From a user on mgoblog (Michigan board):

I posted back at the beginning of the football season regarding testing of football players and how it was affecting the community. As a reminder, I am not a physician but my wife is the Chief of Infectious Diseases at a Group of 5 school so I get some nuggets from her from time to time. Now that the season is coming to a close there is a situation that sort of bookends my post from back in September.

I won't name the school/hospital system that she works for (for privacy reasons) but the game this weekend is canceled due to outbreak on the football team. Next week the team is scheduled to play in the Conference Championship game. Earlier in the week the team physician (an Ortho doc) contacted my wife to ask if protocols could be changed for next week for the purpose of getting asymptomatic positives/contacts out of quarantine much earlier than what has been allowed up to this point in time. He further stated that he was preemptively asking because he knew that the coaches/AD would be concerned that they were being put at a competitive disadvantage if some of the players were not eligible. My wife likes football but she was not about to compromise the plan they have had in place since the start of the season/school year and did not endorse a change. It should be noted that she is not the final authority but her opinion certainly carries weight with the hospital system. Yesterday, she received an email from the team physician that he had sought advice from the Director of the local County Health Dept who was willing to endorse a policy change. Therefore, any asymptomatic players will be able to "test out" of quarantine in order to be able to play in the Conference Championship Game on Saturday.



My questions is this: what are your thoughts on football players being afforded this exception? If you had a child going to a school would you believe that your child (who presumably isn't a football player) had a right to the same treatment/protocol? Thoughts on athletes from other sports? There are obviously political overtones to this entire situation as I'm sure the conference wants to make sure the game gets played for television exposure ($$$). I truly hope this conversation can remain civil. There are a lot of very smart people on this blog who have diverse backgrounds and viewpoints so I am anxious to hear your thoughts and perspectives. If I didn't clarify something in the post and you have a question please do not hesitate to ask.



There is zero chance his isn’t Cincinnati. G5 program struggling mightily with COVID. Proximity to UM fans. Game cancelled this week. Conference Champ Game next week.

And this after ducking Tulsa once already.


Link:
https://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/covid-19-tr...esstudents

Ducking opponents, yeah I’d be pissed too.

(12-12-2020 07:34 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Ducking opponents, yeah I’d be pissed too.

Lol. I see now... actually one or two posts ago... you’re just stirring trouble... not adding anything valid to the argument. Carry on.

Either that, or your willing to take cracks at the expense of the real point of the above, that a school is forgoing protocols designed to protect their (and their opponents’) kids, for fear of losing/cancelling an upcoming game. Which could end up impacting a team who beats them and has a chance to move on. That’s cool.

Personally I don’t really care. Let them play!

(12-12-2020 08:15 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 07:34 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Ducking opponents, yeah I’d be pissed too.

Lol. I see now... actually one or two posts ago... you’re just stirring trouble... not adding anything valid to the argument. Carry on.

Either that, or your willing to take cracks at the expense of the real point of the above, that a school is forgoing protocols designed to protect their (and their opponents’) kids, for fear of losing/cancelling an upcoming game. Which could end up impacting a team who beats them and has a chance to move on. That’s cool.

Nope just being consistent.

Hypocrisy in your posts these past two days is hilarious.

We’ve been putting student athletes at risk all season and now when we can do we it as a shield to attempt to dodge a game or disparage an opponent that’s fair game?

We’ve been willing to accept that calculated risk due to the relative extremely low risk this virsus poses to those under 30, why try and dodge an opponent now?

Yes, while I obviously love this season for Coastal, I’m firmly in the camp of we never should have even tried to play. But when educated (some, some not) made the decision to do this, at least they set guidelines. Changing them on a whim for one game is ridiculous. As it pertains to the above. Which is in regards to (actually a pair of, since they were due to play twice) an actual, relevant game.

Don’t confuse that with the general concept of limiting spread by wholesale (NCAA, not CCU) suggestion that at this point (weeks ago) we consider dropping those that aren’t meaningful. Still, even that has zero to do with the CCU/Troy game... a concept you refuse to focus on. Yes it’s meaningless, but that should only matter because the conference should be looking for a way to balance CG planning out. Period.

It’s moot at this point, so you go on, I’m done. Bring Troy on, we have NO reason to duck them. It’s the non-off week that’s the issue, not Troy.

Enjoy rooting for/against us next week when you’re watching.

From my viewpoint, the goalposts (pardon the obvious pun) have been moving on what risk is acceptable and isn't acceptable, for almost a year now. I deal with well respected local, state and federal officials in the context of my job daily, and there has been no true consensus at any point, save maybe a brief period of time early in the pandemic where nearly everyone was supporting a two week national quarantine. Even then, many who were supporting it felt it would not fulfill the expectations raised, but agreed nonetheless to try.

We know more now about how to mitigate the risk to some extent, but not exclusively prevent it. That coaches & administrators will go to whatever lengths to find their 'court' or bank of experts to support their goals is nothing new, it's just the subject is different and it affects us more broadly. The power of the local health department is a real one, and whether it is interpretation of the law, medical science or anything else that is not 100% substantiated or incontrovertible fact .. then there will always be room for folks to maneuver.

The CDC has shortened the quarantine window from their original timelines. Who knows definitively the window on transmission ? I've been mildly surprised that a number of schools that have or will play 12 games, like mine .. haven't had really big outbreaks and have navigated the school term without significant numbers sidelined. The first game we had a large number out, was primarily attributed to contact tracing.

You’re fine with you coach attempting to dodge Troy and give Cincy grief for dodging Tulsa. That isn’t lost on anyone.

We shouldn’t have played this season? Science for those under 30 says otherwise.

this looks like something off of Reddit and fabricated. Why would someone essentially "out" their spouse like that? and, anyone with a spouse with that level of position is likely mid-50's if not older.

This reads like it was written by someone mid-20's or so.

Wait, y’all believe this? Lol

(12-12-2020 08:30 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  We’ve been putting student athletes at risk all season

Risk for what? Catching a cold or the sniffles?

(12-12-2020 09:01 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  You’re fine with you coach attempting to dodge Troy and give Cincy grief for dodging Tulsa. That isn’t lost on anyone.

We shouldn’t have played this season? Science for those under 30 says otherwise.

I don't agree with cancelling Coastal at Troy, but the difference is if Cinci plays their final regular-season game their CCG opponent doesn't get the week off.

(12-12-2020 10:11 AM)Big Buds Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 08:30 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  We’ve been putting student athletes at risk all season

Risk for what? Catching a cold or the sniffles?

Maybe the risk he is referring to is broken bones, pulled muscles, traumatic brain injury, etc

Guys I don’t believe athletes under 30 are actually at risk. The game is far more dangerous than the virus for that demographic.

(12-12-2020 10:29 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Guys I don’t believe athletes under 30 are actually at risk. The game is far more dangerous than the virus for that demographic.

While we don't know the long term effects, I certainly agree with this take. As do most of the universities in the FBS (which is why they decided to have the season).


Well that and money :)

PS: I am glad they played. It was great having football this fall.

(12-12-2020 09:46 AM)warhawk09 Wrote:  Wait, y’all believe this? Lol

Pretty sure that poster has also written a few letters to Penthouse.