[OutsiderFan]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.

There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.

There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

[BostonCard]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.



There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

If Stanford (or anyone else) wanted to require vaccination without allowing for a religious exemption, it would be challenged on Civil Rights grounds.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in federally funded educational institutions, which includes Stanford, and pretty much every other University in the country.  The Civil RIghts Act also applies to Stanford as an employer.

That being said, for most faiths, there is no objection to vaccination:
https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/new...d-religion

Stanford could, if it wanted to, have pretty exacting standards to meet the criteria of sincerely held religious beliefs including requiring proof that the student has not received other vaccines, getting written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice and asking for written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners who have observed the employee's past adherence.  However, in the past, courts have given individuals the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity, and I think this US Supreme Court has given no indication of differing from that.

Lastly, marketing approval (as opposed to emergency use authorization) is irrelevant here.  The law makes no distinction, and courts have upheld both employer and university vaccine mandates (with appropriate exemptions) with the EUA.  The only place where there is a potential issue is the US military, which requires a written declaration by the President that vaccination would be a matter of national security (which, given that COVID sidelined an aircraft carrier last year seems self-evident) before the military can require a vaccine.

TL;DR: marketing approval is irrelevant, and even with approval, an exemption will need to continue to be offered for disability and sincerely held religious beliefs.

BC

[BostonCard]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.



There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

If Stanford (or anyone else) wanted to require vaccination without allowing for a religious exemption, it would be challenged on Civil Rights grounds.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in federally funded educational institutions, which includes Stanford, and pretty much every other University in the country.  The Civil RIghts Act also applies to Stanford as an employer.

That being said, for most faiths, there is no objection to vaccination:
https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/new...d-religion

Stanford could, if it wanted to, have pretty exacting standards to meet the criteria of sincerely held religious beliefs including requiring proof that the student has not received other vaccines, getting written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice and asking for written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners who have observed the employee's past adherence.  However, in the past, courts have given individuals the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity, and I think this US Supreme Court has given no indication of differing from that.

Lastly, marketing approval (as opposed to emergency use authorization) is irrelevant here.  The law makes no distinction, and courts have upheld both employer and university vaccine mandates (with appropriate exemptions) with the EUA.  The only place where there is a potential issue is the US military, which requires a written declaration by the President that vaccination would be a matter of national security (which, given that COVID sidelined an aircraft carrier last year seems self-evident) before the military can require a vaccine.

TL;DR: marketing approval is irrelevant, and even with approval, an exemption will need to continue to be offered for disability and sincerely held religious beliefs.

BC

[BobK]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots. No option Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

[BobK]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots. No option Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

[BostonCard]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots.    No option    Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1107a

In the case of the administration of a product authorized for emergency use under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to members of the armed forces, the condition described in section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act and required under paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of such section 564(e), designed to ensure that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product, may be waived only by the President only if the President determines, in writing, that complying with such requirement is not in the interests of national security.

But again, that option can be waved by the President.  Regardless, it is not relevant to Stanford athletes.

BC

[BostonCard]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots.    No option    Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1107a

In the case of the administration of a product authorized for emergency use under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to members of the armed forces, the condition described in section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act and required under paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of such section 564(e), designed to ensure that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product, may be waived only by the President only if the President determines, in writing, that complying with such requirement is not in the interests of national security.

But again, that option can be waved by the President.  Regardless, it is not relevant to Stanford athletes.

BC

[82lsju]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots.    No option    Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1107a

In the case of the administration of a product authorized for emergency use under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to members of the armed forces, the condition described in section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act and required under paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of such section 564(e), designed to ensure that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product, may be waived only by the President only if the President determines, in writing, that complying with such requirement is not in the interests of national security.

But again, that option can be waved by the President.  Regardless, it is not relevant to Stanford athletes.

BC

of course the rules may have changed since Bob was in the Army in the 1960s.....

[82lsju]

When I was in the army I got a number of shots.    No option    Why there is now is beyond my comprehension

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1107a

In the case of the administration of a product authorized for emergency use under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to members of the armed forces, the condition described in section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of such Act and required under paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of such section 564(e), designed to ensure that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product, may be waived only by the President only if the President determines, in writing, that complying with such requirement is not in the interests of national security.

But again, that option can be waved by the President.  Regardless, it is not relevant to Stanford athletes.

BC

of course the rules may have changed since Bob was in the Army in the 1960s.....

[Maple Leaf]

I just wonder if the AD's at K-State and The Farm have or are considering an alternate site for the football game, since things are not going well in Texas with respect to COVID.

Half of Texas Trauma Hospitals Run out of ICU Beds as COVID Surges (msn.com)

[Maple Leaf]

I just wonder if the AD's at K-State and The Farm have or are considering an alternate site for the football game, since things are not going well in Texas with respect to COVID.

Half of Texas Trauma Hospitals Run out of ICU Beds as COVID Surges (msn.com)

[OutsiderFan]

I just wonder if the AD's at K-State and The Farm have or are considering an alternate site for the football game, since things are not going well in Texas with respect to COVID.

Half of Texas Trauma Hospitals Run out of ICU Beds as COVID Surges (msn.com)

Honestly, all things considered, the game should be moved to Stanford. I get this is suppose to be the home game for KSU in the 2-game deal the schools signed to play each other, but, there is no doubting being in Palo Alto and the Bay Area is far, far safer than Texas or Kansas within the next three weeks. 

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

[OutsiderFan]

I just wonder if the AD's at K-State and The Farm have or are considering an alternate site for the football game, since things are not going well in Texas with respect to COVID.

Half of Texas Trauma Hospitals Run out of ICU Beds as COVID Surges (msn.com)

Honestly, all things considered, the game should be moved to Stanford. I get this is suppose to be the home game for KSU in the 2-game deal the schools signed to play each other, but, there is no doubting being in Palo Alto and the Bay Area is far, far safer than Texas or Kansas within the next three weeks. 

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

[SamuelMcF]

I could've sworn Shaw's exact quote about the waivers was that 4 or 5 players had used them, and everyone else was vaccinated. 


Note that Troy said 85% of the PROGRAM, not 85% of the TEAM.

Good point about the distinction.  That being said, the "adults" in the program (if that's the source of the low overall rate) need to be setting a better example.

BC

Exactly.  Regardless of what comprises the denominator, the numerator is too low.  Not acceptable.

P.S.  I also would like to know on exactly what grounds waivers are being granted by the University.  It may (or may not) be a health privacy issue . . .

Circling back on this, confirmed that the 85%+ is indeed comprised of players and staff.

https://gostanford.com/news/2021/8/10/fo...nning.aspx

"Shaw estimated that 85 percent of the team and staff entered camp vaccinated and believes that percentage has increased because several have since received their second shots."

[SamuelMcF]

I could've sworn Shaw's exact quote about the waivers was that 4 or 5 players had used them, and everyone else was vaccinated. 


Note that Troy said 85% of the PROGRAM, not 85% of the TEAM.

Good point about the distinction.  That being said, the "adults" in the program (if that's the source of the low overall rate) need to be setting a better example.

BC

Exactly.  Regardless of what comprises the denominator, the numerator is too low.  Not acceptable.

P.S.  I also would like to know on exactly what grounds waivers are being granted by the University.  It may (or may not) be a health privacy issue . . .

Circling back on this, confirmed that the 85%+ is indeed comprised of players and staff.

https://gostanford.com/news/2021/8/10/fo...nning.aspx

"Shaw estimated that 85 percent of the team and staff entered camp vaccinated and believes that percentage has increased because several have since received their second shots."

[BostonCard]

Circling back on this, confirmed that the 85%+ is indeed comprised of players and staff.

Thanks for confirming.  This really ought to be well into the 90's (or ideally 100% or just short).


BC

[BostonCard]

Circling back on this, confirmed that the 85%+ is indeed comprised of players and staff.

Thanks for confirming.  This really ought to be well into the 90's (or ideally 100% or just short).


BC

[BobK]

Doesn’t it say enters camp ? That was 6 weeks ago. Maybe it’s 98% now.

[BobK]

Doesn’t it say enters camp ? That was 6 weeks ago. Maybe it’s 98% now.

[76lsjumb]

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

I'm fully vaxxed and happy [okay, not really happy, but willing] to wear a mask pretty much anywhere as long as I can keep my glasses from fogging], and I'm thrilled to be going to the game.  

Last time I went to a season opener in Texas, Stanford ended the season in the Rose Bowl! Even though that season opener was one of my worst game experiences ever [making the sunny side in The Wok seem like a blizzard in Alaska], if we end up in the Rose Bowl again at the end of this season, it's fine with me.

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  Dallas isn't near the border, so that's not an issue.  And, it's got to be safer than Chicago these days ...

[76lsjumb]

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

I'm fully vaxxed and happy [okay, not really happy, but willing] to wear a mask pretty much anywhere as long as I can keep my glasses from fogging], and I'm thrilled to be going to the game.  

Last time I went to a season opener in Texas, Stanford ended the season in the Rose Bowl! Even though that season opener was one of my worst game experiences ever [making the sunny side in The Wok seem like a blizzard in Alaska], if we end up in the Rose Bowl again at the end of this season, it's fine with me.

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  Dallas isn't near the border, so that's not an issue.  And, it's got to be safer than Chicago these days ...

[gailtate]

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

I'm fully vaxxed and happy [okay, not really happy, but willing] to wear a mask pretty much anywhere as long as I can keep my glasses from fogging], and I'm thrilled to be going to the game.  

Last time I went to a season opener in Texas, Stanford ended the season in the Rose Bowl! Even though that season opener was one of my worst game experiences ever [making the sunny side in The Wok seem like a blizzard in Alaska], if we end up in the Rose Bowl again at the end of this season, it's fine with me.

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  Dallas isn't near the border, so that's not an issue.  And, it's got to be safer than Chicago these days ...

Just an aside--and appropos of nothing--my first and last Stanford football experience in Texas was one my all-time fave Stanford roadies: Saturday Night Lights, September 13, 1986. brobdingnagian Cardinal win in Austin as heavy underdogs, 31-20. And it was not that close. Longhorn fans were stunned into silence, but grudgingly gracious. Tex-Mex food was everything it was supposed to be, Austin was a blast. Our group took the kids to the Alamo the day before. Post-game, met up with Jack and Jan Elway for drinks and chit-chat. Warm, wonderful people. Jan and my wife were fund-raising volunteers at The Guild, associated with Packard Children's Hospital. Indelible memories. Paye was on target, Sure-handed Jeff James was catching everything. Great campus environment. A win to savor.

[gailtate]

I wouldn't be caught dead in Texas now, and I can't imagine many Stanford fans feel too thrillled about the prospect of being there in a few weeks either. Just found out the daughter of a business partner is really sick with Covid in Texas. The place is dangerous right now.

I'm fully vaxxed and happy [okay, not really happy, but willing] to wear a mask pretty much anywhere as long as I can keep my glasses from fogging], and I'm thrilled to be going to the game.  

Last time I went to a season opener in Texas, Stanford ended the season in the Rose Bowl! Even though that season opener was one of my worst game experiences ever [making the sunny side in The Wok seem like a blizzard in Alaska], if we end up in the Rose Bowl again at the end of this season, it's fine with me.

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  Dallas isn't near the border, so that's not an issue.  And, it's got to be safer than Chicago these days ...

Just an aside--and appropos of nothing--my first and last Stanford football experience in Texas was one my all-time fave Stanford roadies: Saturday Night Lights, September 13, 1986. brobdingnagian Cardinal win in Austin as heavy underdogs, 31-20. And it was not that close. Longhorn fans were stunned into silence, but grudgingly gracious. Tex-Mex food was everything it was supposed to be, Austin was a blast. Our group took the kids to the Alamo the day before. Post-game, met up with Jack and Jan Elway for drinks and chit-chat. Warm, wonderful people. Jan and my wife were fund-raising volunteers at The Guild, associated with Packard Children's Hospital. Indelible memories. Paye was on target, Sure-handed Jeff James was catching everything. Great campus environment. A win to savor.

[SamuelMcF]

Doesn’t it say enters camp ?  That was 6 weeks ago.    Maybe it’s 98% now.

Camp began this past Friday.

The question, of course, becomes how many more of those program members have received/are receiving second shots since. Will be following to see what the number looks like in a couple weeks leading up to the season.

[SamuelMcF]

Doesn’t it say enters camp ?  That was 6 weeks ago.    Maybe it’s 98% now.

Camp began this past Friday.

The question, of course, becomes how many more of those program members have received/are receiving second shots since. Will be following to see what the number looks like in a couple weeks leading up to the season.

[Papa John]

I'm not so worried about Dallas, since I assume both teams will arrive a day or two before the game and be "bubbled" as much as possible.

I would note that, as of Monday, August 9, 41.3% of residents in Riley County, KS have been fully vaccinated, compared to 79.7% in Santa Clara County. K-State begins in-person fall instruction on August 23. Per Kansas law, Covid vaccines are strongly recommend but not required. The on-campus vaccination rate was over 70% last year. I have no idea if the new students this fall have been vaccinated at such a high rate, but since 86% of the K-State student population comes from Kansas and the rest come from states like Texas and Nebraska, I doubt it. The good news is that K-State's team is over 80% fully vaccinated, but they won't be able to keep the players in a bubble once school starts.

[Papa John]

I'm not so worried about Dallas, since I assume both teams will arrive a day or two before the game and be "bubbled" as much as possible.

I would note that, as of Monday, August 9, 41.3% of residents in Riley County, KS have been fully vaccinated, compared to 79.7% in Santa Clara County. K-State begins in-person fall instruction on August 23. Per Kansas law, Covid vaccines are strongly recommend but not required. The on-campus vaccination rate was over 70% last year. I have no idea if the new students this fall have been vaccinated at such a high rate, but since 86% of the K-State student population comes from Kansas and the rest come from states like Texas and Nebraska, I doubt it. The good news is that K-State's team is over 80% fully vaccinated, but they won't be able to keep the players in a bubble once school starts.

[82lsju]

I'm not so worried about Dallas, since I assume both teams will arrive a day or two before the game and be "bubbled" as much as possible.

I would note that, as of Monday, August 9, 41.3% of residents in Riley County, KS have been fully vaccinated, compared to 79.7% in Santa Clara County. K-State begins in-person fall instruction on August 23. Per Kansas law, Covid vaccines are strongly recommend but not required. The on-campus vaccination rate was over 70% last year. I have no idea if the new students this fall have been vaccinated at such a high rate, but since 86% of the K-State student population comes from Kansas and the rest come from states like Texas and Nebraska, I doubt it. The good news is that K-State's team is over 80% fully vaccinated, but they won't be able to keep the players in a bubble once school starts.

from 07 July 2021

https://www.k-state.edu/today/announcement/?id=75798

Kansas State University has surpassed an important vaccination milestone in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Lafene Health Center officials estimate that more than 72% of K-State students, faculty and staff have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. 

[82lsju]

I'm not so worried about Dallas, since I assume both teams will arrive a day or two before the game and be "bubbled" as much as possible.

I would note that, as of Monday, August 9, 41.3% of residents in Riley County, KS have been fully vaccinated, compared to 79.7% in Santa Clara County. K-State begins in-person fall instruction on August 23. Per Kansas law, Covid vaccines are strongly recommend but not required. The on-campus vaccination rate was over 70% last year. I have no idea if the new students this fall have been vaccinated at such a high rate, but since 86% of the K-State student population comes from Kansas and the rest come from states like Texas and Nebraska, I doubt it. The good news is that K-State's team is over 80% fully vaccinated, but they won't be able to keep the players in a bubble once school starts.

from 07 July 2021

https://www.k-state.edu/today/announcement/?id=75798

Kansas State University has surpassed an important vaccination milestone in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Lafene Health Center officials estimate that more than 72% of K-State students, faculty and staff have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. 

[terry]

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the taxis, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

[terry]

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the taxis, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

[CowboyIndian]

Just an aside--and appropos of nothing--my first and last Stanford football experience in Texas was one my all-time fave Stanford roadies: Saturday Night Lights, September 13, 1986. of immense proportions Cardinal win in Austin as heavy underdogs, 31-20. And it was not that close. Longhorn fans were stunned into silence, but grudgingly gracious. Tex-Mex food was everything it was supposed to be, Austin was a blast. Our group took the kids to the Alamo the day before. Post-game, met up with Jack and Jan Elway for drinks and chit-chat. Warm, wonderful people. Jan and my wife were fund-raising volunteers at The Guild, associated with Packard Children's Hospital. Indelible memories. Paye was on target, Sure-handed Jeff James was catching everything. Great campus environment. A win to savor.

I was at that game. The next day the Austin American-Statesman nicknamed one of the Longhorn DBs “Toast” because he got burned so often. And, yes, Horn fans were quite gracious in defeat.

---

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

We just cancelled our Nashville trip, too. Tennessee is a goddam petri dish at the moment.

[CowboyIndian]

Just an aside--and appropos of nothing--my first and last Stanford football experience in Texas was one my all-time fave Stanford roadies: Saturday Night Lights, September 13, 1986. of immense proportions Cardinal win in Austin as heavy underdogs, 31-20. And it was not that close. Longhorn fans were stunned into silence, but grudgingly gracious. Tex-Mex food was everything it was supposed to be, Austin was a blast. Our group took the kids to the Alamo the day before. Post-game, met up with Jack and Jan Elway for drinks and chit-chat. Warm, wonderful people. Jan and my wife were fund-raising volunteers at The Guild, associated with Packard Children's Hospital. Indelible memories. Paye was on target, Sure-handed Jeff James was catching everything. Great campus environment. A win to savor.

I was at that game. The next day the Austin American-Statesman nicknamed one of the Longhorn DBs “Toast” because he got burned so often. And, yes, Horn fans were quite gracious in defeat.

---

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

We just cancelled our Nashville trip, too. Tennessee is a goddam petri dish at the moment.

[76lsjumb]

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

My sister-in-law and her husband live in McKinney, and we're staying with them, along with my mother-in-law, who's coming out from Chicago, so, I agree, this sort of trip often has aspects other than football.  Airports and airplanes will obviously be involved, as will restaurants.  For us, though, those other venues are not likely.

I also agree and respect that folks have different levels of risk tolerance and comfort levels.  No criticism intended for those who choose not to go, but I think the same should apply to folks who do choose to make the trip, as well as to folks who live in Texas [...or in Florida, for that matter].

[76lsjumb]

Not sure why someone interested in the game, fully vaxxed, and wearing a mask would consider the place particularly dangerous.  Unless all those scientists/doctors are wrong about vaccines and masks, there shouldn't be a problem.  

It's not just the 3-hour experience at the football game that's relevant. It's also the airport, the airplane, the hotels, the restaurants, the bars, the museums, the nightclubs, the concerts. When I do a Stanford football trip, I like to extend it into a vacation of a week or more. In a vacation of that length, you can't wear a mask all the time, such as when you're eating and drinking. 

I was planning to go to the Vandy game and to make it an extended trip. A lot of the appeal of Nashville is live music, and a lot of that happens indoors, probably around lots of unmasked people. I haven't decided whether to go.

Different people will judge their risk differently and will have different comfort levels. Chances are that everything would work out fine. But I wouldn't criticize those who are on the fence and maybe decide they don't want to make a road trip at this particular time.

My sister-in-law and her husband live in McKinney, and we're staying with them, along with my mother-in-law, who's coming out from Chicago, so, I agree, this sort of trip often has aspects other than football.  Airports and airplanes will obviously be involved, as will restaurants.  For us, though, those other venues are not likely.

I also agree and respect that folks have different levels of risk tolerance and comfort levels.  No criticism intended for those who choose not to go, but I think the same should apply to folks who do choose to make the trip, as well as to folks who live in Texas [...or in Florida, for that matter].

[akiddoc]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.



There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

If Stanford (or anyone else) wanted to require vaccination without allowing for a religious exemption, it would be challenged on Civil Rights grounds.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in federally funded educational institutions, which includes Stanford, and pretty much every other University in the country.  The Civil RIghts Act also applies to Stanford as an employer.

That being said, for most faiths, there is no objection to vaccination:
https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/new...d-religion

Stanford could, if it wanted to, have pretty exacting standards to meet the criteria of sincerely held religious beliefs including requiring proof that the student has not received other vaccines, getting written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice and asking for written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners who have observed the employee's past adherence.  However, in the past, courts have given individuals the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity, and I think this US Supreme Court has given no indication of differing from that.

Lastly, marketing approval (as opposed to emergency use authorization) is irrelevant here.  The law makes no distinction, and courts have upheld both employer and university vaccine mandates (with appropriate exemptions) with the EUA.  The only place where there is a potential issue is the US military, which requires a written declaration by the President that vaccination would be a matter of national security (which, given that COVID sidelined an aircraft carrier last year seems self-evident) before the military can require a vaccine.

TL;DR: marketing approval is irrelevant, and even with approval, an exemption will need to continue to be offered for disability and sincerely held religious beliefs.

BC

There are no religious exemptions for routine childhood vaccines in California public schools from grades K through 12. I'm sure there is some federal Funding in that school system.

[akiddoc]

With FDA Covid Vax approval coming in the next few weeks, there will be no allowable excuse to not be vax'd - including religious beliefs - sans note from doctor saying it would be unwise to be vax'd due to underlying health conditions.



There should literally be students - including football players - not allowed on campus without Covid vax by the time school starts, especially at Stanford.

If Stanford (or anyone else) wanted to require vaccination without allowing for a religious exemption, it would be challenged on Civil Rights grounds.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion in federally funded educational institutions, which includes Stanford, and pretty much every other University in the country.  The Civil RIghts Act also applies to Stanford as an employer.

That being said, for most faiths, there is no objection to vaccination:
https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/new...d-religion

Stanford could, if it wanted to, have pretty exacting standards to meet the criteria of sincerely held religious beliefs including requiring proof that the student has not received other vaccines, getting written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice and asking for written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners who have observed the employee's past adherence.  However, in the past, courts have given individuals the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity, and I think this US Supreme Court has given no indication of differing from that.

Lastly, marketing approval (as opposed to emergency use authorization) is irrelevant here.  The law makes no distinction, and courts have upheld both employer and university vaccine mandates (with appropriate exemptions) with the EUA.  The only place where there is a potential issue is the US military, which requires a written declaration by the President that vaccination would be a matter of national security (which, given that COVID sidelined an aircraft carrier last year seems self-evident) before the military can require a vaccine.

TL;DR: marketing approval is irrelevant, and even with approval, an exemption will need to continue to be offered for disability and sincerely held religious beliefs.

BC

There are no religious exemptions for routine childhood vaccines in California public schools from grades K through 12. I'm sure there is some federal Funding in that school system.

[OutsiderFan]

Being vaccinated definitely provides good protection from Covid virus, but there are breakthrough cases. Still, even getting infected with no symptoms isn't great, because you will be a spread vector, and even asymptomatic infections can cause damage to your body, some that might not be revealed for a while after being infected without knowing it.

In Texas the virus is all over the community spreading like crazy, and the Dallas County vax rate is 44% according to NYT data. So even though you are vax'd, the odds are you are going to get exposed to the virus while there, multiple times. Hopefully you won't be a breakthrough symptomatic infection, but the odds are high you will get an asymptomatic infection with so many unvax'd people around. Maybe you are lucky to avoid infection from one virus encounter, but you need a 100% success rate every time you encounter it. The odds are not good that you will come away unscathed given the number of times you will encounter it, and how few people will be wearing masks.

[OutsiderFan]

Being vaccinated definitely provides good protection from Covid virus, but there are breakthrough cases. Still, even getting infected with no symptoms isn't great, because you will be a spread vector, and even asymptomatic infections can cause damage to your body, some that might not be revealed for a while after being infected without knowing it.

In Texas the virus is all over the community spreading like crazy, and the Dallas County vax rate is 44% according to NYT data. So even though you are vax'd, the odds are you are going to get exposed to the virus while there, multiple times. Hopefully you won't be a breakthrough symptomatic infection, but the odds are high you will get an asymptomatic infection with so many unvax'd people around. Maybe you are lucky to avoid infection from one virus encounter, but you need a 100% success rate every time you encounter it. The odds are not good that you will come away unscathed given the number of times you will encounter it, and how few people will be wearing masks.