New NFL-NFLPA Covid protocols

[YoloinOhio]

 

[CorkScrewHill]

15 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

This seems like a good way of handling things .. last year those that feared the virus could choose to sit out. This year those that fear the vaccine and don’t want to adhere to the policies .. can sit out without being cut etc. and hope that by next year they feel better about the vaccine or the virus risk is so reduced nobody cares to keep the policies in place.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by CorkScrewHill

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

From the link, some differences:

Quote

Players deemed "higher risk" for COVID are again entitled to a $350,000 stipend but voluntary opt-outs will not be compensated

 

They are also apparently handling roster bonuses differently:

 

 

I'm not going to repost them here, but some of the responses to this Twitter are pretty funny

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[machine gun kelly]

Thanks for keeping us in the loop.  I hope the NFL and PA continue with these protections as it was a miracle we made it through the season last year.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Heitz]

Wasn't quite sure where to drop this, but wow.

 

Mods if this is too close to the line, feel free to delete, but it's certainly relevant to the season...

 

 

 

 

[VaMilBill]

I agree with the idea, but I hate that they are really targeting unvaccinated players. It’s funny what Beane said earlier in the off-season about potentially cutting an unvaccinated player and the nfl yells at him. However, the NFL has taken a very passive aggressive stance against unvaccinated players to the point that jobs will be cost purely on the fact that a player is vaccinated or not. 
 

I think the better way here would be if a team had a COVID outbreak, regardless or vaccination status, the team would be liable to forfeiture and financial penalty. 

[YoloinOhio]

Egads what a mess 

[Rc2catch]

I get the forfeit idea after some of the messes last year, what I can’t get is players losing game checks for the forfeit. That’s incredibly dirty for the team not at fault to lose their pay when they did things the right way. I seen up top about possible financial losses having to be covered by an offending team but that didn’t say game checks for players, sounded to me like it’s worded more for the owners to recoup the ticket sales loss 

[Lionel Hutz]

26 minutes ago, VaMilBill said:

I agree with the idea, but I hate that they are really targeting unvaccinated players. It’s funny what Beane said earlier in the off-season about potentially cutting an unvaccinated player and the nfl yells at him. However, the NFL has taken a very passive aggressive stance against unvaccinated players to the point that jobs will be cost purely on the fact that a player is vaccinated or not. 
 

I think the better way here would be if a team had a COVID outbreak, regardless or vaccination status, the team would be liable to forfeiture and financial penalty. 

If players/teams take steps to decrease the spread of the virus (i.e. get everyone vaccinated) why should they be punished for an outbreak? 
 

You have to incentivize players to get vaccinated if you want decrease the risk of an outbreak. This is not complicated. 

[ndirish1978]

I feel like this has been poorly thought out by the NFL. You would think this is meant to forcefully "encourage" players to be vaccinated, but it's entirely possible that a team could have an outbreak amongst vaccinated players. I admit ignorance on the nuances of all the league's protocols, but from what I've read vaccinated players may leave the hotel when traveling to interact with vaccinated family members. Given that vaccination does not preclude infection, these guidelines seem to be contrary to the goal of minimizing chances of an outbreak. The guidelines, if followed by the players to the letter, actually increase the likelihood that a vaccinated player might be the cause of an outbreak by interacting with others outside of team facilities. I don't understand why they don't just make everyone stay in the hotel, it seems like the carrot/stick approach employed by the league is at odds with itself. 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by ndirish1978

[patzen]

I'm not sure why Pelissero is making it seem like a big deal when literally no games got cancelled last year and cases were much higher than they are now. The odds of games getting cancelled are very low tbh.

[Simon]

Just a reminder to please keep this thread on topic and limited to commentary about NFL Covid protocols

[T&C]

What about players not getting vaxxed for religious reasons? I'd like to hear how the NFL will address that.

[ColoradoBills]

This quote from the article pretty much says it all.

 

t’s always been that simple. Today’s memo simply raises the stakes.

Beasley may bristle at this, but the simple reality is that vaccinated players will be tested once every 14 days. They’re more likely to be available because they won’t be tested for two weeks after their most recent test. Thus, they can’t suddenly be unavailable.

Non-vaccinated players assume a daily risk of being immediately unavailable. because they’ll be tested every day.

Beasley has yet to tweet in response to today’s memo. However, it’s becoming harder and harder for anyone to argue that vaccination status doesn’t directly impact a team’s competitive interests. After today’s memo, it’s impossible to make the argument.

After today’s memo, every unvaccinated player who isn’t a franchise quarterback or otherwise untouchable due to skill or cap reasons is at risk of being cut.

[Malazan]

1 hour ago, VaMilBill said:

I agree with the idea, but I hate that they are really targeting unvaccinated players. It’s funny what Beane said earlier in the off-season about potentially cutting an unvaccinated player and the nfl yells at him. However, the NFL has taken a very passive aggressive stance against unvaccinated players to the point that jobs will be cost purely on the fact that a player is vaccinated or not. 
 

I think the better way here would be if a team had a COVID outbreak, regardless or vaccination status, the team would be liable to forfeiture and financial penalty. 

 

Well, they yelled at him BECAUSE they knew they were going to have to go in this direction and what he said was true. 

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, T&C said:

What about players not getting vaxxed for religious reasons? I'd like to hear how the NFL will address that.

They're technically not mandating it and the players had the option to opt after the revised protocols were issued for this season.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

43 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

I feel like this has been poorly thought out by the NFL. You would think this is meant to forcefully "encourage" players to be vaccinated, but it's entirely possible that a team could have an outbreak amongst vaccinated players. I admit ignorance on the nuances of all the league's protocols, but from what I've read vaccinated players may leave the hotel when traveling to interact with vaccinated family members. Given that vaccination does not preclude infection, these guidelines seem to be contrary to the goal of minimizing chances of an outbreak. The guidelines, if followed by the players to the letter, actually increase the likelihood that a vaccinated player might be the cause of an outbreak by interacting with others outside of team facilities. I don't understand why they don't just make everyone stay in the hotel, it seems like the carrot/stick approach employed by the league is at odds with itself. 

 

 

I think this is one of two valid points made by a Player who Shall Not be Named (admixed with a bunch of silliness and contradictory points, but valid is valid)

 

The NFL's protocols are appropriate for the Covid situation as it was last Fall and the initial data on vaccination, where data said a vaccinated person was ~12x less likely to get any form of the disease and even less likely to spread it.  That was Then, This is Delta.  The NFL really needs to get its medical experts into a room and have them look at the best available data current situation and modify their approach accordingly.

 

At this point, the whole thing seems like Sabre rattling to me. 

Weren't they saying a few weeks ago that games would not be re-scheduled at all?

 

 

 

 

[CheshireCT]

Problem I see here is the NFL’s inconsistent message. Brandon Beane is told he can’t cut a player due to vaccination status. However this memo says he can however be punished for his unvaccinated players. How is that fair?

[Punching Bag]

50 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

I get the forfeit idea after some of the messes last year, what I can’t get is players losing game checks for the forfeit. That’s incredibly dirty for the team not at fault to lose their pay when they did things the right way. I seen up top about possible financial losses having to be covered by an offending team but that didn’t say game checks for players, sounded to me like it’s worded more for the owners to recoup the ticket sales loss 

 

Why should teams only be penalized when it is likely that teams did everything correct and they are mandating their employees except players to get vaccinated?

 

3 minutes ago, CheshireCT said:

Problem I see here is the NFL’s inconsistent message. Brandon Beane is told he can’t cut a player due to vaccination status. However this memo says he can however be punished for his unvaccinated players. How is that fair?

 

It isn't but evidently that was an agreement with NFLPA.

 

If NFLPA had a choice all players would be paid for all contracts and incentives and not need to work.

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Why should teams only be penalized when it is likely that teams did everything correct and they are mandating their employees except players to get vaccinated?

 

 

It isn't but evidently that was an agreement with NFLPA.

Right and as of last week there were still 4 teams under 50% vaccination - not sure what teams are supposed to do when they can’t mandate it 

[Rc2catch]

6 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Why should teams only be penalized when it is likely that teams did everything correct and they are mandating their employees except players to get vaccinated?

 

 

I’m not sure how to respond to that honestly. I only took issue with players losing game checks in the event of a forfeit. 

[Punching Bag]

1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:

I’m not sure how to respond to that honestly. I only took issue with players losing game checks in the event of a forfeit. 

 

They are supposed to be partners but NFLPA acts like an ex-spouse not contributing anything anymore but asking again and again for raises in alimony.

[Dablitzkrieg]

Some league reactions 

 

 

[Punching Bag]

8 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Right and as of last week there were still 4 teams under 50% vaccination - not sure what teams are supposed to do when they can’t mandate it 

 

Some of those players are probably asking "Damn why did NFLPA push to not allow teams to cut players who were not vaccinated?  If they cut me I could collect another signing bonus from another team."

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Think he already deleted that one

[oldmanfan]

The NFL is essentially telling its employees they need to get vaccinated, which is entirely within their right to do.  The employee can either get with the program or leave the employ of the NFL.  It is no different than my health care network mandating that we all have to be vaccinated.  
 

All the science supports the value of vaccination.  The NFL understands that.  Focus on science and not politics and this is a non-issue.

Edited July 22, 2021 by oldmanfan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, pepsicat17 said:

So he’s cool with potentially hurting his team, their families and all other staff/families in the NFL with illness but the money and seeding consequences are what is really making him take pause. Tells you all you need to know about the challenges we face as a species.

 

Very doubtful he sees it that way.  Hopkins likely subscribes to the same viewpoint a Player Who Shall not Be Named expressed "If you get vaccinated you are good? So if I don’t i shouldn’t pass it on to you regardless, right?".   He also likely is more focused on false positive test results than false negative test results, so he believes (like said Player who Shall not Be Named) if he tests negative everyday, he isn't infecting anyone or hurting them with illness.

 

Both of those beliefs are mistaken, but FROM THAT VIEWPOINT, he's likely not at all cool with hurting teammates, family etc with illness.  He doesn't think that's a factor.

 

This whole "punish teams for something that's supposed to be a player decision" is a horrid, horrid move by the NFL.

[sunshynman]

All choices have ramifications. NFL has the right to lay down whatever rules they want. The players have the choice to follow or disregard them. But there will be consequences going against the rules. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The NFL is essentially telling its employees they need to get vaccinated, which is entirely within their right to do.  The employee can either get with the program or leave the employ of the NFL.  It is no different than my health care network mandating that we all have to be vaccinated.  
 

All the science supports the value of vaccination.  The NFL understands that.  Focus on science and not politics and this is a non-issue.

 

Except that the NFL and NFLPA negotiated that vaccination was supposed to be a player choice, not required.  I think it's fair that the choice has consequences for the player (eg, they have to follow last year's protocols) but to put consequences on the whole team for something that may not even result from protocol violations by the player seems very coercive. 

 

 

 

 

 

[DCbillsfan]

The NFL is essentially "mandating" that players get vaccinated without mandating it.  I wonder if teams will release some unvaccinated players for "different" reasons and the other teams won't sign these players.  

[pepsicat17]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Very doubtful he sees it that way.  Hopkins likely subscribes to the same viewpoint a Player Who Shall not Be Named expressed "If you get vaccinated you are good? So if I don’t i shouldn’t pass it on to you regardless, right?".   He also likely is more focused on false positive test results than false negative test results, so he believes (like said Player who Shall not Be Named) if he tests negative everyday, he isn't infecting anyone or hurting them with illness.

Just because he is… misinformed then it’s ok?  Do you think he’d change his mind if someone told him, “No, we aren’t good and you can pass it on to others?” Maybe he would change his stance then? I’d say no he wouldn’t cause the info about that is readily available to anyone who wants it. 

[ndirish1978]

47 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The NFL is essentially telling its employees they need to get vaccinated, which is entirely within their right to do.  The employee can either get with the program or leave the employ of the NFL.  It is no different than my health care network mandating that we all have to be vaccinated.  
 

  the science supports the value of vaccination.  The NFL understands that.  Focus on science and not politics and this is a non-issue.

 

The league's overall policy has nothing to do with science but purports to. The NFL is concerned about optics and money. I would suggest that mandating a vaccine is still worthless if you have protocols in place that allow anyone to freely associate with other people outside the team, vaccinated or no. To suggest that everyone being vaccinated removes the risk of illness while allowing them to associate with other vaccinated people outside the team facility is willfully misleading. You cannot mandate a vaccine and not mandate restricted association with others. Science shows that vaccinated people are not immune and though afforded protection against the newer strains, still susceptible to getting and spreading the disease. The issue here is the inconsistent application of logic in league policy, not anyone's personal beliefs about vaccination vs non-vaccination. Please stay on topic. 

 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, ndirish1978 said:

 

The league's overall policy has nothing to do with science but purports to. The NFL is concerned about optics and money. I would suggest that mandating a vaccine is still worthless if you have protocols in place that allow anyone to freely associate with other people outside the team, vaccinated or no. To suggest that everyone being vaccinated removes the risk of illness while allowing them to associate with other vaccinated people outside the team facility is willfully misleading. You cannot mandate a vaccine and not mandate restricted association with others. Science shows that vaccinated people are not immune and though afforded protection against the newer strains, still susceptible to getting and spreading the disease. The issue here is the inconsistent application of logic in league policy, not anyone's personal beliefs about vaccination vs non-vaccination. Please stay on topic. 

 

The science shows that vaccinated people are much less likely to contract or spread the virus, and are at virtually zero risk of dying or contracting severe illness.   The topic is simple:  the NFL has a product they want to protect.  They also have a vested interest in their players not dying or getting severely ill due to Covid, although we all know the NFL’s main thing is $$$$$$. The medical people for the NFL know the science and have I’m sure advised the league as such.  The one thing I would advise the league is to not do testing of vaccinated individuals.  Again because they are much less likely to contract and/or spread.

 

The league is a microcosm of society right now.  The CDC says vaccinated people can live their lives.  The NFL apparently agrees. The league is favoring vaccinated over unvaccinated players.  So is society.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

We're having to work way too hard to keep this clean

 

Players going off on Twitter, which people naturally and understandably want to quote but some of them spouting nonsense, are not helping