[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.