[teejers1]

Don't worry.  This doesn't really have to do with Stanford football.
It has to do with protecting the student-athlete from . . . um . . . you know . . . Internet talk, speculation, etc.  You know, really dangerous stuff.

It seems to me that you have it bass ackwards; there is nothing about "internet talk, speculation, etc." that is of high enough compelling value that it is worth waiving the right to privacy.  "It seems unlikely to do harm" is not the bar we want to be setting.

BC

What is "the bar" you want to be setting for your disclosure policy?

Do we need to know who is/is not injured?  What's the difference?

Separately, if you want to talk harm, the infected or exposed are a public health risk (or at least a potential one).  How about the right of those in the community to know who they are so they can avoid potential health risks on their own (without having to rely on honor code type isolation)?  

Everything is balancing in one form or another, depending on circumstances.  So yeah, when there is no articulated harm, that's a reasonable consideration.

Bottom line:  the artificial ban on Covid disclosure just strikes me as silly, given disclosures of it in all other sports settings; the policy of the university that everyone be vaccinated; etc.  

But you may have the last word as this topic, too, has been beaten down.

[teejers1]

Don't worry.  This doesn't really have to do with Stanford football.
It has to do with protecting the student-athlete from . . . um . . . you know . . . Internet talk, speculation, etc.  You know, really dangerous stuff.

It seems to me that you have it bass ackwards; there is nothing about "internet talk, speculation, etc." that is of high enough compelling value that it is worth waiving the right to privacy.  "It seems unlikely to do harm" is not the bar we want to be setting.

BC

What is "the bar" you want to be setting for your disclosure policy?

Do we need to know who is/is not injured?  What's the difference?

Separately, if you want to talk harm, the infected or exposed are a public health risk (or at least a potential one).  How about the right of those in the community to know who they are so they can avoid potential health risks on their own (without having to rely on honor code type isolation)?  

Everything is balancing in one form or another, depending on circumstances.  So yeah, when there is no articulated harm, that's a reasonable consideration.

Bottom line:  the artificial ban on Covid disclosure just strikes me as silly, given disclosures of it in all other sports settings; the policy of the university that everyone be vaccinated; etc.  

But you may have the last word as this topic, too, has been beaten down.