Coronavirus Safety Protocol - please read and discuss

[Futureshock]

I'm all for vaccination and staying safe, etc ... but you could say the same thing about a common cold. Each individual will react a bit differently

I was responding to someone not knowing how the Vac will help/hurt you long-term and it could go either way whether you take the shot or not. We do not know the long-term ramifications of exposure to COVID. That's not a point a sane person can argue. We also do not know the long-term ramifications of taking the Vaccination. So that is equal for both.

Take or not, IDGAF at this point. Just be an adult and take the good and bad with your decision. That is my issue:

Everyone is free to express their opinion but when what you express is that your not going to follow the rules that your union agreed to that is where I and I’m sure many have the issue. This is no different than any rule in a workplace, you dont always like the rules but your expected to follow them AND if you openly say you wont follow the rules at work to where everyone knows(like he did in his interview)there will likely be repercussions.

JUST TO BE CLEAR: I HAVE BEEN A NON-VACCER FOR YEARS

I have nearly driven my wife (nurse) crazy with not wanting to take flu (and other) vaccinations over the years. But I decided to not chance it. My choice as it is any persons choice to not take it.

[The King]

“anyone can opt out of those school regulations for “religious or philosophical reasons” in like almost every state.”

That’s not true. I remember when I was working at a public school in VA and they had a vaccine truck that rolled from site to site. This was mainly for migrant kids. They won’t let your kid in the door if they don’t have specific vaccinations.

[The King]

Public school = gov $ which means gov can tell you what to do. If you don’t like it, then go to a private school or homeschool.

[Forsh]

Yeah you are right obviously about not knowing the long term with any of it. I don't normally get a flu shot either. This virus i took more seriously cuz the data pointed to much more serious results. I figured that the hospitals could become overrun and cause people who could be treated to be unable to be treated, and it was obviously so much more serious than a normal flu year ... so I was all for the vaccines etc

I think my reaction to ur comment was more back to when you expressed concern about Penei Sewell long term complications from his Covid ... I was only concerned that he might pass it on to others. No biggie, you're a big guy with a big heart big guy!

EDIT ... I guess big heart might not have been the best words here ... but I meant in the caring way

[Futureshock]

Patrick Peterson explains why all NFL players should get vaccinated

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 25, 2021, 9:56 AM EDT

USA Today

Vikings coach Mike Zimmer has told his players that they’re going to have a harder time this year if they’re unvaccinated. Vikings cornerback Patrick Peterson hopes all his teammates got the message.

Peterson said on his podcast that unvaccinated players are putting themselves at risk of having to miss games, either because they get COVID-19 or because they have close contacts with people who do, and that if you’re taking that risk, you’re not doing everything you can to help your team win.

“Why not put yourself in the best position possible to win a championship?” Peterson said.

Peterson noted that unvaccinated players will have to go through all the COVID-19 safety protocols that players went through last year, while fully vaccinated players will have far more freedom.

“If you’re not vaccinated you’re just living in a different world,” Peterson said. “Why put yourself at risk of going through that again?”

Peterson said he had no side effects from the vaccine.

“I am vaccinated,” Peterson said. “I was perfectly fine.”

That’s true of most people who get vaccinated. The vaccine has proven safe and effective, and players who aren’t getting vaccinated are letting unfounded fears prevent them from doing what’s best for themselves and their teams.

[Futureshock]

Report: More than 85 percent of Steelers players are fully vaccinated

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 24, 2021, 2:29 PM EDT

Getty Images

Players on the Steelers are leading the way in doing what everyone should do, and getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

More than 85 percent of players on the Steelers are fully vaccinated, according to Ed Bouchette of TheAthletic.com.

That would mean the Steelers join the Dolphins and Saints as teams that have reached the 85 percent vaccination threshold. Although the NFL has not detailed precisely what its COVID-19 policies will be this season, the league is considering relaxing certain restrictions on teams that have reached an 85 percent vaccination rate.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said last week that he did not know the precise numbers but believed the Steelers were at the top of the league in terms of their number of vaccinated players.

[Futureshock]

Non-vaccinated players who get COVID could end up not being paid

Posted by Mike Florio on June 24, 2021, 10:15 AM EDT

USA TODAY Sports

Players who miss games due to a COVID-19 diagnosis in 2021 will indeed get paid, no questions asked. If those players are vaccinated.

If a player isn’t vaccinated, a COVID-19 diagnosis could cause the player to lose pay for all games missed because of it.

Per a letter agreement dated Tuesday, a copy of which PFT has obtained, the NFL and NFL Players Association have agreed that a team “may not challenge whether or not a player’s COVID-19 infection is football-related if . . . the player was fully vaccinated at the time he contracted the virus; and the player received an initial negative test for COVID-19 upon timely reporting to preseason training camp during the 2021 League Year, and he did not have a subsequent unexcused absence from preseason training camp.”

Even if the vaccinated player tests positive after the regular-season bye week, the team may not challenge whether the positive test resulted from a football-related activity (i.e., catching COVID-19 while out of town).

By implication, teams can challenge whether a COVID-19 infection is football related for players who haven’t been vaccinated. Which, in theory, sets the stage for players who refuse to get vaccinated to potentially lose game checks if they can’t play.

Thus, the league and the union essentially have codified what we suggested two weeks ago. Players who don’t get vaccinated and who get COVID away from the facility should not be paid for missing games. While it could prompt a fight that would be resolved in arbitration (and, depending on the IR/NFI rules for 2021, could require the team to shelve the player for most if not all of the rest of the season), it’s another clear incentive for players who haven’t been vaccinated to get vaccinated.

[Forsh]

Non-vaccinated players who get COVID could end up not being paid

Posted by Mike Florio on June 24, 2021, 10:15 AM EDT

USA TODAY Sports

Players who miss games due to a COVID-19 diagnosis in 2021 will indeed get paid, no questions asked. If those players are vaccinated.

If a player isn’t vaccinated, a COVID-19 diagnosis could cause the player to lose pay for all games missed because of it.

Per a letter agreement dated Tuesday, a copy of which PFT has obtained, the NFL and NFL Players Association have agreed that a team “may not challenge whether or not a player’s COVID-19 infection is football-related if . . . the player was fully vaccinated at the time he contracted the virus; and the player received an initial negative test for COVID-19 upon timely reporting to preseason training camp during the 2021 League Year, and he did not have a subsequent unexcused absence from preseason training camp.”

Even if the vaccinated player tests positive after the regular-season bye week, the team may not challenge whether the positive test resulted from a football-related activity (i.e., catching COVID-19 while out of town).

By implication, teams can challenge whether a COVID-19 infection is football related for players who haven’t been vaccinated. Which, in theory, sets the stage for players who refuse to get vaccinated to potentially lose game checks if they can’t play.

Thus, the league and the union essentially have codified what we suggested two weeks ago. Players who don’t get vaccinated and who get COVID away from the facility should not be paid for missing games. While it could prompt a fight that would be resolved in arbitration (and, depending on the IR/NFI rules for 2021, could require the team to shelve the player for most if not all of the rest of the season), it’s another clear incentive for players who haven’t been vaccinated to get vaccinated.

Not a fan of this. I think the players should get vaccinated, but it's a choice they have to make. Don't think the league should be able to take away their salary for the reasons listed here. This is a load of rubbish, unless it was written in the player's contract when signed

[Fraquar]

Not a fan of this. I think the players should get vaccinated, but it's a choice they have to make. Don't think the league should be able to take away their salary for the reasons listed here. This is a load of rubbish, unless it was written in the player's contract when signed

You are looking at this backwards. They already have the power to do that, always have.
If their contraction of COVID is non-football related - it's no different than sliding down the side of a volcano. Team can either say sure, have some free money or they can say - umm bud - no play no pay.
The only thing that changed is they added a condition to keep from being questioned about where you got COVID for people already vaccinated - that's it.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

He can express any opinion he wants to. And he can choose to respond to the comments anyway he wants to. He is choosing to stay silent because apparently the vocal majority or some perceived majority of people don’t want to hear it. That is called the free market. Kills me how people mistake Freedom of Speech with “Zero Consequences for Speaking.”

So he’s free to have opinions others don’t agree with……as long as he doesn’t express them.

if he does express his opinion about it…..the keyboard mob will creep out of the woodwork and demand he be fired. For making a decision about his body. Imagine if the idiots who stand outside abortion clinics started public shaming campaigns on the internet and followed girls to their place of employment demanding that person is fired. You’d be horrified, and rightly so.

can you tell me what….in the name of safety protocols….is accomplished by blocking Beasley from social media and other marketing and sponsorship opportunities? That seems purely punitive to me (I.e. the poor NFL might lose out on making an additional dollar after all). But please enlighten me about the protocols in place to keep everyone safe (because if social media endorsements are transmitting COVID, we’re all fucked).

Future…I realize that you and faceless mob of keyboard warriors have decided what’s best for everyone and that you want anyone out of lockstep punished, I’m not going to agree with you here…mostly because I truly believe in individual liberties (like my body my choice).

I singled out your post because you said there was no logical argument to support a non-vaccine stance….and there is. (Try to keep up). When the odds of realizing actual harm from an illness are small and the odds of short/long terms side effects is largely an unknown…..it’s a risk assessment. If I walked into a Dr.’s office and asked them to remove my son’s appendix because of the small chance it might burst at a later time….they’d call CPS. Why would a healthy person take a medication still deemed experimental (and therefore any long side effects are a complete crap-shoot)….when there’s little to no risk related to negative effects of the thing the experimental is supposed to protect you from. That’s a pretty simple and very logical argument. It’s not sexy….it doesn’t play on your fear or emotional response, but it’s logical.

and in a much straighter line than non-vaccinated need to become vaccinated so that he vaccinated folks shots work better (or the mutation thing)….when have those who don’t get flu shots ever been thrown shade for perpetuating the flu virus? When have we ever advocated for medical intervention based on little to no risk to the patient?

[Forsh]

You are looking at this backwards. They already have the power to do that, always have.
If their contraction of COVID is non-football related - it's no different than sliding down the side of a volcano. Team can either say sure, have some free money or they can say - umm bud - no play no pay.
The only thing that changed is they added a condition to keep from being questioned about where you got COVID for people already vaccinated - that's it.

I can't argue with anything you wrote ... guess in the end it's the player's choice.

[Forsh]

So he’s free to have opinions others don’t agree with……as long as he doesn’t express them.

if he does express his opinion about it…..the keyboard mob will creep out of the woodwork and demand he be fired. For making a decision about his body. Imagine if the idiots who stand outside abortion clinics started public shaming campaigns on the internet and followed girls to their place of employment demanding that person is fired. You’d be horrified, and rightly so.

can you tell me what….in the name of safety protocols….is accomplished by blocking Beasley from social media and other marketing and sponsorship opportunities? That seems purely punitive to me (I.e. the poor NFL might lose out on making an additional dollar after all). But please enlighten me about the protocols in place to keep everyone safe (because if social media endorsements are transmitting COVID, we’re all fucked).

Future…I realize that you and faceless mob of keyboard warriors have decided what’s best for everyone and that you want anyone out of lockstep punished, I’m not going to agree with you here…mostly because I truly believe in individual liberties (like my body my choice).

I singled out your post because you said there was no logical argument to support a non-vaccine stance….and there is. (Try to keep up). When the odds of realizing actual harm from an illness are small and the odds of short/long terms side effects is largely an unknown…..it’s a risk assessment. If I walked into a Dr.’s office and asked them to remove my son’s appendix because of the small chance it might burst at a later time….they’d call CPS. Why would a healthy person take a medication still deemed experimental (and therefore any long side effects are a complete crap-shoot)….when there’s little to no risk related to negative effects of the thing the experimental is supposed to protect you from. That’s a pretty simple and very logical argument. It’s not sexy….it doesn’t play on your fear or emotional response, but it’s logical.

and in a much straighter line than non-vaccinated need to become vaccinated so that he vaccinated folks shots work better (or the mutation thing)….when have those who don’t get flu shots ever been thrown shade for perpetuating the flu virus? When have we ever advocated for medical intervention based on little to no risk to the patient?

I think COVID seems more dangerous than the flu in general ... thus more impetus on vaccination to avoid hospitalization/ mutation, etc ...

[Nick Pappageorgio]

IMO…what made COVID so different was how easily/fast it spread. Precautions early on were in large part to make sure areas/hospitals didn’t get overwhelmed. When hospitals get overwhelmed…people die who don’t have to because of a lack of resources. At different age demographics, you could argue the flu is worse (like children)

[Whitley]

Covid 19 has killed 603+k that would make it the 30th largest city in the US (about halfway between Louisville and Milwaukee).

[chemiclord]

It might change as more and better treatments are found, but as it stands, COVID-19 is significantly more deadly across all age groups than the flu.