[chrisk]

Per Stanford Rivals:


@StanfordFball has announced that they will hold practices at Woodside High in San Mateo County while they continue to work with Santa Clara County to be able to practice on campus.

---

Several days ago, SJS announced it will be holding it training camp at Humboldt State. Their first game is October 24, 2 weeks before Stanford.

[chrisk]

Per Stanford Rivals:


@StanfordFball has announced that they will hold practices at Woodside High in San Mateo County while they continue to work with Santa Clara County to be able to practice on campus.

---

Several days ago, SJS announced it will be holding it training camp at Humboldt State. Their first game is October 24, 2 weeks before Stanford.

[lex24]

Kind of illustrates the absurdity of neighboring counties with different standards.

[lex24]

Kind of illustrates the absurdity of neighboring counties with different standards.

[Phogge]

We are living in a Dali landscape.

[Phogge]

We are living in a Dali landscape.

[BostonCard]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

[PVTree]

Are practices "open" or are they taking the red coats with them to Woodside?

[PVTree]

Are practices "open" or are they taking the red coats with them to Woodside?

[CardinalSagehen]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

Yeah. Just the commute on the bus to Sequoia is probably going to add more risk than living without whatever SCC is requiring.  

Clearly, this is a big middle finger to SCC. Their health officials actually have no leverage in this situation because they are surrounded by counties, a state, and and an entire nation with lesser requirements and an irrationally great love of football.  I’m not criticizing SCC Health for upholding high standards, but I’d much rather they focus their efforts on helping K-12 schools come up with better plans. Stanford Football has daily testing, so I’m not too worried about them, but PAUSD teachers are going to be around hundreds of kids that are not being tested.  Not even population sampling.

[CardinalSagehen]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

Yeah. Just the commute on the bus to Sequoia is probably going to add more risk than living without whatever SCC is requiring.  

Clearly, this is a big middle finger to SCC. Their health officials actually have no leverage in this situation because they are surrounded by counties, a state, and and an entire nation with lesser requirements and an irrationally great love of football.  I’m not criticizing SCC Health for upholding high standards, but I’d much rather they focus their efforts on helping K-12 schools come up with better plans. Stanford Football has daily testing, so I’m not too worried about them, but PAUSD teachers are going to be around hundreds of kids that are not being tested.  Not even population sampling.

[Giants]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

Yeah. Just the commute on the bus to Sequoia is probably going to add more risk than living without whatever SCC is requiring.  

Clearly, this is a big middle finger to SCC. Their health officials actually have no leverage in this situation because they are surrounded by counties, a state, and and an entire nation with lesser requirements and an irrationally great love of football.  I’m not criticizing SCC Health for upholding high standards, but I’d much rather they focus their efforts on helping K-12 schools come up with better plans. Stanford Football has daily testing, so I’m not too worried about them, but PAUSD teachers are going to be around hundreds of kids that are not being tested.  Not even population sampling.

Daily testing is not a panacea.  As we saw recently in a rather significant instance, false positives/false negatives are still an issue.  I would be worried about every Pac-12 team as they begin the season.

[Giants]

I'm sure the virus will note the change in venue and decide not to transmit.

BC

Yeah. Just the commute on the bus to Sequoia is probably going to add more risk than living without whatever SCC is requiring.  

Clearly, this is a big middle finger to SCC. Their health officials actually have no leverage in this situation because they are surrounded by counties, a state, and and an entire nation with lesser requirements and an irrationally great love of football.  I’m not criticizing SCC Health for upholding high standards, but I’d much rather they focus their efforts on helping K-12 schools come up with better plans. Stanford Football has daily testing, so I’m not too worried about them, but PAUSD teachers are going to be around hundreds of kids that are not being tested.  Not even population sampling.

Daily testing is not a panacea.  As we saw recently in a rather significant instance, false positives/false negatives are still an issue.  I would be worried about every Pac-12 team as they begin the season.

[CardinalSagehen]

Daily testing is not a panacea.  As we saw recently in a rather significant instance, false positives/false negatives are still an issue.  I would be worried about every Pac-12 team as they begin the season.

Testing is not a panacea. But regarding that event, the WH has conceded that POTUS himself was not taking regular tests. Isn’t it strange (but likely accurate) to think that the safety and testing protocols for Pac-12 football are probably stricter than at the White House? 

I believe football will shut down as soon as the virus starts to spread among the team, and that will be noticed within 1-3 days as a result of daily repeated testing of the whole group. The athletes know the risk to their own health is very low and they have accepted it. In my view, it’s more important that they don’t cause community spread.  

Meanwhile, at Palo Alto schools and most others around the country, the virus could run wild for several weeks before we’d really know that it has reached any defined threshold for a return to distance learning. Teachers in their 50s and 60s have legitimate reason for concern, and they have not been given the right to opt-out like football players have been given. If they opt out, they lose their job. Shutting down schools is also worse than shutting down football.  

So my point is, SCC Health, instead of nitpicking a basically decent plan that Stanford has presumably submitted, create and enforce a minimally acceptable plan for school districts that will have a better chance of keeping schools open and not killing too many teachers or community members. A key factor in that plan would be more frequent and faster testing.  

I guess this is starting to belong on the COVID board, though...

[CardinalSagehen]

Daily testing is not a panacea.  As we saw recently in a rather significant instance, false positives/false negatives are still an issue.  I would be worried about every Pac-12 team as they begin the season.

Testing is not a panacea. But regarding that event, the WH has conceded that POTUS himself was not taking regular tests. Isn’t it strange (but likely accurate) to think that the safety and testing protocols for Pac-12 football are probably stricter than at the White House? 

I believe football will shut down as soon as the virus starts to spread among the team, and that will be noticed within 1-3 days as a result of daily repeated testing of the whole group. The athletes know the risk to their own health is very low and they have accepted it. In my view, it’s more important that they don’t cause community spread.  

Meanwhile, at Palo Alto schools and most others around the country, the virus could run wild for several weeks before we’d really know that it has reached any defined threshold for a return to distance learning. Teachers in their 50s and 60s have legitimate reason for concern, and they have not been given the right to opt-out like football players have been given. If they opt out, they lose their job. Shutting down schools is also worse than shutting down football.  

So my point is, SCC Health, instead of nitpicking a basically decent plan that Stanford has presumably submitted, create and enforce a minimally acceptable plan for school districts that will have a better chance of keeping schools open and not killing too many teachers or community members. A key factor in that plan would be more frequent and faster testing.  

I guess this is starting to belong on the COVID board, though...

[SamuelMcF]

Are practices "open" or are they taking the red coats with them to Woodside?

If anyone wants to stand an acceptable distance away from the practice and watch, I'd appreciate all observations!

[SamuelMcF]

Are practices "open" or are they taking the red coats with them to Woodside?

If anyone wants to stand an acceptable distance away from the practice and watch, I'd appreciate all observations!

[CardinalSagehen]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

[CardinalSagehen]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

[SamuelMcF]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/10/07/cu-boulde...-outbreak/

Boulder is still essentially locked down.

[SamuelMcF]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/10/07/cu-boulde...-outbreak/

Boulder is still essentially locked down.

[CardinalSagehen]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/10/07/cu-boulde...-outbreak/

Boulder is still essentially locked down.

Except for football. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CUBuffsFootball/status/1314408971411681280?s=20[/tweet]

[CardinalSagehen]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/10/07/cu-boulde...-outbreak/

Boulder is still essentially locked down.

Except for football. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CUBuffsFootball/status/1314408971411681280?s=20[/tweet]

[chrisk]

NBC BayArea video story on Stanford starting practice at Woodside

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/s...h/2378249/

From the story

The Pac-12 issued a bottom line that if 10% of the team tests positive within a two-week span, the door is open for the public health departments to end the team's season.

[chrisk]

NBC BayArea video story on Stanford starting practice at Woodside

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/s...h/2378249/

From the story

The Pac-12 issued a bottom line that if 10% of the team tests positive within a two-week span, the door is open for the public health departments to end the team's season.

[lex24]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

I can eat inside in Menlo Park but not Palo Alto.  What “principle” is being upheld - other than one person deciding she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately.

[lex24]

Cal is now approved to practice this afternoon in cohorts of 75.  So that makes SCC the lone holdout in the Pac-12 and probably nationwide. At some level, I respect their principles, but this doesn’t make sense.

I can eat inside in Menlo Park but not Palo Alto.  What “principle” is being upheld - other than one person deciding she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately.

[oldalum]

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

[oldalum]

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

[chrisk]

The expectation is that SCC will allow limited indoor dining around Wednesday of next week.

[chrisk]

The expectation is that SCC will allow limited indoor dining around Wednesday of next week.

[lex24]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

[lex24]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

[oldalum]

 My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

I believe the County Board of Supervisors has the power to fire her, but I suspect they are reluctant to do so even if they dislike her handling of the pandemic because accountability for whatever happened after that would devolve directly on them. Safer for them to stay above the fray, blame her for problems, and bask in the warm glow of successes. I would guess that they are able to exert some influence on her, if only by questioning and challenging her, but I don't know.

[oldalum]

 My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

I believe the County Board of Supervisors has the power to fire her, but I suspect they are reluctant to do so even if they dislike her handling of the pandemic because accountability for whatever happened after that would devolve directly on them. Safer for them to stay above the fray, blame her for problems, and bask in the warm glow of successes. I would guess that they are able to exert some influence on her, if only by questioning and challenging her, but I don't know.

[Jamesy]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

Isn’t it better that her position is unelected so that they can do what they feel is the right thing rather than what gets them re-elected?

[Jamesy]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

Isn’t it better that her position is unelected so that they can do what they feel is the right thing rather than what gets them re-elected?

[Goose]

That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent.

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.

[Goose]

That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent.

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.