Jump to content

Covid vaccination policy for NFL players and staff


WhoTom

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I dunno about "everyone"

I know for a fact that the public health advice to continue to wear a mask after getting vaccinated is (one of) the sticking points for at least one Buffalo Bills player.

 

 

 

Why would it be a sticking point?

 

[edited to remove generalized, non football discussion]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That seems vindictive.

It's not required for the players at this point, so how can the NFL or the team penalize them for not doing something that's not required?

 

It is not required due to resistance of union.  They also resist OTAs, penalties for players deliberatrly injuring other players and safety equipment.

Do not think teams should pay for players who do not at least make effort.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

It is not required due to resistance of union.  They also resist OTAs, penalties for players deliberatrly injuring other players and safety equipment.

Do not think teams should pay for players who do not at least make effort.

 

Doesn't matter why, the point is, it's not required. 

 

You're suggesting the teams should penalize players for something that's not required.  I don't think the NFLPA would go for penalizing players who don't show up for "voluntary" OTAs or who don't wear "optional" safety equipment either.  

 

It's either a job requirement or it's not, and if it's not, the NFL shouldn't be able to penalize players for it.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a good incentive would be that you don't need to wear masks on the sideline if you are vaccinated. It is outside, although you are within 6 feet of people. And selfishly, it drives me crazy seeing people who can't properly wear a mask. I know it is the OCD in me, so forgive me!

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Incorrect.  If you read the article, you would see that they are still being tested, albeit 1x per week instead of 1x per day.

I know...my point was that fewer tests will equal fewer positive results...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That seems vindictive.

It's not required for the players at this point, so how can the NFL or the team penalize them for not doing something that's not required?

 

 

It's an interesting point. Surely they can't say "Wear this or you're fired." But I wonder if they could say, "Hey, it's our building. If you want in, wear a mask while you're here." 

 

Probably something about that in some part of some agreement between management and the union. I bet it's perfectly OK to say that, though. They required masks on the sidelines, why not the buildings too.

 

 

5 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

I know...my point was that fewer tests will equal fewer positive results...

 

 

A smaller percentage of positives, maybe. Same number of positives, I'd guess, though maybe more tests would mean a few more false positives.

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sports starting in the fall should have vaccinations for all players prior to the season starting..this includes football, basketball, hockey in college and pro.

 

those who got vaccinated now on their own will need to show certificate.they might get a booster shot.

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Vomit 2
  • Disagree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

It is not required due to resistance of union.  They also resist OTAs, penalties for players deliberatrly injuring other players and safety equipment.

Do not think teams should pay for players who do not at least make effort.

They may be in the minority, but there are people who have legitimate medical and or religious reasons for not getting vaccinated. Like basically everything in life, it’s not always cut and dry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

I know...my point was that fewer tests will equal fewer positive results...

 

When one of the players tested positive last season, testing him every day was not counted as "7 positive results"; he was counted as 1 positive result, usually verified by several tests.  The interval during which an infected player will test positive is longer than 1 week.   Therefore fewer tests will still correlate to the same number of players who test positive whether they test every day, or once a week. 

 

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

It's an interesting point. Surely they can't say "Wear this or you're fired." But I wonder if they could say, "Hey, it's our building. If you want in, wear a mask while you're here." 

 

Probably something about that in some part of some agreement between management and the union. I bet it's perfectly OK to say that, though. They required masks on the sidelines, why not the buildings too.

 

We were talking about getting  @Limeaid's notion the teams should withhold pay from an unvaccinated player who tests positive and will be unavailable.

My point is they can't withhold pay for something that's not required.

 

As far as masks, they were required in the buildings all last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

It is not required due to resistance of union.  They also resist OTAs, penalties for players deliberatrly injuring other players and safety equipment.

Do not think teams should pay for players who do not at least make effort.

Well it could also be argued that players are constantly fined and suspended for non approved drugs in their system, so asking them to take an experimental vax is a real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Well it could also be argued that players are constantly fined and suspended for non approved drugs in their system, so asking them to take an experimental vax is a real issue.

 

Anything can be argued like P*ts are not cheaters.  Some will look for support for reasons far fetched as long as it matches their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...