HalftimeAdjustment

I just realized this thread has morphed into arguing with one anti-vaxxer. I will stop doing that and focus on Cole/Bills related posts.

Protocols will definitely be in place and it is very unlikely that vaccinated and unvaccinated players will be treated equally. Optimistically, if the overall case rate continues to decline, protocols can/will be relaxed due to lower relative risk. I also believe that player discontent with the announced preseason protocols may well cause some relaxation of the protocols for the regular season. Pessimistically, if there is a surge in cases in the fall, protocols could become more stringent for vaccinated players as well.

No, I am living my life, and I am not advocating for government-compelled vaccination of non healthcare workers nor am I suggesting that government restrictions should remain in place at current levels. Nevertheless, it isn't as simple as "works or it doesn't" except in retrospect.

Either you win the lottery or you don't. Either you win at roulette or you don't. Those two things do not have the same odds... but in both cases, you don't know in advance. In both cases, if you play more times, the chance of a win is increased. Same principle applies here. The vaccine should lower my odds of getting serious COVID. Still... I would prefer to be exposed fewer times. The less cases that are in the population, the less likely I will be exposed. We may see serious cases continue to decline which is good for everyone, juat based on immunity levels so far (both natural and vaccine induced). However, if more people chose to get vaccinated, it is more likely that serious cases will continue to decline faster. Unfortunately we are at the point where vaccination levels will plateau. It is what it is.

It is interesting that they just eased up on the "get rid of the Skyway" push recently.

He sounds like someone with a history of poor decision making.

Oh, I see. Here is a media summary of a Lancet article. https://www.timesofisrael.com/pfizer-vaccine-96-7-effective-at-preventing-covid-deaths-israeli-data-shows/ The reason I mentioned this is that claiming 100% effectiveness at preventing death is negated as soon as 1 person who is fully vaccinated dies of Covid. And there appear to have been breakthrough cases in Israel, the UK, and the US. However it is very rare, and they are extremely effective at preventing death from Covid. Additionally some studies include people who had both shots but were not +2 weeks. Also a study of real world data is by definition an observational study rather than a clinical trial. In the clinical trials all 3 vaccines had 0 deaths as far as I am aware. It should be expected that in hundreds of millions of vaccinated individuals, some will still die of Covid. After all the general population includes a lot of severely immunocompromised individuals who may not get full vaccine benefit. It also is so large that just plain bad luck could apply like hitting a reverse lottery. Anyhow... the use of "100%" may sound like a weaker data point than 98% or whatever to a skeptic, because 100% is easily disproven by a single counter example at which point they reject the entirety of the data. Finally if someone has a "belief" that the vaccine does not help in the face of all available evidence, I don't see that more evidence will convince them.

I hope you are right but I would not be at all surprised if, when it is approved, those same people claim the approval process was flawed.

Oh I completely disagree with his belief. Why are you asking me?

Well, thanks at least for stating your reasons clearly and calmly, without calling everyone else "sheep" for believing the evidence that it does 'help or protect'. It is important to note they were 100% effective against preventing death in clinical trials, but have not been 100% effective at preventing death in real-world usage based upon data and studies from both Israel and the UK. Also, someone fully vaccinated died in Washington state, I believe.

Agreed. Undoubtedly Cole has multiple supporters among the other players as well as guys who disagree but like him personally. It is not at all in the team's interest to overreact to his social media activity.

Not too many so far. And... next man up. There will be other players who get paid as a result. Now, I hope that Cole does not retire. Most likely the protocols will get relaxed if the situation continues to improve. But if he does retire, it will hurt us for a season... and yet the NFL as a whole will move on.

Cole Beasley...

Actually many newer vaccines don't really have that risk due to not using live or weakened virus of the targeted illness.

And the first polio vaccine sometimes gave you polio.

Sounds like he is trolling.

He wants the money.

What if he robs stagecoaches on the side?

The amount of Beasley content has dropped enough that this thread is probably due to be locked.

That is the other ridiculous thing about his outburst. The trend is towards a reduction in restrictions as overall case counts drop; the likelihood of the protocols not being relaxed seems low. If he was informed that it was just for preseason and the final protocols are not established, that seems like all the more reason to hold back and not have a public attention-seeking meltdown. He could continue rationally lobbying for reduced restrictions (publicly and privately). But apparently he lacks any sense of patience.

I find it highly unlikely that any meaningful number of people (including Cole Beasley) who do not wish to take the vaccine under the current Emergency Use Authorization will take the vaccine after the FDA grants formal approval.

But they played with highly restrictive protocols for everyone. Are the protocols for unvaccinated players MORE restrictive than the protocols for everyone last year? If so, unvaccinated players (as a group) should raise a complaint to the NFLPA together instead of letting Cole hang out there. But if they are essentially the same as last year, then they are complaining about the pass that vaccinated players get, and are unlikely to get far with their complaints. Especially if they don't get much more specific.

And his current approach to challenging the protocols leaves a lot to be desired. If he chooses to try a stunt motorcycle jump and gets killed, that probably violates some terms of his contract and/or team rules. His argument would apply equally to that: "I am going to live my life" and "God's will". That is not a focused argument on "I should be allowed to bring my family with me because that restriction is unreasonable compared to the relative risk it introduces".

I'm not sure he really chose to enter the NFLPA except by choosing the be in the NFL. It's not like there is actually a choice to join or not. That's a whole larger subject/problem but it is not clear how the sports industry could work without it.

If he has a specific problem with the restrictions of having family with him on the road, or other restrictions during his hours away from the facility, he should zero in on that more specifically and drop the distracting commentary about flu, death counts, relative risk, etc. I think he'd find a lot more sympathy if he got very specific about the restrictions that he does not want to abide by. It appears however that he wants zero difference, which is a less reasonable stance in my opinion. And in any case, is not what the NFLPA negotiated. He started out by basically attacking the NFLPA for this and in some respects, that was more on point. Since that time he's off onto why COVID is no big deal and he can't live with restrictions, so ... that's unfortunate.