Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

NFL Rules for Covid 2021 / positive tests ( merge)


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I heard Brady Quinn say if you are a boarder line player not having the vaccine could very well cost you a roster spot because teams just don’t want to deal with more COVID mess than needed.

 

Of course that will be one of the deciding factors.  The league can say it won't happen but that is nonsense.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Of course that will be one of the deciding factors.  The league can say it won't happen but that is nonsense.  

 

 

I don’t think the league is going to deny it’s going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These players have access to great doctors. I can Google and find out what is in the vaccine. My guess they don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t confirm their bias
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Beasley saying some people don't want to get vaccines due to underlying conditions that make getting the vaccine too risky?  Doing a little research it appears there are some things to take into consideration here:

  1. On medications that suppress the immune system
  2. Have had a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine in the past

I would think this population in the NFL is a pretty small number and can be managed as necessary if the league decided to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the NFL are actually the ones picking this fight to be honest.  I wouldn't be shocked if there's other pressures that are motivating this.

 

After years of people championing athletes right to speak out, some folks are getting real uncomfortable with the fact that there's not uniformity on this subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just seeing this come on my team feed. Rick Dennison out as line coach for refusing to get vaccinated. I have to read more. I hope it was his decision to leave.

 

(Edit, adding quotes and link)

 

Quote

 

Rick Dennison is no longer a Minnesota Vikings assistant coach after refusing to be vaccinated for COVID-19, ESPN's Courtney Cronin reported on Friday.

 

Dennison has been the team's offensive line coach and run game coordinator for the past two seasons. He is the first NFL position coach reported to have parted ways with a team over the NFL's vaccination requirements. The first training camp practice is Wednesday.

 

NFL vaccination protocols for coaches

Tier 1 staff, which includes coaches, front-office executives, equipment managers and scouts, are required to receive a vaccine. There is an exception made for those who provide a valid religious or medial reason for doing so, per a memo released by the league earlier this offseason. Those who aren't vaccinated lose Tier 1 status, and by virtue are not allowed on the field, in meeting rooms or having any direct interaction with players."

 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/vikings-rick-dennison-reportedly-out-as-assistant-coach-after-refusing-covid-19-vaccine-181439552.html
Tier 1 staff, which includes coaches, are required to receive the vaccine or else lose direct access to players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gspdx said:

Is Beasley saying some people don't want to get vaccines due to underlying conditions that make getting the vaccine too risky?  Doing a little research it appears there are some things to take into consideration here:

  1. On medications that suppress the immune system
  2. Have had a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine in the past

I would think this population in the NFL is a pretty small number and can be managed as necessary if the league decided to.

I am on immune suppressor. It’s perfectly fine to take because it isn’t a live vaccine. The only thing would be allergic reaction and even that if you go take it in a doctors office or are under supervision it’s fine because they can control the reaction.

 

So because it isn’t a live virus there really is very few if  any instances where someone shouldn’t get it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, runthepost said:

80% of players have at least 1 dose according to PFT. Think it’ll cap out at like 90%

I'm just interested to see the numbers once final roster cuts are made.

 

 

Those will be the telling numbers. Right now almost 30% of team wont be with the team come regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

This is all getting real now. You must really have a strong belief if your willing to lose your job over a vaccine.

I think many players are legitimately concerned over developing heart problems at age 45, after they are retired, forgotten about, and the owners who have not altered the outdated 2020 (non vaxine based) isolation policy are dead and unaccountable, and the issue has left the public domain.

 

Also the players are in the low risk category.  They would just as soon get a fever and miss a few days of practice than they would run the risk of more serious issues down the road.  Since the spread has been stopped towards those that care otherwise, I see their decision as much more logical than a belief.

 

BTW, on what basis does any company continue a quarantine/anti exhaling policy formed in 2020 at a time when there was no vaccine, into a period of time where there is an effective vax that's easy to get?  That quarantine policy is at the heart of the unavailability/forfeiture issue.  Not the fact that young and low risk players will likely only be out a few days with a fever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

I don't think the NFL are actually the ones picking this fight to be honest.  I wouldn't be shocked if there's other pressures that are motivating this.

 

After years of people championing athletes right to speak out, some folks are getting real uncomfortable with the fact that there's not uniformity on this subject

My biggest complaint is these players have really dumb arguments against it. Like the Odum tweet. It’s not hard to find out what is in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so answer me this:

 

The NFL is not changing its 2020 isolation policy that was created when a more deadly variety of virus was rampant, and for which there was no vaccine.  Logic would assume that they would scale down their 10 day isolation policy based upon the low risk factors of the players and the vaccine pretty much stopping the spread in its tracks for anybody who cares about it.

 

If players get the virus, which is more likely to be the less impactful variant, they will likely only miss a few days of practice with a fever, if they even have any symptoms at all.

 

Its the NFLs outdated isolation policy that is making players unavailable and driving the forfeiture likelihood, NOT if unvaxed players actually caught the virus.

 

So why would the unvaxed players be held responsible for forfeiture and not the owners who have failed to recognize the advancements in vaccines and diminution of severity from when they created the quarantine policy way back in 2020 under completely different conditions?

 

Seems like a mandate to me.  And possibly one with bad or misguided motivation. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

I am on immune suppressor. It’s perfectly fine to take because it isn’t a live vaccine. The only thing would be allergic reaction and even that if you go take it in a doctors office or are under supervision it’s fine because they can control the reaction.

 

So because it isn’t a live virus there really is very few if  any instances where someone shouldn’t get it.

I wonder if some players are worried about the adverse effect of mixing growth hormones and the vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, w87r said:

I'm just interested to see the numbers once final roster cuts are made.

 

 

Those will be the telling numbers. Right now almost 30% of team wont be with the team come regular season.


Yeah but a vaccinated on the bubble player will have a advantage over a unvaccinated player. TC is in a few days so it’ll be interesting soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Okay, so answer me this:

 

The NFL is not changing its 2020 isolation policy that was created when a more deadly variety of virus was rampant, and for which there was no vaccine.  Logic would assume that they would scale down their 10 day isolation policy based upon the low risk factors of the players and the vaccine pretty much stopping the spread in its tracks for anybody who cares about it.

The 10 day isolation is based on incubation periods, timeframes of serious/visible symptoms appearing and ability of the test to catch it at certain times. Not on availability of vaccine or whether the virus is 0.5% deadly or 0.6%. If a player is not vaccinated, it doesn't matter whether the others are. He still carries a much larger chance to get infected and spread it around... in the ~10 days it takes to confirm he has caught it(or not) after exposure. This is especially true for the new variants that might be more contagious.

Quote

If players get the virus, which is more likely to be the less impactful variant, they will likely only miss a few days of practice with a fever, if they even have any symptoms at all.

Even if they have no symptoms they can still transfer it to both unvaccinated teammates and a fair bit less likely(but still possible) to vaccinated teammates. That's what the isolation is for. To prevent further spread.

 

Quote

Its the NFLs outdated isolation policy that is making players unavailable and driving the forfeiture likelihood, NOT if unvaxed players actually caught the virus.

No. It's them being a threat to spread a deadly virus around... 

Quote

So why would the unvaxed players be held responsible for forfeiture and not the owners who have failed to recognize the advancements in vaccines and diminution of severity from when they created the quarantine policy way back in 2020 under completely different conditions?

 

Seems like a mandate to me.  And possibly one with bad or misguided motivation. 

Because the relevant conditions are not that different. The biggest difference this year compared to last year is the availability of a highly effective, safe vaccines. Part of the players just don't want to take it. Which is... fair enough. They can refuse to take it. At the same time the league has the right to implement rules to attempt to reduce the spread among its employees. BTW The rules about safety and the precautions taken are almost identical to last year's ( the isolation, the daily tests, the masks, distancing, etc. (except for forfeiting games and paychecks now)) when everybody was in that group of unvaccinated players.  There is no new burden on unvaccinated players(besides potentially losing paychecks if they don't play due to catching the virus). If anything the NFL has relaxed its rules for majority of its players(the vaccinated ones). IMO this is the right way to look at it. It's a bonus and relief to vaccinated players rather than punishment to the not vaccinated players. You cannot expect the league to just lift its hands and not implement any safety measures when significant part of its players don't want to do the bare minimum to reduce the risks for teammates and employees.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW go look at what Colts players are posting on twitter. I got chewed on in a previous thread about saying the team has probably done very little to nothing to educate and give good information to players. Go look at what they are posting, what they are retweeting and then tell me those sound like well informed adults. 

 

This whole ordeal has been so disappointing to me. I know we shouldn't be looking at athletes for healthcare advice and I know they have the right to make their own decisions, but this is just so sad and depressing. There is SOOO MUCH good information out there and the Colts have access to some of the best doctors in the world, and instead, this is what we are getting... 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, stitches said:

The 10 day isolation is based on incubation periods, timeframes of serious/visible symptoms appearing and ability of the test to catch it at certain times. Not on availability of vaccine or whether the virus is 0.5% deadly or 0.6%. If a player is not vaccinated, it doesn't matter whether the others are. He still carries a much larger chance to get infected and spread it around... in the ~10 days it takes to confirm he has caught it(or not) after exposure. This is especially true for the new variants that might be more contagious.

Even if they have no symptoms they can still transfer it to both unvaccinated teammates and a fair bit less likely(but still possible) to vaccinated teammates. That's what the isolation is for. To prevent further spread.

 

No. It's them being a threat to spread a deadly virus around... 

Because the relevant conditions are not that different. The biggest difference this year compared to last year is the availability of a highly effective, safe vaccines. Part of the players just don't want to take it. Which is... fair enough. They can refuse to take it. At the same time the league has the right to implement rules to attempt to reduce the spread among its employees. BTW The rules about safety and the precautions taken are almost identical to last year's ( the isolation, the daily tests, the masks, distancing, etc. (except for forfeiting games and paychecks now)) when everybody was in that group of unvaccinated players.  There is no new burden on unvaccinated players(besides potentially losing paychecks if they don't play due to catching the virus). If anything the NFL has relaxed its rules for majority of its players(the vaccinated ones). IMO this is the right way to look at it. It's a bonus and relief to vaccinated players rather than punishment to the not vaccinated players. You cannot expect the league to just lift its hands and not implement any safety measures when significant part of its players don't want to do the bare minimum to reduce the risks for teammates and employees.

If vaccinated players can still get,  and spread the virus,   it's pretty obvious the vaccine isn't that effective.    So why punish players that don't want to get a non FDA approved vaccine that is somewhat ineffective.    

 Also,  these players are elite athletes.    The danger to them from this virus is basically 0.  The vaccinated players are in no danger of playing with unvaccinated players

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stitches said:

BTW go look at what Colts players are posting on twitter. I got chewed on in a previous thread about saying the team has probably done very little to nothing to educate and give good information to players. Go look at what they are posting, what they are retweeting and then tell me those sound like well informed adults. 

 

This whole ordeal has been so disappointing to me. I know we shouldn't be looking at athletes for healthcare advice and I know they have the right to make their own decisions, but this is just so sad and depressing. There is SOOO MUCH good information out there and the Colts have access to some of the best doctors in the world, and instead, this is what we are getting... 

yep. Pascal tweets prove it. But I also think these players could have all the info right in front of them and still wouldn’t believe it. Irsay said leaders of the team have been trying and David Thorton too. But where are the real doctors.

 

I think Odum was just being funny. He was trolling. He is a little crazy.

 

if they had legitimate concerns I can listen but they just sound dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

If vaccinated players can still get,  and spread the virus,   it's pretty obvious the vaccine isn't that effective.   

 

Effective at doing what?

 

From what I understand, the vaccine is not supposed to prevent all infection. It is supposed to prevent severe illness and death. 

 

It is similar to the flu shot. Many get the flu shot and physicians strongly recommend getting it. However, the flu shot does not prevent one from getting infected with the flu. It lessens the chances of getting the flu. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

If vaccinated players can still get,  and spread the virus,   it's pretty obvious the vaccine isn't that effective.    So why punish players that don't want to get a non FDA approved vaccine that is somewhat ineffective.    

 Also,  these players are elite athletes.    The danger to them from this virus is basically 0.  The vaccinated players are in no danger of playing with unvaccinated players

No that does not mean it isn’t effective. 
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section6.html

People immune systems are different, the vaccines cut the viral load of the virus down between 40-80% depending on that person’s health. Plenty of athletes have caught Covid and some haven’t recovered to health pre-covid  (Von Miller, Myles Garret, Jayson Tatum) . Ryquell Armstead missed last season due to Covid and still isn’t clear yet.
Link to more athletes that struggled post Covid https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nba/2021/3/3/22292213/athletes-covid-recovery-stories-jayson-tatum-mo-bamba-asia-durr

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

If vaccinated players can still get,  and spread the virus,   it's pretty obvious the vaccine isn't that effective.    So why punish players that don't want to get a non FDA approved vaccine that is somewhat ineffective.    

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the very very good. The vaccine is not 100% effective. This is well established. But it is almost 100% effective. For a vaccine developed and tested and released a year after a novel virus is spreading, it is a fantastic vaccine. About FDA, no idea what their requirements are for approval(maybe it's bureaucratic reason and it just takes time?), but pretty much every single medical and healthcare organization in the world has approved the vaccine and is carrying out vaccinations. There are close to 4 BILLION shots that have been administered all over the world. The short term side effects are widely known and it is as safe as any other vaccine out there. Long term effects will need to be studied over the long term but it's not like the scientists that are putting together those vaccines are just winging and we know nothing. There has been tons of research over the last decades on the technology. It's been tested against some other viruses and even and even on some cancers. There were more tests and data on this vaccine before being released to the public than on pretty much any vaccine in the history of mankind(before release to the public). There are very strong reasons to think this vaccine will prove to be incredibly safe in the long term too. 

Quote

 Also,  these players are elite athletes.    The danger to them from this virus is basically 0.  The vaccinated players are in no danger of playing with unvaccinated players

They are athletes but some significant portion of them are in risky groups(hypertension, diabetes, other diseases). Also, again... I want to point out that this is not just a question of personal safety, but also a public health question - it's about all people they can transmit it to. Those players interact not just with other players. Significant part of their coaches and other staff are in risky groups. The more people are vaccinated the more it lowers the risks for both vaccinated and not vaccinated people and for the public health at large.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

Effective at doing what?

 

From what I understand, the vaccine is not supposed to prevent all infection. It is supposed to prevent severe illness and death. 

 

It is similar to the flu shot. Many get the flu shot and physicians strongly recommend getting it. However, the flu shot does not prevent one from getting infected with the flu. It lessens the chances of getting the flu. 

 

On CNN last week it was reported that of the 607,000 who had died in the USA not 1 of those had been fully vaccinated. The vaccines may not 100% guarantee you won't get the virus, but they pretty well guarantee that if you get it. it won't kill you--that's pretty effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kangaroo said:

On CNN last week it was reported that of the 607,000 who had died in the USA not 1 of those had been fully vaccinated. The vaccines may not 100% guarantee you won't get the virus, but they pretty well guarantee that if you get it. it won't kill you--that's pretty effective

This report/post is not very factual and is misrepresenting figures to a large degree.

 

1. How many of the 607,000 deaths happened before a vaccine was even available? Probably would be a better number to at least start with.

 

**emergency use approved on December 11th, with slow initial rollout before picking up in January. So any deaths prior to December 12th(day vaccines started shipping/arriving), cant be figured in that equation. 300,000 off the count to start.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/fda-nears-pfizer-decision-australia-cancels-order-virus-update

 

In actuality, probably should move that date to around mid January or later as the cut off. That is when vaccinated numbers started really rising

https://www.patientcareonline.com/view/covid-19-update-us-and-global-cases-deaths-and-recoveries-as-of-january-15-2021

 

So that is 389,000, leaving 218,000 deaths(post Jan 15th) that could be used for this. Even then though, a vaccine wasn't readily available for everyone over 16 until mid April.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7187382002

 

552,000 deaths by April 1st 2021.

 

*Bottom line, this is not a post vouching for vaccines or stating case against them. Simply pointing out that the numbers floated around are taken way out of context and really lessons the validity of the report when numbers are misrepresented on that scale.(over 50% of numbers declared, happened before emergency authorization, over 80% prior to it being available to everyone over 16)

 

2. The information isn't correct. Seems that at least 750 fully vaccinated people have died in the US.(far from not 1 from quoted post.)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/25/covid-breakthrough-cases-cdc-says-more-than-4100-people-have-been-hospitalized-or-died-after-vaccination.html

 

Granted it seems to reduce the number of deaths as of now. Based on short term number ratios.

 

Rough estimate:(post April 1st deaths)

Vaccinated -  around 750

Non - Vac - 55,000

(Based of numbers from links above)

 

Who knows where that will end up, most likely following current trend fairly closely. That isn't what this post was about though, was based off a post that said there was 0 fully vaccinated deaths, and looped numbers in with deaths that occured well before vaccinations were available.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kangaroo said:

How many had to experience a worldwide pandemic?

I think Charles is saying that you needed up to date shots/vaccinations to play in youth sports so this is no different.

 

Which I also think they'll add this to the list of vaccines that babies get when born. So the argument of getting vaccinated vs not will be over in some years .. hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kangaroo said:

On CNN last week it was reported that of the 607,000 who had died in the USA not 1 of those had been fully vaccinated. The vaccines may not 100% guarantee you won't get the virus, but they pretty well guarantee that if you get it. it won't kill you--that's pretty effective

There have been vaccinated people that have died. It’s a low number percentage worth the risk. Like how 30,000 people die a year in car accidents and no one bats an eye to that. Anyway usually every single one of those people are have a weak immune system which is why booster shots will be given to those people. The average age of a vaccinated death is 81 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod Note:

 

Hello all,

 

If you do not see your comments immediately after posting them, it is because all posts in this thread, including those by moderators, have to be approved. (This post as well.) That is noted elsewhere on this page. This is being done to keep the conversation on topic and prevent having to lock this thread.

 

Thank you. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Shive changed the title to Reich tests positive for Covid
  • Nadine changed the title to NFL Rules for Covid 2021 / positive tests ( merge)
  • NFLfan pinned this topic
  • NFLfan locked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...