes), who exactly is being protected? Is the fear that they might spread it to someone who will spread it to someone else who is unvaccinated? Again, that is their choice to be unvaccinated. Is the fear hey come in contact with children, because they are not a vulnerable population. What exactly is the fear driving the quarantining of vaccinated people who have received negative tests?
It made sense for a lot of these protocols in 2020 before the research, treatments and vaccines, but it doesn't make a lot of sense now.
The risk isn't confined to the student-athletes alone. Stan McKenzie's father died from Covid-19 a few weeks ago.
https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/cal-notebook-82821
Each of the players has friends, families, and parents, and preventing infections & outbreaks has to be a priority.
I disagree with your characterization of immunocompromised people who can't vaccinate, or aren't protected by it, as "extremely rare". There are a lot of people who are in chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It's pretty common. Removing all the restrictions puts them, and many others, at extreme risk.
Sentence one is true and should be accepted as fact as it is your statement of what college football means to you. Sentence two is an opinion.
Exactly, this game isn’t the reason Cal isn’t going to the Rose Bowl or probably even a generic bowl game. People are using this game as an excuse for a lost season, while conveniently sweeping under the rug our 1-5 start.
If Cal and Wilcox wanted to end up having a successful season, they probably shouldn’t have started the season 1-5. That’s what made this season a lost and unsuccessful season and has results in players de- committing.
To me that is immaterial. If CoB is enforcing rules arbitrarily and unfairly punishing the Cal Football team then that should be called out regardless of what the team's record is.
Not necessarily.
Do we trust or know that this team is actually 99% vaccinated or are the 99% wink and a nod “Rodgers” vaccinated?
If some players got the moderna or Pfizer shot, did they follow up and the get the second shot? Have any players gotten some sort of exemption waiver? Also, because they exist, have some players gotten fake and turned in fake vaccine cards?
If you're vaccinated, then a record of your vaccination resides with the California Dept. of Public Health (CDPH). I am able to retrieve a QR code from CDPH that also shows my vaccination record.
The Athletic Dept. should require its student athletes to verify vaccination status as a condition of being on the roster of a sponsored team. It's a matter of workplace health and safety, pure and simple.
The CAIR database isn't perfect but the mistakes would err significantly toward omitting a dose rather than having fraudulent doses documented. If doses were obtained out of state then they might not be shown until someone adds them based on the card.
The lack of a national db makes forgery possible but the most likely scenario is that everyone actually is vaccinated.
Aren't all students attending Cal, at least on campus, required to be vaccinated-i.e. two shots?
I honestly don’t know what the rules are for students. I am sure some students/players could potentially be getting a waiver.
I can think of no reason a football player should get a waiver.
"Because they already had COVID" is a good reason for a waiver.
Yes, but not forever. "Natural immunity" from having Covid-19 is good for about 6 months. After that, you're susceptible, and need to get the jab.
I mean, they are humans first and not football robots so I could see some applying and possibly receiving an exemption.
All students have to be double vaccinated to attend classes in person.
I really wish we could get a very clear description of what happened and why. I really can't begrudge fully vaccinated students from attending the social events they've been deprived of.
Bureaucracies tend to opt for the strictest interpretations possible. When bureaucracies collide (UC and City of Berkeley), it's not always clear who did what, though we know toward which direction they err.
All that matters to me now is who can play vs. U$C. I will not even take my sons to the game and sit in our seats if we are missing all these starters and coaches. We will spend the day out at Point Reyes or some other Bay Area wild place, despite wanting nothing more than to see my Bears battle $C on fair grounds.
This should be an absolute scandal, but it won’t be, and that fact will be one of the most effective recruiting tools against us, for players and coaches.
It isn’t like recruiting was going well before this. I think the 1-5 start and the likely losing season will be a more effective recruiting tool against us.
Have you not watched the past 2 games?! They finally got into the rhythm after beating Oregon state which is ranked 5th in the pac 12. Arizona would have made it a 3 game winning streak if they had all their starters. That means they would have only had to win 2 more games to make it to the bowl game. We’d be tied for 3rd if The City of Berkeley didn’t screw those players over…
True and that will/would certainly help. My comment is more about the recruits we have lost through the first 8 games. We have lost our two RBs commitments, QB commit and a DL commit. That was all before this Covid outbreak issue.
But this adds the argument about institutional apathy and a systemically adversarial relationship with local authorities. It means that the argument isn’t just “oh they really aren’t executing well there”, it becomes “even if you are the best player to ever play, it won’t matter if you go there”.
Other teams won't have to work hard to point to the Berkeley buzzards circling CMS. Bears have already lost players to transfer, and probably recruits. If Wilcox stays it will demonstrate what a great man he is.