[Farm93]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

FWIW -
I never thought CIF, and the public schools were going to support pods, MD checks, testing and quarantines just because it was best for the health of the players on the team.

Rather it seemed like there were at least a few other big reasons to do it.

Too many positive test for school to stay open -
If a player tests positive and then later 10 or 15 players in the same sport test positive then that school will almost certainly be closed for a period of time.  That would impact all of the kids, not just the players in the sport.   The sports are not mission critical and don't offer any meaningful revenue, so generally it would be OK if a team or two needs to forfeit along the way.

Liability - 
If a school district had players testing positive doing relatively little could be expensive.
Child #1 test positive.  School/CIF shrugs it off.  
Child #2 or #20 (doesn't matter really).   Tests positive and then dies.
That could be rather pricey liability issue since it would be rather easy to show the team/school/district did not follow health and safety guidelines. 

Now that I type that out, I realize those two concerns would be true for universities too.

The concerns about spread to the greater community are likely in the mix too, of course.

It doesn't matter now though.    Arizona (a state in the Pac-12 footprint) had a stunning number of deaths on Friday 7/17 (reported on Saturday).   Those numbers are out of control and I would not think UW, WSU, UofO, OSU, UCB, Stanford, Utah or Colorado would be thrilled to have teams go into Arizona in just a few weeks.

[Farm93]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

FWIW -
I never thought CIF, and the public schools were going to support pods, MD checks, testing and quarantines just because it was best for the health of the players on the team.

Rather it seemed like there were at least a few other big reasons to do it.

Too many positive test for school to stay open -
If a player tests positive and then later 10 or 15 players in the same sport test positive then that school will almost certainly be closed for a period of time.  That would impact all of the kids, not just the players in the sport.   The sports are not mission critical and don't offer any meaningful revenue, so generally it would be OK if a team or two needs to forfeit along the way.

Liability - 
If a school district had players testing positive doing relatively little could be expensive.
Child #1 test positive.  School/CIF shrugs it off.  
Child #2 or #20 (doesn't matter really).   Tests positive and then dies.
That could be rather pricey liability issue since it would be rather easy to show the team/school/district did not follow health and safety guidelines. 

Now that I type that out, I realize those two concerns would be true for universities too.

The concerns about spread to the greater community are likely in the mix too, of course.

It doesn't matter now though.    Arizona (a state in the Pac-12 footprint) had a stunning number of deaths on Friday 7/17 (reported on Saturday).   Those numbers are out of control and I would not think UW, WSU, UofO, OSU, UCB, Stanford, Utah or Colorado would be thrilled to have teams go into Arizona in just a few weeks.