[CardinalSagehen]

I see both sides of the argument, but didn't the University/football program release a statement saying that Davis Mills and others had tested positive for Covid last fall before the Oregon game? If so, then this would be a change in policy?

I think it would be reasonable to assume that the University’s policy on the matter might have changed, as public health policies and conference/NCAA policies have changed completely in the last year.  

I can see both sides, too.  I think the Covid speculation is overdone (for example, with respect to Filkins, whose head got pinballed on his last run.) But I don’t think Covid speculation is so out-of-bounds that it needs to be banned.  I personally will avoid it, but it’s not any sort of horribly defamatory statement.  

With respect to other injuries, I think it’s totally fine to speculate on injuries that we can see, either on the field or on the sidelines. Those injuries occur or are made visible in the public sphere.  The player knows that by participating in the sport, some of his “private health information” isn’t going to remain private because everyone can see what happened or what he is wearing for his injury. 

If I actually had inside knowledge of a player’s injury, or if I were a physician (even if uninvolved in the player’s care), I would not speak or speculate about injuries. But because I’m just a dude watching a game, and injuries have an enormous impact on the game, I’m going to speculate on it like we do with all other topics here. I’ll personally avoid the Covid speculation, though.

[CardinalSagehen]

I see both sides of the argument, but didn't the University/football program release a statement saying that Davis Mills and others had tested positive for Covid last fall before the Oregon game? If so, then this would be a change in policy?

I think it would be reasonable to assume that the University’s policy on the matter might have changed, as public health policies and conference/NCAA policies have changed completely in the last year.  

I can see both sides, too.  I think the Covid speculation is overdone (for example, with respect to Filkins, whose head got pinballed on his last run.) But I don’t think Covid speculation is so out-of-bounds that it needs to be banned.  I personally will avoid it, but it’s not any sort of horribly defamatory statement.  

With respect to other injuries, I think it’s totally fine to speculate on injuries that we can see, either on the field or on the sidelines. Those injuries occur or are made visible in the public sphere.  The player knows that by participating in the sport, some of his “private health information” isn’t going to remain private because everyone can see what happened or what he is wearing for his injury. 

If I actually had inside knowledge of a player’s injury, or if I were a physician (even if uninvolved in the player’s care), I would not speak or speculate about injuries. But because I’m just a dude watching a game, and injuries have an enormous impact on the game, I’m going to speculate on it like we do with all other topics here. I’ll personally avoid the Covid speculation, though.

[BostonCard]

The fact that the COVID results were false positives might have given them second thoughts about releasing additional info.

When someone tests positive at my employer, I receive a "COVID-19 Positive Case Notification" that just states there was a positive case; I believe notification is required by CalOSHA.  If it was someone who was a close contact, I would have received more detailed notification, but would not have known who it was.  This happened with my daughter's school, though in some ways it was kind of dumb because people could figure it out by process of elimination.  That being said, I don't think we have a right to more information about Stanford players than I do about my co-workers or my kids' classmates, especially in instances when it was not a close contact.

I agree with CardinalSagehen, while I would discourage idle speculation about COVID status among our players, and will try not to engage in it, I'm not calling for a ban, especially if information is public, or if there is good reason to speculate.

However, with regards to the football administration, I don't understand the whining about private health information being withheld.  We, Stanford fans, have no right to it, and I don't get the entitled complaints that David Shaw is not satisfying your morbid curiosity.  That goes for all health information (COVID or otherwise). If they want to release it, fine; if Shaw simply says "not available, won't be back for a while", that's fine too, and probably more respectful of players' privacy.

BC

[BostonCard]

The fact that the COVID results were false positives might have given them second thoughts about releasing additional info.

When someone tests positive at my employer, I receive a "COVID-19 Positive Case Notification" that just states there was a positive case; I believe notification is required by CalOSHA.  If it was someone who was a close contact, I would have received more detailed notification, but would not have known who it was.  This happened with my daughter's school, though in some ways it was kind of dumb because people could figure it out by process of elimination.  That being said, I don't think we have a right to more information about Stanford players than I do about my co-workers or my kids' classmates, especially in instances when it was not a close contact.

I agree with CardinalSagehen, while I would discourage idle speculation about COVID status among our players, and will try not to engage in it, I'm not calling for a ban, especially if information is public, or if there is good reason to speculate.

However, with regards to the football administration, I don't understand the whining about private health information being withheld.  We, Stanford fans, have no right to it, and I don't get the entitled complaints that David Shaw is not satisfying your morbid curiosity.  That goes for all health information (COVID or otherwise). If they want to release it, fine; if Shaw simply says "not available, won't be back for a while", that's fine too, and probably more respectful of players' privacy.

BC

[Jamesy]

We should be able to tell who's covid related  and who's injury related based on who is on the sideline Saturday. Injured players will be there. Covid affected ones won't.

[Jamesy]

We should be able to tell who's covid related  and who's injury related based on who is on the sideline Saturday. Injured players will be there. Covid affected ones won't.

[OutsiderFan]

It's Covid for the RBs.

I don't know what their vax statuses are and how that impacts things.  Like, if they are vax'd, perhaps a negative test will allow them to play Saturday?

And I don't know the protocols the Stanford Football team has on its own or as part of the Pac-12. There are a few different Covid scenarios:

- Vax'd and positive test with symptoms
- Vax'd and positive test without symptoms
- Vax'd and close vax'd contact positive
- Vax'd and close un-vax'd positive
- Un-vax'd and positive with symptoms
- Un-vax'd and positive without symptoms
- Un-vax'd and close un-vax'd contact positive with symptoms
- Un-vax'd and close un-vax'd contact positive without symptoms

Does each of the statuses carry its own protocol? I would think so.

Then, the other matter is how a player is treated by the team based on whatever their status is. It could be that there are certain statuses that dictate the player is treated like he isn't even on the team. Some of these statuses are gonna result in a quarantine of a certain length, and any one would be 7-10 days. Vax'd players won't have to quarantine for as long as un-vax'd I would imagine.

I don't appreciate the secrecy. We are dealing with a Global Health Crisis. Every bit of information helps us. There should be no privacy when the matters at hand impact the health and well being of others. We all are helped to know there are Covid infections on the Stanford Football team, and based on how those players are treated, we should be able to deduce who is vax'd and who isn't, so we understand how and where Covid is spreading.

I find it comically hypocritical and inconsistent that people want to whine and complain about information about their health being shared, when most people are perfectly fine plugging themselves into industrial scale surveillance systems to give up every granular detail about their life and what makes them tick inside, so mega corporations can ultimately use mind control devices on them to manipulate them against their free will. So spare me the indignation about sharing someone's Covid and vaccine status as some untouchable "3rd rail" of information that can't be touched.

Finally, Stanford took road trips to two of the highest Covid infection rate states in the world in Texas and Tennessee. So it's not surprising Covid infected the team.

[OutsiderFan]

It's Covid for the RBs.

I don't know what their vax statuses are and how that impacts things.  Like, if they are vax'd, perhaps a negative test will allow them to play Saturday?

And I don't know the protocols the Stanford Football team has on its own or as part of the Pac-12. There are a few different Covid scenarios:

- Vax'd and positive test with symptoms
- Vax'd and positive test without symptoms
- Vax'd and close vax'd contact positive
- Vax'd and close un-vax'd positive
- Un-vax'd and positive with symptoms
- Un-vax'd and positive without symptoms
- Un-vax'd and close un-vax'd contact positive with symptoms
- Un-vax'd and close un-vax'd contact positive without symptoms

Does each of the statuses carry its own protocol? I would think so.

Then, the other matter is how a player is treated by the team based on whatever their status is. It could be that there are certain statuses that dictate the player is treated like he isn't even on the team. Some of these statuses are gonna result in a quarantine of a certain length, and any one would be 7-10 days. Vax'd players won't have to quarantine for as long as un-vax'd I would imagine.

I don't appreciate the secrecy. We are dealing with a Global Health Crisis. Every bit of information helps us. There should be no privacy when the matters at hand impact the health and well being of others. We all are helped to know there are Covid infections on the Stanford Football team, and based on how those players are treated, we should be able to deduce who is vax'd and who isn't, so we understand how and where Covid is spreading.

I find it comically hypocritical and inconsistent that people want to whine and complain about information about their health being shared, when most people are perfectly fine plugging themselves into industrial scale surveillance systems to give up every granular detail about their life and what makes them tick inside, so mega corporations can ultimately use mind control devices on them to manipulate them against their free will. So spare me the indignation about sharing someone's Covid and vaccine status as some untouchable "3rd rail" of information that can't be touched.

Finally, Stanford took road trips to two of the highest Covid infection rate states in the world in Texas and Tennessee. So it's not surprising Covid infected the team.

[Phogge]

Here is where the NFL is way ahead of colleges in the reality department. There is an injured reserve list and a Covid list. Agree 100% with OF.

[Phogge]

Here is where the NFL is way ahead of colleges in the reality department. There is an injured reserve list and a Covid list. Agree 100% with OF.

[CardinalSagehen]

I don't appreciate the secrecy. We are dealing with a Global Health Crisis. Every bit of information helps us. There should be no privacy when the matters at hand impact the health and well being of others. We all are helped to know there are Covid infections on the Stanford Football team, and based on how those players are treated, we should be able to deduce who is vax'd and who isn't, so we understand how and where Covid is spreading.

OF, I agreed with much of your post, except this key part. You can argue that you just want to know, as a fan. You can argue that you think everyone should be vaxxed in order to have the right to play.  But to say that the infection status of specific individuals on the Stanford Football team helps you or the general public in any way to combat the global health crisis or better understand how and where Covid is spreading struck me as quite an extravagant claim. Admit it, you just want to know who is available to play, how many more people will be infected, and how this will affect our games, right?

Phogge, this is not the NFL.  These are amateurs.

[CardinalSagehen]

I don't appreciate the secrecy. We are dealing with a Global Health Crisis. Every bit of information helps us. There should be no privacy when the matters at hand impact the health and well being of others. We all are helped to know there are Covid infections on the Stanford Football team, and based on how those players are treated, we should be able to deduce who is vax'd and who isn't, so we understand how and where Covid is spreading.

OF, I agreed with much of your post, except this key part. You can argue that you just want to know, as a fan. You can argue that you think everyone should be vaxxed in order to have the right to play.  But to say that the infection status of specific individuals on the Stanford Football team helps you or the general public in any way to combat the global health crisis or better understand how and where Covid is spreading struck me as quite an extravagant claim. Admit it, you just want to know who is available to play, how many more people will be infected, and how this will affect our games, right?

Phogge, this is not the NFL.  These are amateurs.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I asked in another thread whether injury disclosure was part of the CBA in the NFL; I suspect it is.  I am sure that the League and the NFLPA negotiated COVID policy, including disclosures, before it was implemented.  There is no similar mechanism in college (maybe an argument for a union), so I'm not sure how such a decision could be made.

OF, I'm not sure that in the case of a close contact whether it matters if the contact were vaxed or not since they already tested positive.  The data on whether vaccinated individuals with breakthrough cases can transmit COVID as well as unvaccinated COVID-positive individuals is not entirely clear (and has been contradictory in terms of viral load), but I think as a first approximation, I would treat a close contact to someone who has tested positive the same, regardless of whether that represented a close contact with a breakthrough COVID case or a COVID case in an unvaccinated individual.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I asked in another thread whether injury disclosure was part of the CBA in the NFL; I suspect it is.  I am sure that the League and the NFLPA negotiated COVID policy, including disclosures, before it was implemented.  There is no similar mechanism in college (maybe an argument for a union), so I'm not sure how such a decision could be made.

OF, I'm not sure that in the case of a close contact whether it matters if the contact were vaxed or not since they already tested positive.  The data on whether vaccinated individuals with breakthrough cases can transmit COVID as well as unvaccinated COVID-positive individuals is not entirely clear (and has been contradictory in terms of viral load), but I think as a first approximation, I would treat a close contact to someone who has tested positive the same, regardless of whether that represented a close contact with a breakthrough COVID case or a COVID case in an unvaccinated individual.

BC

[Phogge]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

[Phogge]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

[teejers1]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

And they're all adults.

[teejers1]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

And they're all adults.

[82lsju]

Pac 12 return to play rules for COVID

https://xs.pac-12.com/2021-08/Updated%20...0FINAL.pdf

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES FOR 2021-2022 

• Fully vaccinated (to COVID-19) individuals: 
o No surveillance testing required (except as indicated in the Sustained Increased Transmission section below). 
o No quarantine required after exposure to an individual with COVID-19 necessary for asymptomatic individuals. 
o Mask must be worn after exposure to an individual with COVID-19 for 14 days or until a negative PCR test on day 3-5 following exposure 

• Unvaccinated individuals: 
o Testing and quarantine upon return to campus following non-team related travel.  
o Regular surveillance testing, minimum of one molecular PCR test per week (or 3 times a week antigen testing on non-consecutive days). 
o Quarantine for the locally required period of time following high-risk COVID-19 exposure. 
o Mask while indoors. 

• Team vaccination rates: Mitigation guidance for teams regarding masking, travel protocols, and indoor facility use may be modified if 85% of team is vaccinated.

• Single risk standard: Sport risk of transmission categories eliminated  

...
ISOLATION, QUARANTINE AND CONTACT TRACING 

• Member institutions should follow contact tracing protocols per institution, federal, local and state guidelines. Note: The CDC defines close contact as within 6 feet for a cumulative total of 15 consecutive minutes or more in a 24-hour period. 

• Vaccinated Individuals: 
o Fully vaccinated individuals who have a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and remain asymptomatic for symptoms of COVID-19 do not need to quarantine. (See above for masking and testing guidance.) 

• Unvaccinated Individuals: 
o Duration of quarantine for unvaccinated individuals following exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 is determined by local guidelines. The following are consistent with current CDC guidelines: 
▪ Quarantine may end after day 10 without testing if patient is asymptomatic.  
▪ Quarantine may end after 7 days if patient is asymptomatic and obtains a negative molecular PCR test on days 5-7. 

• Infected Individuals (Vaccinated or Unvaccinated): Isolation is required for anyone who tests positive for COVID-19. Isolation is maintained for at least 10 days from the onset of either positive test or symptoms of COVID-19 AND minimum of 24 hours afebrile without use of antipyretics and improvement of respiratory symptoms. An isolated individual may not participate in physical training or team training activities. 

• Notice of Positive Result: If an individual participating in a competition or intersquad scrimmage tests positive within 48 hours following the competition, the following communications will be made to allow for the determination and performance of necessary contact tracing: 
o Team Member: If a team member, that team’s physician or athletic trainer will immediately notify 1) the opposing team’s physician or athletic trainer, and 2) the Conference medical liaison. 
o Officiating or Conference Personnel: If an official or conference personnel, the Conference medical liaison or sport administrator will immediately notify the team physician or athletic trainer of each participating team. 
o Notice of High-Risk Contact: If any high-risk contacts are identified through contact tracing, each institution will be responsible for notifying its affiliated individuals who are identified as high-risk contacts (e.g., designated institution staff will notify any impacted team player, staff, etc.; designated Conference staff will notify any impacted official or Conference personnel.)

...
RESPONSE TO INFECTION / PRESUMED INFECTION 

Infected Person 
Individuals with infection must isolate as described above. The individual should be remotely monitored for worsening or development of symptoms and managed medically as indicated. Student-athletes who become infected with COVID-19 should not exercise until they are cleared from isolation. Particularly in young persons, some infections may either not have symptoms or only have mild symptoms. Currently, CDC guidelines for asymptomatic, mildly, or moderately symptomatic persons is isolation for 10 days. Asymptomatic individuals may be released from isolation 10 days after their positive test. Symptomatic patients should have improvement in symptoms and should be afebrile for 24 hours without the aid of fever reducing agents. For those with severe symptoms or immunocompromised persons, a minimum of 20 days isolation is recommended, and the student-athlete must have resolution of fever and improvement in symptoms prior to return. The student-athlete should be evaluated and cleared by the team physician prior to beginning a return to exercise. Those that have more prolonged or severe illness should have individualized management. 

Diagnosis While Traveling 
If a member of the travel party is diagnosed while traveling, they are to be isolated upon diagnosis and may not travel back with the team or use public forms of transportation. The host medical staff should assist the visiting institution regarding transportation, access to testing and medical evaluation as appropriate. The Pac-12 has contracted with AirMed as an option for institutions to use for transportation of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. High-risk contacts unable to travel by private vehicle should be placed in a surgical mask, KN95 or N95 mask and transported back to school. Every attempt should be made to minimize contact with others. 

Post-Infection 
Once cleared from isolation, the student-athlete should meet with a team physician for clearance prior to return to activity, return to exercise should include a gradual, graded return. Current recommendations for return to exercise can be found here.

[82lsju]

Pac 12 return to play rules for COVID

https://xs.pac-12.com/2021-08/Updated%20...0FINAL.pdf

SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES FOR 2021-2022 

• Fully vaccinated (to COVID-19) individuals: 
o No surveillance testing required (except as indicated in the Sustained Increased Transmission section below). 
o No quarantine required after exposure to an individual with COVID-19 necessary for asymptomatic individuals. 
o Mask must be worn after exposure to an individual with COVID-19 for 14 days or until a negative PCR test on day 3-5 following exposure 

• Unvaccinated individuals: 
o Testing and quarantine upon return to campus following non-team related travel.  
o Regular surveillance testing, minimum of one molecular PCR test per week (or 3 times a week antigen testing on non-consecutive days). 
o Quarantine for the locally required period of time following high-risk COVID-19 exposure. 
o Mask while indoors. 

• Team vaccination rates: Mitigation guidance for teams regarding masking, travel protocols, and indoor facility use may be modified if 85% of team is vaccinated.

• Single risk standard: Sport risk of transmission categories eliminated  

...
ISOLATION, QUARANTINE AND CONTACT TRACING 

• Member institutions should follow contact tracing protocols per institution, federal, local and state guidelines. Note: The CDC defines close contact as within 6 feet for a cumulative total of 15 consecutive minutes or more in a 24-hour period. 

• Vaccinated Individuals: 
o Fully vaccinated individuals who have a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and remain asymptomatic for symptoms of COVID-19 do not need to quarantine. (See above for masking and testing guidance.) 

• Unvaccinated Individuals: 
o Duration of quarantine for unvaccinated individuals following exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 is determined by local guidelines. The following are consistent with current CDC guidelines: 
▪ Quarantine may end after day 10 without testing if patient is asymptomatic.  
▪ Quarantine may end after 7 days if patient is asymptomatic and obtains a negative molecular PCR test on days 5-7. 

• Infected Individuals (Vaccinated or Unvaccinated): Isolation is required for anyone who tests positive for COVID-19. Isolation is maintained for at least 10 days from the onset of either positive test or symptoms of COVID-19 AND minimum of 24 hours afebrile without use of antipyretics and improvement of respiratory symptoms. An isolated individual may not participate in physical training or team training activities. 

• Notice of Positive Result: If an individual participating in a competition or intersquad scrimmage tests positive within 48 hours following the competition, the following communications will be made to allow for the determination and performance of necessary contact tracing: 
o Team Member: If a team member, that team’s physician or athletic trainer will immediately notify 1) the opposing team’s physician or athletic trainer, and 2) the Conference medical liaison. 
o Officiating or Conference Personnel: If an official or conference personnel, the Conference medical liaison or sport administrator will immediately notify the team physician or athletic trainer of each participating team. 
o Notice of High-Risk Contact: If any high-risk contacts are identified through contact tracing, each institution will be responsible for notifying its affiliated individuals who are identified as high-risk contacts (e.g., designated institution staff will notify any impacted team player, staff, etc.; designated Conference staff will notify any impacted official or Conference personnel.)

...
RESPONSE TO INFECTION / PRESUMED INFECTION 

Infected Person 
Individuals with infection must isolate as described above. The individual should be remotely monitored for worsening or development of symptoms and managed medically as indicated. Student-athletes who become infected with COVID-19 should not exercise until they are cleared from isolation. Particularly in young persons, some infections may either not have symptoms or only have mild symptoms. Currently, CDC guidelines for asymptomatic, mildly, or moderately symptomatic persons is isolation for 10 days. Asymptomatic individuals may be released from isolation 10 days after their positive test. Symptomatic patients should have improvement in symptoms and should be afebrile for 24 hours without the aid of fever reducing agents. For those with severe symptoms or immunocompromised persons, a minimum of 20 days isolation is recommended, and the student-athlete must have resolution of fever and improvement in symptoms prior to return. The student-athlete should be evaluated and cleared by the team physician prior to beginning a return to exercise. Those that have more prolonged or severe illness should have individualized management. 

Diagnosis While Traveling 
If a member of the travel party is diagnosed while traveling, they are to be isolated upon diagnosis and may not travel back with the team or use public forms of transportation. The host medical staff should assist the visiting institution regarding transportation, access to testing and medical evaluation as appropriate. The Pac-12 has contracted with AirMed as an option for institutions to use for transportation of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. High-risk contacts unable to travel by private vehicle should be placed in a surgical mask, KN95 or N95 mask and transported back to school. Every attempt should be made to minimize contact with others. 

Post-Infection 
Once cleared from isolation, the student-athlete should meet with a team physician for clearance prior to return to activity, return to exercise should include a gradual, graded return. Current recommendations for return to exercise can be found here.

[pefloresjr]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

Then go root for a pro team.  I'm an adult who is occasionally in the public eye and you have no right to my COVID status.  If you want a team that treats its student athletes like mercenaries, there are many many better options than Stanford.  It is not about you and what you want to know about others.  Get a grip.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

---

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

And they're all adults.

What does that have to do with anything?  Becoming an adult somehow waives a persons right to medical privacy?  That's similar to the "whataboutism" of people's use of cell phones.  That willingness to allow private companies to have information in no way includes or implies a person's waiver of their right to medical privacy for football fans to satisfy their morbid curiosity.  I would also like to know the details of the players' medical situation as a fan but I realize that my interest is nowhere near the importance of each individual player's medical privacy.  As I said in my last post to another poster:  Get a grip.  

Also, even though I think this is a complete red herring based on pure speculation, Shaw is not in charge of the players' vaccination status or approval of religious exemptions, the university is.  ALL Stanford students are subject to the same vaccination and testing requirements and the COVID mitigation policies have, in large part, been very, very successful.  Some players being impacted by COVID in no way represents a failure of the coaches.  

I'm going to go watch the team's inspirational video for tomorrow's game to try to wash the stench of this entire thread from my mind before my happy return to a Stanford tailgate tomorrow morning.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

Then go root for a pro team.  I'm an adult who is occasionally in the public eye and you have no right to my COVID status.  If you want a team that treats its student athletes like mercenaries, there are many many better options than Stanford.  It is not about you and what you want to know about others.  Get a grip.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

---

Sagehen, they aren't amateurs anymore.

And they're all adults.

What does that have to do with anything?  Becoming an adult somehow waives a persons right to medical privacy?  That's similar to the "whataboutism" of people's use of cell phones.  That willingness to allow private companies to have information in no way includes or implies a person's waiver of their right to medical privacy for football fans to satisfy their morbid curiosity.  I would also like to know the details of the players' medical situation as a fan but I realize that my interest is nowhere near the importance of each individual player's medical privacy.  As I said in my last post to another poster:  Get a grip.  

Also, even though I think this is a complete red herring based on pure speculation, Shaw is not in charge of the players' vaccination status or approval of religious exemptions, the university is.  ALL Stanford students are subject to the same vaccination and testing requirements and the COVID mitigation policies have, in large part, been very, very successful.  Some players being impacted by COVID in no way represents a failure of the coaches.  

I'm going to go watch the team's inspirational video for tomorrow's game to try to wash the stench of this entire thread from my mind before my happy return to a Stanford tailgate tomorrow morning.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Phogge]

Apparently you want to make this personal sir. If you don’t like the posts ding me and Teejers. That said don’t tell me what I should do.

[Phogge]

Apparently you want to make this personal sir. If you don’t like the posts ding me and Teejers. That said don’t tell me what I should do.

[81alum]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the disclosure issue.  But as a professor I have been cautioned many times that FERPA is very strict about university employees sharing private information about students.  We cannot even put a grade in an email unless the university has a privacy contract with the email provider.  I've always wondered how coaches could get away with sharing medical information about student athletes given FERPA.  In fact, once FERPA enforcement began to ramp up about a decade ago I noticed a pulling back of such information.  The coaches at our WBB "Chalk Talks" stopped giving out much of any specific information about injuries, for example, and it may have had more to do with the legal advice they were given rather than some secretive desire of Tara to conceal the status of her athletes prior to games.

How all of this plays into the debate currently going on in this thread, I am not sure, but I suspect coaches are now legally limited in what they can say unless the student-athlete signs some kind of FERPA waiver.  What is and is not disclosed may not be a matter of choice by coaches.

[81alum]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the disclosure issue.  But as a professor I have been cautioned many times that FERPA is very strict about university employees sharing private information about students.  We cannot even put a grade in an email unless the university has a privacy contract with the email provider.  I've always wondered how coaches could get away with sharing medical information about student athletes given FERPA.  In fact, once FERPA enforcement began to ramp up about a decade ago I noticed a pulling back of such information.  The coaches at our WBB "Chalk Talks" stopped giving out much of any specific information about injuries, for example, and it may have had more to do with the legal advice they were given rather than some secretive desire of Tara to conceal the status of her athletes prior to games.

How all of this plays into the debate currently going on in this thread, I am not sure, but I suspect coaches are now legally limited in what they can say unless the student-athlete signs some kind of FERPA waiver.  What is and is not disclosed may not be a matter of choice by coaches.

[CTcard]

 But as a professor I have been cautioned many times that FERPA is very strict about university employees sharing private information about students.  We cannot even put a grade in an email unless the university has a privacy contract with the email provider.  I've always wondered how coaches could get away with sharing medical information about student athletes given FERPA. 

1. Your university doesn't have its own email system?

2. Since it is not obvious, it may be worth noting explicitly that medical records held by a university are considered educational records for purposes of being released to anyone other than a medical professional treating the student.
https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/...th-records

As far as I can tell, athletes in sports governed by the NCAA must sign a waiver that certain educational records can be released to the NCAA. That would allow the NCAA to determine academic eligibility and the like. I cannot find anything written on a web page to the effect that athletes sign a waiver that health information can be released to the general public, though that doesn't mean individual schools don't have athletes do so. 


3. FERPA is a god-send in dealing with over-bearing parents. FERPA is rather a pain in writing letters of reference for students.

[CTcard]

 But as a professor I have been cautioned many times that FERPA is very strict about university employees sharing private information about students.  We cannot even put a grade in an email unless the university has a privacy contract with the email provider.  I've always wondered how coaches could get away with sharing medical information about student athletes given FERPA. 

1. Your university doesn't have its own email system?

2. Since it is not obvious, it may be worth noting explicitly that medical records held by a university are considered educational records for purposes of being released to anyone other than a medical professional treating the student.
https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/...th-records

As far as I can tell, athletes in sports governed by the NCAA must sign a waiver that certain educational records can be released to the NCAA. That would allow the NCAA to determine academic eligibility and the like. I cannot find anything written on a web page to the effect that athletes sign a waiver that health information can be released to the general public, though that doesn't mean individual schools don't have athletes do so. 


3. FERPA is a god-send in dealing with over-bearing parents. FERPA is rather a pain in writing letters of reference for students.

[McKenwood]

Things are getting testy on the Cardboard what is the world coming to?

Really surprised that no one has mentioned the gambling/betting angle here. Just watched Fox GameDay equivalent and their talking heads were talking not only about who would win the games but the spreads on the games. The blond talking head hyped some $25K betting contest sponsored by a gambling site.

The evasiveness by Shaw and other college coaches about injuries/Covid absences stresses the integrity of the game. There is a reason the NFL takes their weekly injury reports so seriously. Get the information out there. The gamblers and their associates are looking for an edge. So in college they will be talking to the assistant trainer/assistant equipment manager. A few bucks directed to the right person can result in a meaningful payoff. Don't be surprised if there is a scandal of this sort brewing. Just hope it doesn't involve Stanford.

As for Coach Shaw he decides who is on the team. If a player decides not to get vaccinated he should be asked to pass on 2021 season. Just too much risk associated with unvaccinated players/staff around. The religious or other exemptions are bogus unless the player/staff member has refused all other standard vaccines. There are people (very few) who have legitimate medical reasons for not getting a vaccine. These people should be accomodated but probably should not be playing football.

[McKenwood]

Things are getting testy on the Cardboard what is the world coming to?

Really surprised that no one has mentioned the gambling/betting angle here. Just watched Fox GameDay equivalent and their talking heads were talking not only about who would win the games but the spreads on the games. The blond talking head hyped some $25K betting contest sponsored by a gambling site.

The evasiveness by Shaw and other college coaches about injuries/Covid absences stresses the integrity of the game. There is a reason the NFL takes their weekly injury reports so seriously. Get the information out there. The gamblers and their associates are looking for an edge. So in college they will be talking to the assistant trainer/assistant equipment manager. A few bucks directed to the right person can result in a meaningful payoff. Don't be surprised if there is a scandal of this sort brewing. Just hope it doesn't involve Stanford.

As for Coach Shaw he decides who is on the team. If a player decides not to get vaccinated he should be asked to pass on 2021 season. Just too much risk associated with unvaccinated players/staff around. The religious or other exemptions are bogus unless the player/staff member has refused all other standard vaccines. There are people (very few) who have legitimate medical reasons for not getting a vaccine. These people should be accomodated but probably should not be playing football.

[BostonCard]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

[BostonCard]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

[CardinalSagehen]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

[CardinalSagehen]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

[teejers1]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

The "student privacy" is paramount segment here cracks me up, including Pete (Cheers!).

You all assume the information is not out there in a public way.  But of course, none of you address it - preferring to remain in fantasyland that someone's vaccination status is some great state secret protected to the death.  Newsflash:  it's not.  So you could probably use that semi-public information; use Shaw's comments on expected return; look at league protocols and perhaps figure out who is out due to positive test versus exposure/close contact, or what have you.  Alternatively, they could just disclose it in straightforward manner.

But we can't do that because . . . well, just because student's "health" information is private.  Well, unless they've been in close contact with me, in which case I'm entitled to some information.  

The whole thing is a contrived crock protecting absolutely nothing . . .

[teejers1]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

The "student privacy" is paramount segment here cracks me up, including Pete (Cheers!).

You all assume the information is not out there in a public way.  But of course, none of you address it - preferring to remain in fantasyland that someone's vaccination status is some great state secret protected to the death.  Newsflash:  it's not.  So you could probably use that semi-public information; use Shaw's comments on expected return; look at league protocols and perhaps figure out who is out due to positive test versus exposure/close contact, or what have you.  Alternatively, they could just disclose it in straightforward manner.

But we can't do that because . . . well, just because student's "health" information is private.  Well, unless they've been in close contact with me, in which case I'm entitled to some information.  

The whole thing is a contrived crock protecting absolutely nothing . . .

[BostonCard]

Your premise is that privacy is binary, and that everything is perfectly private or completely transparent.  Alas, privacy is a spectrum, and although there are many things out there that are in the public domain, it is perfectly reasonable to wish that they weren't broadcast to the whole world.  Much of my own sense of privacy comes not from things about me not being somewhere in the public domain, but rather that since it would take some combination of time, persistence, skill, etc. to find a lot of the information, and I am irrelevant enough that no one would bother, that I can feel pretty safe that the info is "private enough".  Alas, if a stalker were to ever go after me, I think I would feel like my privacy was pretty violated despite all the information being in the public domain.

To paraphrase Dr. Malcolm from Jurrasic park:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j9muCo4o0

You seem so preoccupied by whether you could figure out someone's vaccination status that you haven't stopped to think about whether you should.

BC

[BostonCard]

Your premise is that privacy is binary, and that everything is perfectly private or completely transparent.  Alas, privacy is a spectrum, and although there are many things out there that are in the public domain, it is perfectly reasonable to wish that they weren't broadcast to the whole world.  Much of my own sense of privacy comes not from things about me not being somewhere in the public domain, but rather that since it would take some combination of time, persistence, skill, etc. to find a lot of the information, and I am irrelevant enough that no one would bother, that I can feel pretty safe that the info is "private enough".  Alas, if a stalker were to ever go after me, I think I would feel like my privacy was pretty violated despite all the information being in the public domain.

To paraphrase Dr. Malcolm from Jurrasic park:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3j9muCo4o0

You seem so preoccupied by whether you could figure out someone's vaccination status that you haven't stopped to think about whether you should.

BC

[Goose]

But we can't do that because . . . well, just because student's "health" information is private.  Well, unless they've been in close contact with me, in which case I'm entitled to some information.  



The whole thing is a contrived crock protecting absolutely nothing . . .

I am pretty sure you are capable of conducting an "investigation" that will convince YOU that you have determined exactly what someones vaccination status was at any given time. However, what you accept as a standard of proof is not necessarily what many would require. The rules that are in place are designed to prevent those who actually know ground truth from revealing that truth. I would quote coach Mora here, but am sure you can know what I meant so I won't.

[Goose]

But we can't do that because . . . well, just because student's "health" information is private.  Well, unless they've been in close contact with me, in which case I'm entitled to some information.  



The whole thing is a contrived crock protecting absolutely nothing . . .

I am pretty sure you are capable of conducting an "investigation" that will convince YOU that you have determined exactly what someones vaccination status was at any given time. However, what you accept as a standard of proof is not necessarily what many would require. The rules that are in place are designed to prevent those who actually know ground truth from revealing that truth. I would quote coach Mora here, but am sure you can know what I meant so I won't.