New NFL-NFLPA Covid protocols

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 minutes ago, mannc said:

It’s an important issue that needs to be discussed.  The fact that there are strong differing viewpoints should not lead to the thread bring squelched.  (I did not participate in the thread yesterday, but the fact that it went to 80 pages pretty quickly tells you that this is an issue people care about.)

 

Thanks for the input!

 

To be clear,  the consensus seems to be that the Beasley issue in particular got thoroughly hashed out in its 80 pages, so that will not re-open, and people who wish to keep discussing it are welcome to move to PPP or elsewhere. 

 

The question is, is there interest in discussing the protocols and relevant issues aside from Beasley and his viewpoint?

(To anyone else reading, please see poll and vote)

[mannc]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks for the input!

 

To be clear,  the consensus seems to be that the Beasley issue in particular got thoroughly hashed out in its 80 pages, so that will not re-open, and people who wish to keep discussing it are welcome to move to PPP or elsewhere. 

 

The question is, is there interest in discussing the protocols and relevant issues aside from Beasley and his viewpoint?

Yes

[Locomark]

On 5/27/2021 at 1:16 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It's basically asking them to live over last season, as far as I can tell.

 

If there weren't a tenable alternative, it wouldn't mean very much for the NFL/NFLPA to say "vaccination isn't mandatory", would it? 

But not everyone shares your view that it's reasonable.  If you go to the twitter thread there are a bunch of comments to the effect that it's "bull####" or "forcing players to get vaccinated"

 

I would doubt that press would have access to the facility, or only very limited access - just like last year.  But if the Bills are serious about privacy on vaccination status, they would simply tell everyone to mask up when being videoed.

 

There's a lot of stuff in there I can see as potentially divisive to a team

 

The NFLPA has to represent all players and that means being on the cautious side of health issues. The consequences of asking the NFLPA to being less cautious on player physical and mental health was seen for many decades and no player should want them to go backward!  All employers have the right, it not obligation, to protect their employees. Use the smoker analogy. You can’t smoke in the workplace, so smokers have to go outside. So this Is no different. You can go film the smokers outside the workplace and see which employees smoke and therefore even know who had higher insurance premiums due to it right? So why is this different? You have the right to opt out of a vaccine, but then your employer has the right to hold you to tighter restrictions to protect the other employees around you.  The other players don’t have to be held to your standards to protect your anonymity. That’s your choice, you should be able to defend it publicly. You are a public figure who gets questions about every little aspect of your life so this is part of that job unfortunately. I defend Cole and others like him in their right to speak up. However they have no right to determine their employer’s health policies. If they don’t like it they can find a different line of work.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Locomark

[YoloinOhio]

I voted yes to keep it open. I understand keeping the covid-related discussion as it impacts the Bills to one thread to keep things easier to moderate. But I anticipate that the beasely story isn’t over, so with that thread gone the discussion will need to go somewhere as that situation develops. 

[Buddo]

Keep it open, but perhaps be a bit more rigid in keeping things on track. While I didn't read the whole thread on Beasley,  I did read a lot of it, and there seemed to be too much arguing about points that weren't actually relevant, especially about his right to refuse to be vaccinated, when hardly anyone was saying that.

 

There are very likely going to be changes and clarifications to the 'protocols' both around the time of TC, and for when games start (both pre and actual season).

 

Whether or not people like it, Im convinced that not only will there be protocols in place, but they will need to be adhered to.

 

The latest variant, gets around very quickly, more so than others have, and it's having a big effect in the UK, with a rapid rise in cases, that have lead to a 'full' end to lockdown being shelved for a further month, at least. We were actually supposed to be out of a lockdown situation today, but it's not going to be for another month now. This is to get a larger proportion of the population vaccinated, as the vast majority of new cases have been from amongst those who haven't been vaccinated, especially younger age groups (18 -30).

 

The above is given as an example of why I think there will not only still be protocols, but also why they will be being nforced, by both the NFLPA, and the NFL.

[YoloinOhio]

Breer details the thought process behind the protocols: 

 

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/06/21/mmqb-sean-mcvay-expectations-burnout-covid-protocol-vaccines?__twitter_impression=true

 

Quote

I’m not going to turn this part of my column into an argument over how effective the vaccine is. But I do think it’d be helpful for Beasley, and other players who are upset with what the union and league just negotiated (and everyone else too), to know exactly how the two sides landed on the agreement that they did. Some of what I’ve gathered …

• The agreement was negotiated in a simple, straightforward way. The protocols for unvaccinated people—given that there’s really been no change in the risk the virus presents, or how it is transmitted—were going to remain the same, absent COVID-19 altogether disappearing.

• As such, from the NFL/NFLPA view, the negotiations weren’t to create two classes of players. More so, it was to upgrade rules for those who’ve been vaccinated.

• The NFLPA did want to protect players’ rights to choose, and the union did that. They aren’t required to get the vaccine at the level other league employees are.

Quote

While there was some talk of relaxed protocols for teams crossing the 85% threshold for vaccinations, it now looks like the protocols are what they’re going to be, for camp at least.

And really, going through this for everyone has revealed that football players are split in a way that’s not so different from the way the rest of the U.S. is split. One involved official said there are four categories of player, and they’re close to being broken up evenly—each representing about a quarter of the league.

The first is the young player who’s generally going to do what he’s told—and will get the shot, if he hasn’t already—to prevent there being any unnecessary barrier in advancing his career. The second is the player who believes in the medicine, and got the shot early, in a lot of cases before his team started offering it. The third is the group of players who don’t want to get the vaccine, but will as a matter of convenience. The fourth is players like Beasley, who feel opposed to the vaccine strongly enough to go through the 2020 protocols again to avoid it.

And those groups are coalescing in the statistics now. Sources say new data collected by the league and union showed on Friday afternoon that about 55% of all NFL players have had at least one shot, which is up from around 30% just a few weeks ago. I talked to one agent the other day who said before the protocols were released, a quarter of his clients had at least one shot. He expected by early this week, that number would jump to about three-quarters of his list.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Breer details the thought process behind the protocols:

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/06/21/mmqb-sean-mcvay-expectations-burnout-covid-protocol-vaccines?__twitter_impression=true

 

Interesting!  Thank you.

Poll is running 63% in favor of keeping the thread open to discuss these issues.

 

I hope we can have a reasonable discussion, but if it blows up into

a. Bease part II

b. Tralala land featuring Sheep, "98% survival rate", etc etc etc

c. political commentary: name-calling elected officials, imputing political viewpoints to people, or bringing in other contentious issues eg Kaep, kneeling

...it's gonna be "Lockit City"

[HalftimeAdjustment]

5 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Breer details the thought process behind the protocols: 

 

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/06/21/mmqb-sean-mcvay-expectations-burnout-covid-protocol-vaccines?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

 

I think the protocols for the unvaccinated s

could take into account 2 additional factors:

 

1) Player's prior history of COVID. Despite a general recommendation that post-COVID infection you should still get vaccinated, there are actually reasonable disagreements on when that should occur. It is also not really in dispute that there is a short term level of resistance conveyed by infection. So, it might be reasonable to allow someone to be treated the same as vaccinated players for X months, such as 3-6. But this would require some data to back it up... such as frequency of reinfection of non immunocompromised individuals in that time horizon. I don't have enough data to judge this either way but it is worth considering.

 

2) Probably an even larger factor is the prevalence of infection in the community. Is there a threshold below which severe restrictions on player interactions no longer make sense? If the "positivity rate" were 0.01% and there were 100 infections/day nationwide, would that be sufficiently low to relax protocols? I don't have the answer of course, but "disappear completely" seems like an unreasonable standard. I don't believe Ebola has disappeared completely but players are not required to follow precautions against it because their risk is effectively zero.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, HalftimeAdjustment said:

I think the protocols for the unvaccinated s

could take into account 2 additional factors:

 

Good points!  I had these same questions myself.

 

13 minutes ago, HalftimeAdjustment said:

1) Player's prior history of COVID. Despite a general recommendation that post-COVID infection you should still get vaccinated, there are actually reasonable disagreements on when that should occur. It is also not really in dispute that there is a short term level of resistance conveyed by infection. So, it might be reasonable to allow someone to be treated the same as vaccinated players for X months, such as 3-6. But this would require some data to back it up... such as frequency of reinfection of non immunocompromised individuals in that time horizon. I don't have enough data to judge this either way but it is worth considering.

 

I think the preponderance of the evidence (and by now it's a reasonable set of studies) is that covid-19 infection conveys protection against re-infection that is at least as good as the 1-dose J&J vaccine, for at least 6 months.  So if the 1 dose J&J vaccine allows the player to follow "vaccinated" protocols, I think say, a positive PCR test for Covid-19 that is less than 6 months and more than 14 days old, should permit the player or coach to follow the vaccinated protocols.

 

Health authorities from several countries reached a similar conclusion and allow people who present the above to skip quarantine, similar to people who present proof of vaccination.

 

We don't know exactly how long it lasts, but we don't know exactly how long immunity lasts post-vaccination at this point either, other than that it's at  least 6 months.

 

If there are objections that some people don't develop immunity, immunity could be verified by two different antibody tests (off a list of qualified tests) or a T-cell test.  This would be cool as it would add to scientific knowledge about duration of immunity post-infection

I think there's "reasonable agreement" (preponderance of evidence) about vaccination timing after covid-19 infection.

 

What I suspect, is that the NFL and NFLPA are concerned about a policy like this encouraging vaccine-hesitant players to pursue the equivalent of "infection parties".  Since there's building evidence that the incidence of serious side effects (blood clots, myocarditis) is significantly lower with vaccination than with infection, That would be Bad.

But at some point, you can't craft policies designed for a group of Grown Ass Men without assuming they'll behave responsibly.

[Einstein's Dog]

9 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Breer details the thought process behind the protocols: 

 

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2021/06/21/mmqb-sean-mcvay-expectations-burnout-covid-protocol-vaccines?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

What a pro NFLPA piece that was.  Somehow thinking by saying the "agreement was negotiated in a simple and straightforward way" implies it was a good deal.  Not necessarily the case, often times complex issues aren't straightforward. 

The second point on about how the negotiations weren't to create two classes of players, well they failed there.

 

The authors contention that football players are split in a way that's not different than the way the rest of the US is split is backed up by nothing.  And he estimates that the football players are 25% for vaccination, 25% totally against and another 50% against it but willing to do it, to comply because of negative consequences if not done.  So does the author really think 75% of the general population doesn't want the vaccine?

 

To me, the points in that article help support Beas' contention that the NFLPA misread the players position. 

 

 

[Saxum]

43 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

 

The authors contention that football players are split in a way that's not different than the way the rest of the US is split is backed up by nothing.  And he estimates that the football players are 25% for vaccination, 25% totally against and another 50% against it but willing to do it, to comply because of negative consequences if not done.  So does the author really think 75% of the general population doesn't want the vaccine?

 

 

It is not an estimate, it is a guesstimate with numbers matching author's opinion.

 

I get a number of these polls on phone where the poll is slanted to support organization paying for poll.

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

But at some point, you can't craft policies designed for a group of Grown Ass Men without assuming they'll behave responsibly.

 

Very similar to issues of moderation on board.

[HalftimeAdjustment]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

What I suspect, is that the NFL and NFLPA are concerned about a policy like this encouraging vaccine-hesitant players to pursue the equivalent of "infection parties".  Since there's building evidence that the incidence of serious side effects (blood clots, myocarditis) is significantly lower with vaccination than with infection, That would be Bad.

But at some point, you can't craft policies designed for a group of Grown Ass Men without assuming they'll behave responsibly.

 

I feel they designed the vast protocol difference intentionally to nudge the undecideds/uninformed. Once they get down to the hardcore anti- group, nudging is useless so they may provide more "out"s.

 

It is hard for me to describe some players as vaccine-hesitant. That describes people who waited a few months for lots of people to get it, then decided to get it. They literally hesitated. That would describe someone who is still open to maybe getting it. Someone who is firmly against it is really not vaccine-hesitant, they are vaccine-opposed. As noted in the prior article, they will likely not be affected by carrots or sticks unless taken to an extreme. So I think "infection parties" are more likely among the "opposed" than the "hesitant". But it is probably in the NFL's interest to delay providing alternative options.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, HalftimeAdjustment said:

I feel they designed the vast protocol difference intentionally to nudge the undecideds/uninformed. Once they get down to the hardcore anti- group, nudging is useless so they may provide more "out"s.

 

So you don't buy Breer's contention that "The protocols for unvaccinated people—given that there’s really been no change in the risk the virus presents, or how it is transmitted—were going to remain the same, absent COVID-19 altogether disappearing"

 

What changes do you see between last season's protocols and this season's protocols (aside from changes for vaccinated players)?

 

 

1 hour ago, HalftimeAdjustment said:

It is hard for me to describe some players as vaccine-hesitant. That describes people who waited a few months for lots of people to get it, then decided to get it. They literally hesitated. That would describe someone who is still open to maybe getting it. Someone who is firmly against it is really not vaccine-hesitant, they are vaccine-opposed. As noted in the prior article, they will likely not be affected by carrots or sticks unless taken to an extreme. So I think "infection parties" are more likely among the "opposed" than the "hesitant". But it is probably in the NFL's interest to delay providing alternative options.

 

I can agree with your explanation here.

 

[HalftimeAdjustment]

23 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So you don't buy Breer's contention that "The protocols for unvaccinated people—given that there’s really been no change in the risk the virus presents, or how it is transmitted—were going to remain the same, absent COVID-19 altogether disappearing"

 

What changes do you see between last season's protocols and this season's protocols (aside from changes for vaccinated players)?

 

Quite simply I can't agree that the current risk is the same as last fall because community prevalence and transmission rates are lower, which of course could change. That argument could be used to extend the same 2020 protocols to 2025 or beyond as long as there is a single case. Which is not, of course, what the rest of society is doing as far as maintaining rules - not in practice anyhow. I am not saying the protocols are different because I have not seen a side by side comparison but I do not believe that a rigorous scientific analysis is the only driver. Encouragement to get vaccinated is part of the motive and I am completely fine with that.

[just1hugheser]

23 hours ago, Locomark said:

The NFLPA has to represent all players and that means being on the cautious side of health issues. The consequences of asking the NFLPA to being less cautious on player physical and mental health was seen for many decades and no player should want them to go backward!  All employers have the right, it not obligation, to protect their employees. Use the smoker analogy. You can’t smoke in the workplace, so smokers have to go outside. So this Is no different. You can go film the smokers outside the workplace and see which employees smoke and therefore even know who had higher insurance premiums due to it right? So why is this different? You have the right to opt out of a vaccine, but then your employer has the right to hold you to tighter restrictions to protect the other employees around you.  The other players don’t have to be held to your standards to protect your anonymity. That’s your choice, you should be able to defend it publicly. You are a public figure who gets questions about every little aspect of your life so this is part of that job unfortunately. I defend Cole and others like him in their right to speak up. However they have no right to determine their employer’s health policies. If they don’t like it they can find a different line of work.

 

 

this was basically the long and short of my post too, people can do whatever they want but they also have to acknowledge(at least eventually) that every choice has consequences.

 

And when people's choices can affect the health/safety/life of others in the workplace, community, school, society, etc. then rules, protocols, sop's, laws, regs, etc. need to be enacted to protect people> ie person drunk sitting on a couch no biggie, person drunk sitting behind the wheel = risk to self and others = laws/regs etc. 

 

people can make all the 'wrong' choices they want but when those choices affect other people and are therefore regulated they dont get to say well those rules/regs/laws don't apply to me> which is essentially what the Beas is doing, he can not get the vax all he wants but he doesn't get to say well nuts to the protocols that are supposed to protect others>  and the comment he made about probablities in terms of vaxed people being just as at risk of bringing the virus back to his hotel is a twisted logic.(ie comparing the odds of him or other people making it the nfl and the odds of getting exposed to the virus by persons who are vaxed)

[HalftimeAdjustment]

Well, I am not going to copy that whole thing in a quote, but given that the protocols are currently for preseason only, I suspect they will be slightly relaxed. There is no argument that could convince me that unvaccinated players should not be tested daily for the forseeable future, and that is hardly forcing them to get vaccinated. Similarly the quarantine rules for unvaccinated players who have a probable exposure are unlikely to change. I suspect most of the focus will be on the travel/hotel restrictions and other appearance opportunities etc.

 

Having said that, when you ask how I can say that I am fine with the NFL/NFLPA deciding to make life easier for vaccinated players and encourage (not force) vaccinations, I say that because that is my opinion. Beyond that, I think the conversation gets into off topic areas.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 6/21/2021 at 3:23 PM, Einstein's Dog said:

What a pro NFLPA piece that was.  Somehow thinking by saying the "agreement was negotiated in a simple and straightforward way" implies it was a good deal.  Not necessarily the case, often times complex issues aren't straightforward. 

The second point on about how the negotiations weren't to create two classes of players, well they failed there.

 

I agree with you that "straightforward" can just mean enough thought hasn't been put into a complex issue.  And certainly "well they failed there" is pretty much inarguable.

 

 

Quote

The authors contention that football players are split in a way that's not different than the way the rest of the US is split is backed up by nothing.  And he estimates that the football players are 25% for vaccination, 25% totally against and another 50% against it but willing to do it, to comply because of negative consequences if not done.  So does the author really think 75% of the general population doesn't want the vaccine?

 

I don't think that's his point exactly - more like  "25% for it, 25% willing to do it after more "field testing" (pretty much where we are in the US at present), 25% who aren't enthused but may get it if it's made easy and/or if someone (like their employer) is pushing for it, and 25% who are "No Way, Never".

 

I believe Breer has a number of "ins" with players and player's agents, so it's possible he has information here and is not just "making stuff up"

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

As noted upthread and now in message at top of the thread - this thread is open on the premise that people want a place to discuss the NFL/NFLPA protocols, not "Cole Beasley's Twitterfest and its Fallout Part Deux".

 

If you posted a link or tweet about Bease deemed to be of general interest or humor, it may have been moved to the locked Beasley thread

 

Otherwise, it will be hidden

 

Have a Nice Day and don't let any Ticks bite your Arse

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Nice 🤮  to hear that the most important Chiefs players and the Chiefs in general are all getting vaxxed up

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article252228208.html

Quote

He was originally hesitant to get vaccinated, and then after talking with family, he spent time educating himself.

 

“I had some things kind of pointing me in that direction — it made it easier to see family, everybody,” Kelce said. “I love being around family, (so) it was just kind of a family decision that if everybody got the vaccine, we would be able to be around each other safely and comfortably. So that was the biggest thing — it was huge for family.

 

“I was definitely hesitant, but it’s only here to help us, and I’m here to just spread the word to try and encourage everybody to get it.”

 

Quote

The NFL and NFL Players Association have not released figures on what percentage of players have been vaccinated on each team. Reid said the Chiefs ranked among the best in terms of highest percentages.

 

Dolphins, New Orleans, and now Chiefs.  Wonder how Tampa Bay is trending?

 

The Bills do seem to be "unique" among top teams and our divisional competition in regard to how much "distraction" they are managing to bring upon themselves.  😥

 

[CheshireCT]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Nice 🤮  to hear that the most important Chiefs players and the Chiefs in general are all getting vaxxed up

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article252228208.html

 

 

Dolphins, New Orleans, and now Chiefs.  Wonder how Tampa Bay is trending?

 

The Bills do seem to be "unique" among top teams and our divisional competition in regard to how much "distraction" they are managing to bring upon themselves.  😥

 

seriously…after all these years we finally have a super bowl contender and they have to distract themselves with a VACCINE CONTROVERSY of all things? What nonsense…..

 

I would have honestly never predicted that this would happen. I would assume that such a successful and focused team would vax up 100% and get to work on football. The “vaccine culture” in professional sports is a real head scratcher…….

 

I have a performance based career that was completely shut down by the pandemic. Everyone in my industry was begging for the first chance to be vaccinated. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by CheshireCT