[BostonCard]

https://www.smcgov.org/press-release/san...tions-rise

The lone Bay Area holdout looks to have to issue the stay at home order under California's rules; the share of available ICU beds has dropped to 15%.

Surge in Cases
As of Tuesday, December 15, the County has reported to the state a total of 18,907 COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began. Deaths due to COVID-19 are 183.
The County has recorded new single-day highs for cases repeatedly this month. For the period December 9 through December 15, the County recorded 2,602 new lab-confirmed cases, a daily average of 372 cases and the most in any seven-day period.
Significantly, the county’s test-positivity 14-day average has risen to 8.0 percent from 2.1 percent in early November.
Across the Bay Area region, ICU capacity fell today to 12.9 percent, according to the state's COVID-19 data dashboard.
With Bay Area ICU capacity falling below the 15 percent trigger threshold, now 39.4 million Californians – about 98 percent of the population – are subject to the Regional Stay At Home Order.

BC

---

And the picture down in the southern part of the state also looks pretty dire.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...d-19-surge

The Southern California region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, has 1.7% of all its ICU beds available, according to state data, down from 7% just days ago. As of Tuesday, Los Angeles County had fewer than 100 ICU beds, while Riverside County was at 0% capacity.

I feel for dabigv!

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.smcgov.org/press-release/san...tions-rise

The lone Bay Area holdout looks to have to issue the stay at home order under California's rules; the share of available ICU beds has dropped to 15%.

Surge in Cases
As of Tuesday, December 15, the County has reported to the state a total of 18,907 COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began. Deaths due to COVID-19 are 183.
The County has recorded new single-day highs for cases repeatedly this month. For the period December 9 through December 15, the County recorded 2,602 new lab-confirmed cases, a daily average of 372 cases and the most in any seven-day period.
Significantly, the county’s test-positivity 14-day average has risen to 8.0 percent from 2.1 percent in early November.
Across the Bay Area region, ICU capacity fell today to 12.9 percent, according to the state's COVID-19 data dashboard.
With Bay Area ICU capacity falling below the 15 percent trigger threshold, now 39.4 million Californians – about 98 percent of the population – are subject to the Regional Stay At Home Order.

BC

---

And the picture down in the southern part of the state also looks pretty dire.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...d-19-surge

The Southern California region, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, has 1.7% of all its ICU beds available, according to state data, down from 7% just days ago. As of Tuesday, Los Angeles County had fewer than 100 ICU beds, while Riverside County was at 0% capacity.

I feel for dabigv!

BC

[M T]

So, it appears that the BAY AREA triggered the regional stay-at-home order, which means San Mateo county is now under the order.

SCC has added a new category of data "Hospitals’ Occupancy Relative to Standard Maximum Capacity" to go with "Hospitals’ Occupancy Relative to Current Capacity"    In June & July and in October to early-November current capacity was more above maximum capacity than the number of COVID patients.   By current capacity, SCC has 12% available beds (including staffed surge beds).

It appears that the number of non-COVID ICU patients has dropped over the last week.  I presume that's due to postponing some surgeries.  The number of COVID ICU beds has jumped 30% in the last 3 days from 100 on Saturday to 129 on Tuesday.

On a more hopeful note, for 3 of the past 5 days, the number of new cases in SCC has been lower than one week earlier.

[M T]

So, it appears that the BAY AREA triggered the regional stay-at-home order, which means San Mateo county is now under the order.

SCC has added a new category of data "Hospitals’ Occupancy Relative to Standard Maximum Capacity" to go with "Hospitals’ Occupancy Relative to Current Capacity"    In June & July and in October to early-November current capacity was more above maximum capacity than the number of COVID patients.   By current capacity, SCC has 12% available beds (including staffed surge beds).

It appears that the number of non-COVID ICU patients has dropped over the last week.  I presume that's due to postponing some surgeries.  The number of COVID ICU beds has jumped 30% in the last 3 days from 100 on Saturday to 129 on Tuesday.

On a more hopeful note, for 3 of the past 5 days, the number of new cases in SCC has been lower than one week earlier.

[M T]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

[M T]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

[lex24]

Napa, San Mateo, Solano and Santa Cruz had not advanced the trigger. Yesterday the state announced the regional trigger. So the regional order is fully in place.

[lex24]

Napa, San Mateo, Solano and Santa Cruz had not advanced the trigger. Yesterday the state announced the regional trigger. So the regional order is fully in place.

[teejers1]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

[teejers1]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

[Goose]

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).

Yes. Cal has had a game canceled due to having only 2 DL available. It was a positive COVID-19 test on their squad. Unclear if it was more than one case and contact tracing took out the rest or was it multiple cases.
UPDATE: After looking a bit more, it appears that Cal has had several COVID-19 cases that caused players to be held out and in one case did cause the game to not be played. They had one before their OSU game and one before their Washington game.
https://www.dailycal.org/2020/11/21/cal-...the-month/

The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

The did, IMHO.

[Goose]

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).

Yes. Cal has had a game canceled due to having only 2 DL available. It was a positive COVID-19 test on their squad. Unclear if it was more than one case and contact tracing took out the rest or was it multiple cases.
UPDATE: After looking a bit more, it appears that Cal has had several COVID-19 cases that caused players to be held out and in one case did cause the game to not be played. They had one before their OSU game and one before their Washington game.
https://www.dailycal.org/2020/11/21/cal-...the-month/

The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

The did, IMHO.

[BostonCard]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

[BostonCard]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

[lex24]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

[lex24]

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

[teejers1]

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).

Yes. Cal has had a game canceled due to having only 2 DL available. It was a positive COVID-19 test on their squad. Unclear if it was more than one case and contact tracing took out the rest or was it multiple cases.
UPDATE: After looking a bit more, it appears that Cal has had several COVID-19 cases that caused players to be held out and in one case did cause the game to not be played. They had one before their OSU game and one before their Washington game.
https://www.dailycal.org/2020/11/21/cal-...the-month/

The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

The did, IMHO.

Yeah, I should have said "county" (which is what I was thinking) and not "Bay Area" - but your example still has merit.  Interesting that Cal's county official allows competition, even with the positive tests and postponements/cancellations.

---

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

And the testing regime, isolation on a wide open campus, and playing protocols is much safer than sending kids/coaches back to wherever - and their testing and playing protocols simply do not equate to "doing whatever I want."  

I've previously expressed my scorn at the notion that "we're all in this together."  The EDD numbers front page story in the Merc (those numbers Mick reports here regularly) renders that notion quaint, but not real.

[teejers1]

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).

Yes. Cal has had a game canceled due to having only 2 DL available. It was a positive COVID-19 test on their squad. Unclear if it was more than one case and contact tracing took out the rest or was it multiple cases.
UPDATE: After looking a bit more, it appears that Cal has had several COVID-19 cases that caused players to be held out and in one case did cause the game to not be played. They had one before their OSU game and one before their Washington game.
https://www.dailycal.org/2020/11/21/cal-...the-month/

The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

The did, IMHO.

Yeah, I should have said "county" (which is what I was thinking) and not "Bay Area" - but your example still has merit.  Interesting that Cal's county official allows competition, even with the positive tests and postponements/cancellations.

---

SCC updated its announcement of the Regional Stay-at-Home orders since the state order officially applies.  The 3-week clock restarted as of Monday, and ends January 4.

The County needs to have an exception for the college sports teams competing.
The Stanford football and hoops teams have demonstrated an ability to be Covid free (have any Bay Area football players been required to sit due to a legit Covid test?).  The Health Officer should take notice and act accordingly.

But who really thinks that will happen?

What SJSU football, Stanford football, the 'Niners, and the hoops teams have had to do - in terms of safety alone - has been pretty ridiculous.  At least from this angle.

I don't get the special pleading for sports teams of all things.  I haven't gotten COVID either; that doesn't mean I should do whatever I want to because I declare it to be important.  We are either all in this together, including Stanford sports, or we are each arguing our case to be excepted from the rules, either because we think we are more important than others, or because we are willing to spend more than others in order to give ourselves a greater degree of safety that is not afforded to others.  I can understand essential services, I can understand essentially risk-free activities (those that can be done outdoors separated from others by at least 6 feet), and I can understand constitutionally protected activities like church services and protests (though I would prefer a risk reduction approach). But intercollegiate athletics is none of those, so I don't understand Stanford's insistence on playing a meaningless football game in ground zero of the current pandemic (southern California).  Southern California is out of ICU beds, and we are playing at the Rose Bowl.  To borrow your phrase, teejers, AYFKM?

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."

BC

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

And the testing regime, isolation on a wide open campus, and playing protocols is much safer than sending kids/coaches back to wherever - and their testing and playing protocols simply do not equate to "doing whatever I want."  

I've previously expressed my scorn at the notion that "we're all in this together."  The EDD numbers front page story in the Merc (those numbers Mick reports here regularly) renders that notion quaint, but not real.

[BostonCard]

And the testing regime, isolation on a wide open campus, and playing protocols is much safer than sending kids/coaches back to wherever - and their testing and playing protocols simply do not equate to "doing whatever I want."  

I've previously expressed my scorn at the notion that "we're all in this together."  The EDD numbers front page story in the Merc (those numbers Mick reports here regularly) renders that notion quaint, but not real.

Maybe the testing regime would have been better used in long-term care facilities' staff?  There's another thread in here that describes how the staff were getting COVID-19 and transmitting it to the most vulnerable.

And maybe part of being all in this together is asking that if bars and restaurants have to close all in person dining, maybe we can give up football for a few weeks.

BC

---

I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

We are way beyond the point where we can say "we haven't seen proof of x, so it should be allowed".  We are down to trying to hit the pandemic with a sledgehammer so that our hospitals are not overwhelmed and we don't have a runaway pandemic mere months before widespread vaccine availability.  The next step, if the current "stay at home" order doesn't work, is for a spring-style lockdown.

Also, I've shown data that says the single best way to bring down R is to reduce travel between regions.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

We found two ways that lockdowns suppress R. First, reducing trips to work helps, as do fewer outings to restaurants, bars and shops, though the effect of those leisure settings may vary a lot. (Usage of parks or public transport had no impact, perhaps because visitors are outside or wearing masks.) Second, lockdowns deter people from travelling to other local authorities. This is probably the most important factor in decreasing R overall.

You know what involves people traveling to other local authorities?  Intercollegiate athletics.  The reason is probably not the game itself, but the fact that every person the team comes in contact with when it is in Southern California, is a person that they would not have come into contact with had they stayed home.  Mathematically, each of these interactions is a (small) chance of COVID-19 transmission, so the more interactions, the higher the transmission rate.  This is just basic epidemiology and completely independent of the activity.

Plus we are back to special pleading for activities that we deem important.  Sorry, but intercollegiate athletics are not essential.

BC

[BostonCard]

And the testing regime, isolation on a wide open campus, and playing protocols is much safer than sending kids/coaches back to wherever - and their testing and playing protocols simply do not equate to "doing whatever I want."  

I've previously expressed my scorn at the notion that "we're all in this together."  The EDD numbers front page story in the Merc (those numbers Mick reports here regularly) renders that notion quaint, but not real.

Maybe the testing regime would have been better used in long-term care facilities' staff?  There's another thread in here that describes how the staff were getting COVID-19 and transmitting it to the most vulnerable.

And maybe part of being all in this together is asking that if bars and restaurants have to close all in person dining, maybe we can give up football for a few weeks.

BC

---

I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

We are way beyond the point where we can say "we haven't seen proof of x, so it should be allowed".  We are down to trying to hit the pandemic with a sledgehammer so that our hospitals are not overwhelmed and we don't have a runaway pandemic mere months before widespread vaccine availability.  The next step, if the current "stay at home" order doesn't work, is for a spring-style lockdown.

Also, I've shown data that says the single best way to bring down R is to reduce travel between regions.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

We found two ways that lockdowns suppress R. First, reducing trips to work helps, as do fewer outings to restaurants, bars and shops, though the effect of those leisure settings may vary a lot. (Usage of parks or public transport had no impact, perhaps because visitors are outside or wearing masks.) Second, lockdowns deter people from travelling to other local authorities. This is probably the most important factor in decreasing R overall.

You know what involves people traveling to other local authorities?  Intercollegiate athletics.  The reason is probably not the game itself, but the fact that every person the team comes in contact with when it is in Southern California, is a person that they would not have come into contact with had they stayed home.  Mathematically, each of these interactions is a (small) chance of COVID-19 transmission, so the more interactions, the higher the transmission rate.  This is just basic epidemiology and completely independent of the activity.

Plus we are back to special pleading for activities that we deem important.  Sorry, but intercollegiate athletics are not essential.

BC

[Goose]

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."



BC

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

[Goose]

I know it's not popular to say so, but Cody was right, and Stanford should have set the example by saying "It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is, but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted."



BC

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

[Goose]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

I understand the point that not all the county health officers saw it the same way. One can argue the merits of playing in a controlled environment vs letting the team disperse to their homes. What Stanford did was "legal". It didn't violate any regulations because it left the jurisdiction where the regulations were at issue. However, that is exactly the problem, IMHO. The virus is not a legalistic entity. The intent of the county order was clear. Leaving the jurisdiction clearly involved doing exactly what the order was designed to prevent, i.e. travel away from home for any reason that was "unnecessary". SAH means exactly that.

The unevenness of regulation is understandable in this context because nobody knows exactly what is the "right" mix of lockdown and allowed activity. It is entirely possible that the level of disease we have right now in SCC was driven by people who were not actually violating the letter any of the regulations in effect when this third wave started. We just don't know. However, it is clear that Stanford's actions did circumvent the intent of Dr, Cody's order. If the public spends it's time trying to figure out ways around the rules rather than how to make the rules work to defeat the virus, we are going to continue to lose this fight to control the spread.

[Goose]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

I understand the point that not all the county health officers saw it the same way. One can argue the merits of playing in a controlled environment vs letting the team disperse to their homes. What Stanford did was "legal". It didn't violate any regulations because it left the jurisdiction where the regulations were at issue. However, that is exactly the problem, IMHO. The virus is not a legalistic entity. The intent of the county order was clear. Leaving the jurisdiction clearly involved doing exactly what the order was designed to prevent, i.e. travel away from home for any reason that was "unnecessary". SAH means exactly that.

The unevenness of regulation is understandable in this context because nobody knows exactly what is the "right" mix of lockdown and allowed activity. It is entirely possible that the level of disease we have right now in SCC was driven by people who were not actually violating the letter any of the regulations in effect when this third wave started. We just don't know. However, it is clear that Stanford's actions did circumvent the intent of Dr, Cody's order. If the public spends it's time trying to figure out ways around the rules rather than how to make the rules work to defeat the virus, we are going to continue to lose this fight to control the spread.

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

I understand the point that not all the county health officers saw it the same way. One can argue the merits of playing in a controlled environment vs letting the team disperse to their homes. What Stanford did was "legal". It didn't violate any regulations because it left the jurisdiction where the regulations were at issue. However, that is exactly the problem, IMHO. The virus is not a legalistic entity. The intent of the county order was clear. Leaving the jurisdiction clearly involved doing exactly what the order was designed to prevent, i.e. travel away from home for any reason that was "unnecessary". SAH means exactly that.

The unevenness of regulation is understandable in this context because nobody knows exactly what is the "right" mix of lockdown and allowed activity. It is entirely possible that the level of disease we have right now in SCC was driven by people who were not actually violating the letter any of the regulations in effect when this third wave started. We just don't know. However, it is clear that Stanford's actions did circumvent the intent of Dr, Cody's order. If the public spends it's time trying to figure out ways around the rules rather than how to make the rules work to defeat the virus, we are going to continue to lose this fight to control the spread.

Yeah, and if the SMC Health Officer says no resident is allowed to get groceries, in-person, in the county (must have all home-delivered), is the Menlo Park resident who goes to the Safeway in Palo Alto more at fault or less at fault than the Stanford athletes for their behavior?  Is the most strict regulation ALWAYS the best one for everyone?

Uniformity of rules - especially at level we're talking about here - is pretty important for buy in.  Maybe the other counties will join the SCC Health Officer . . . or maybe she will not be the outlier on this.  Which way are you betting?

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

I understand the point that not all the county health officers saw it the same way. One can argue the merits of playing in a controlled environment vs letting the team disperse to their homes. What Stanford did was "legal". It didn't violate any regulations because it left the jurisdiction where the regulations were at issue. However, that is exactly the problem, IMHO. The virus is not a legalistic entity. The intent of the county order was clear. Leaving the jurisdiction clearly involved doing exactly what the order was designed to prevent, i.e. travel away from home for any reason that was "unnecessary". SAH means exactly that.

The unevenness of regulation is understandable in this context because nobody knows exactly what is the "right" mix of lockdown and allowed activity. It is entirely possible that the level of disease we have right now in SCC was driven by people who were not actually violating the letter any of the regulations in effect when this third wave started. We just don't know. However, it is clear that Stanford's actions did circumvent the intent of Dr, Cody's order. If the public spends it's time trying to figure out ways around the rules rather than how to make the rules work to defeat the virus, we are going to continue to lose this fight to control the spread.

Yeah, and if the SMC Health Officer says no resident is allowed to get groceries, in-person, in the county (must have all home-delivered), is the Menlo Park resident who goes to the Safeway in Palo Alto more at fault or less at fault than the Stanford athletes for their behavior?  Is the most strict regulation ALWAYS the best one for everyone?

Uniformity of rules - especially at level we're talking about here - is pretty important for buy in.  Maybe the other counties will join the SCC Health Officer . . . or maybe she will not be the outlier on this.  Which way are you betting?

[Goose]

Yeah, and if the SMC Health Officer says no resident is allowed to get groceries, in-person, in the county (must have all home-delivered), is the Menlo Park resident who goes to the Safeway in Palo Alto more at fault or less at fault than the Stanford athletes for their behavior?  Is the most strict regulation ALWAYS the best one for everyone?

Certainly not. But that isn't germane. For some reason people seem to believe that they individually get to decide whether to follow a regulation. They do not have that right. Society can't function if everybody gets to basically do what they personally believe is  right. They can write letters to the editor and picket the county supervisors office, but they still have to get their groceries delivered. It has to work like that, especially when things are not going well and we don't all agree on the path ahead.

Uniformity of rules - especially at level we're talking about here - is pretty important for buy in.  Maybe the other counties will join the SCC Health Officer . . . or maybe she will not be the outlier on this.  Which way are you betting?

Unfortunately, you are correct, and even more unfortunately "buy in" is the apparently declared prerequisite to following regulations, it would seem. Obviously, in the long term regulations that are not justifiable will be ignored. However, this is not a "long term" situation. When it comes to emergency situations (and this is clearly an emergency) the public can't be allowed to decide if they "buy in". A good plan (even one with overkill) executed today can be effective. A perfect plan executed in a month when everybody has "bought in" (if that can even ever happen) is far too late. By then, hospitals will be overrun.
As for my "bet", I have been saying for a while now that I expect a SIP will be required to stop this current surge. We may just possibly get by with the SAH as the State has defined it, but right now it is not looking probable. FWIW, we drove by the Stanford shopping center a few minutes ago. If that parking lot was 20% full most of those cars must be cardboard cutouts. I guess people aren't "buying in".

[Goose]

Yeah, and if the SMC Health Officer says no resident is allowed to get groceries, in-person, in the county (must have all home-delivered), is the Menlo Park resident who goes to the Safeway in Palo Alto more at fault or less at fault than the Stanford athletes for their behavior?  Is the most strict regulation ALWAYS the best one for everyone?

Certainly not. But that isn't germane. For some reason people seem to believe that they individually get to decide whether to follow a regulation. They do not have that right. Society can't function if everybody gets to basically do what they personally believe is  right. They can write letters to the editor and picket the county supervisors office, but they still have to get their groceries delivered. It has to work like that, especially when things are not going well and we don't all agree on the path ahead.

Uniformity of rules - especially at level we're talking about here - is pretty important for buy in.  Maybe the other counties will join the SCC Health Officer . . . or maybe she will not be the outlier on this.  Which way are you betting?

Unfortunately, you are correct, and even more unfortunately "buy in" is the apparently declared prerequisite to following regulations, it would seem. Obviously, in the long term regulations that are not justifiable will be ignored. However, this is not a "long term" situation. When it comes to emergency situations (and this is clearly an emergency) the public can't be allowed to decide if they "buy in". A good plan (even one with overkill) executed today can be effective. A perfect plan executed in a month when everybody has "bought in" (if that can even ever happen) is far too late. By then, hospitals will be overrun.
As for my "bet", I have been saying for a while now that I expect a SIP will be required to stop this current surge. We may just possibly get by with the SAH as the State has defined it, but right now it is not looking probable. FWIW, we drove by the Stanford shopping center a few minutes ago. If that parking lot was 20% full most of those cars must be cardboard cutouts. I guess people aren't "buying in".

[BostonCard]

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

So, I was probably one of the millions who got enjoyment from watching that game.  I still think it was a bad idea.  It's not like I couldn't have watched Netflix or listened to podcasts, or argued with you guys on this board.

BC

[BostonCard]

How many millions get enjoyment from watching sports?  I still am not aware of any study that shows college or pro football has contributed to either the spread, or more importantly, hospitalizations.  And the value is in entertainment.  Which is important to ease mental fatigue. That’s the reason to play.

So, I was probably one of the millions who got enjoyment from watching that game.  I still think it was a bad idea.  It's not like I couldn't have watched Netflix or listened to podcasts, or argued with you guys on this board.

BC

[dabigv13]

On the one hand I think it's sort of grotesque to be playing this game, in LA, in the middle of the worst of the pandemic, but on the other hand that was a hell of a game.

[dabigv13]

On the one hand I think it's sort of grotesque to be playing this game, in LA, in the middle of the worst of the pandemic, but on the other hand that was a hell of a game.

[Goose]

On the one hand I think it's sort of grotesque to be playing this game, in LA, in the middle of the worst of the pandemic, but on the other hand that was a hell of a game.

Yes and yes.

[Goose]

On the one hand I think it's sort of grotesque to be playing this game, in LA, in the middle of the worst of the pandemic, but on the other hand that was a hell of a game.

Yes and yes.

[chrisk]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

The football season is now over for all of California members of the Pac-12, mostly of their own volition. SJS appears to be going to the Arizona Bowl in Tucson.

[chrisk]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

The football season is now over for all of California members of the Pac-12, mostly of their own volition. SJS appears to be going to the Arizona Bowl in Tucson.

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

The football season is now over for all of California members of the Pac-12, mostly of their own volition.  SJS appears to be going to the Arizona Bowl in Tucson.

Good for SJSU; they certainly earned it.

And I'm perfectly content that Stanford opted out of a bowl game - they've been on the road enough lately and it's hard to imagine a better, more improbable season-ending W.  But IF Stanford had elected to play in a bowl and was selected for same - I would have been okay with them doing that, too.

P.S.  SJSU coach going to Arizona Bowl to get a sneak peak at his new state for 2021 football season (and that's not good news for Stanford or the rest of the Pac.).

[teejers1]

BC, I agree with you 100% on this issue except for the part about "but we want to do our part to prevent the spread of COVID-19; consequently we are stopping all intercollegiate competitions until the order is lifted." The problem there is it begs for special pleading. The advocates can say "Football isn't causing the spread of COVID-19. Show me proof that it is."
The thing our society just doesn't get is that once Dr. Cody speaks, that's it. Santa Clara County must comply. We can complain, protest, file lawsuits, etc. but in the meantime, we must comply. The problem is that really nobody knows what is driving the spread. What we do know is that staying home stops it. We need to do that. Traveling across the West looking for a home is not doing that. Yes, it may not matter, but since we really don't have an answer, it may. Staying home and avoiding other people works. We have yet to find a mix of not doing that that reliably does. That is just a fact. Given that, we need to follow the regulations even if we think they are in part unjustified.

Perhaps the teams in SCC would feel better about following the directive of the Health Officer if it were consistent with other counties . . . you know . . . so that they might feel that "we are all in this together."  As it is, I suspect Stanford athletes believe "we are being singled out for punishment due to the vagaries of the Health Officer in charge of our county, who has decided to prohibit sporting activities and travel when other counties have not."  And you know what?  They're correct.

I don't know if it's feasible for the Road Show to continue - I kind of doubt it.  But I do not blame the Stanford teams (and SJSU and 'Niners) for giving it a go.  And I'll go one step further and say that Stanford is playing "in the belly of the beast" (as BC termed it) precisely because of the order precluding games on Stanford campus (which is WAY safer than other places in the country from an infection standpoint).

But maybe the other counties in CA will "see the light" of the SCC Health Officer.  If so, at least then there might be a sense for the competitors of being in this together.

The football season is now over for all of California members of the Pac-12, mostly of their own volition.  SJS appears to be going to the Arizona Bowl in Tucson.

Good for SJSU; they certainly earned it.

And I'm perfectly content that Stanford opted out of a bowl game - they've been on the road enough lately and it's hard to imagine a better, more improbable season-ending W.  But IF Stanford had elected to play in a bowl and was selected for same - I would have been okay with them doing that, too.

P.S.  SJSU coach going to Arizona Bowl to get a sneak peak at his new state for 2021 football season (and that's not good news for Stanford or the rest of the Pac.).