09-28-2021, 10:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2021, 10:02 PM by BostonCard.)
That's a good question, Teejers.
It's an outdoor event, so the risk of transmission is relatively low. OTOH, there are plenty of enclosed spaces, and, especially at halftime, they were crowded. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that there may be a fair amount of risk getting food at the concession stand during halftime (how much, I couldn't say without knowing the airflow in the mezzanine, which is not entirely enclosed).
I would say that I probably would not have gone had it not been for the mandate. I have an 9-year-old (and thus unvaccinated) daughter; I probably would feel different about taking her if it weren't a venue where almost everyone (except those under 12) were vaccinated/tested. In light of the fact that the game was televised, there is also the "is the juice worth the squeeze" where "the juice" is watching the game in person, and "the squeeze" is the worry about my kid catching COVID-19, even though her risk for serious illness is very low.
All told, I think insisting on vaccination/testing is a reasonable risk-reduction measure, though i have low confidence in that assessment because of unknowns on what the baseline risk is at Stanford stadium; it very well might be low enough that the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Separately from whether they should have instituted it, I think it was (here's that word again) executed well.
BC
It's an outdoor event, so the risk of transmission is relatively low. OTOH, there are plenty of enclosed spaces, and, especially at halftime, they were crowded. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that there may be a fair amount of risk getting food at the concession stand during halftime (how much, I couldn't say without knowing the airflow in the mezzanine, which is not entirely enclosed).
I would say that I probably would not have gone had it not been for the mandate. I have an 9-year-old (and thus unvaccinated) daughter; I probably would feel different about taking her if it weren't a venue where almost everyone (except those under 12) were vaccinated/tested. In light of the fact that the game was televised, there is also the "is the juice worth the squeeze" where "the juice" is watching the game in person, and "the squeeze" is the worry about my kid catching COVID-19, even though her risk for serious illness is very low.
All told, I think insisting on vaccination/testing is a reasonable risk-reduction measure, though i have low confidence in that assessment because of unknowns on what the baseline risk is at Stanford stadium; it very well might be low enough that the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Separately from whether they should have instituted it, I think it was (here's that word again) executed well.
BC