[Goose]

I like Santa Clara's approach
- Until vaccine is fully approved (not EUA), students/faculty/staff have a choice about whether to get vaccinated or not
- Those who do not provide proof of vaccination must wear masks at all times when outside their residence and must get tested twice a week
- Those who provide proof of vaccination do not have to wear masks nor do they need to be tested
- Once a vaccine is fully FDA approved, vaccination will be mandatory

Not sure what their policy is for others who come onto campus

Seems reasonable. Waiting this long for FDA approval doesn't:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1416070158934741008[/tweet]

This does seem a bit long, at least to me. I wonder if there is some data, like possibly on young children, that won't be available until then and is required for full approval? It also may be there is no rush because it is assumed the EUA is "good enough" for most purposes. However, from a sports point of view, I can see the argument that a school shouldn't force somebody to take treatment that doesn't have full FDA approval. I think it is clear that you CAN force a person to take an EUA approved drug, but whether you should is another question. Santa Clara appears to have decided not to do so.

It should be noted that the "standard" FDA approval cycle is a year, and that the six month review granted Pfizer is an expedited one, so probably it is the best they are going to get.

[Goose]

I like Santa Clara's approach
- Until vaccine is fully approved (not EUA), students/faculty/staff have a choice about whether to get vaccinated or not
- Those who do not provide proof of vaccination must wear masks at all times when outside their residence and must get tested twice a week
- Those who provide proof of vaccination do not have to wear masks nor do they need to be tested
- Once a vaccine is fully FDA approved, vaccination will be mandatory

Not sure what their policy is for others who come onto campus

Seems reasonable. Waiting this long for FDA approval doesn't:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1416070158934741008[/tweet]

This does seem a bit long, at least to me. I wonder if there is some data, like possibly on young children, that won't be available until then and is required for full approval? It also may be there is no rush because it is assumed the EUA is "good enough" for most purposes. However, from a sports point of view, I can see the argument that a school shouldn't force somebody to take treatment that doesn't have full FDA approval. I think it is clear that you CAN force a person to take an EUA approved drug, but whether you should is another question. Santa Clara appears to have decided not to do so.

It should be noted that the "standard" FDA approval cycle is a year, and that the six month review granted Pfizer is an expedited one, so probably it is the best they are going to get.