[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.

[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.