I’ve changed my mind again. Why is football able to get testing but not the rest of the campus? Disappointed in Phillips on this answer:
Of course, it's easier to school on Zoom. Football on Zoom would be quite lame.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’ve changed my mind again. Why is football able to get testing but not the rest of the campus? Disappointed in Phillips on this answer:
Of course, it's easier to school on Zoom. Football on Zoom would be quite lame.
It's an obvious and understandable criticism. The obvious answer is because there are not enough tests, nor the budget, nor the logistical plan to do the whole campus.I’ve changed my mind again. Why is football able to get testing but not the rest of the campus? Disappointed in Phillips on this answer:
Well, I didn’t need the NBA using up most of Oklahoma’s original testing capacity in March to be aware of testing then, but it may not be the best model to emulate. Hopefully that is far from the case here.It's an obvious and understandable criticism. The obvious answer is because there are not enough tests, nor the budget, nor the logistical plan to do the whole campus.
So then the question becomes, should we not test anyone if we can't test everyone? And this is where I lean toward testing athletes and going forward. I may be naiive, but I truly believe that estabishing this testing program for athletes will speed up the process for testing larger populations. For example, I wonder how many people across the country heard about rapid antigen tests for the first time today because they care about football coming back? The momentum for rapid antigen testing will only keep building and that is what we need right now to get approval for these different versions and get production increased and get federal, state and local governments to buy a bunch of these tests.
It's an obvious and understandable criticism. The obvious answer is because there are not enough tests, nor the budget, nor the logistical plan to do the whole campus.
So then the question becomes, should we not test anyone if we can't test everyone? And this is where I lean toward testing athletes and going forward. I may be naiive, but I truly believe that estabishing this testing program for athletes will speed up the process for testing larger populations. For example, I wonder how many people across the country heard about rapid antigen tests for the first time today because they care about football coming back? The momentum for rapid antigen testing will only keep building and that is what we need right now to get approval for these different versions and get production increased and get federal, state and local governments to buy a bunch of these tests.
huh? Why? They are finally following science. And the testing proves they will continue the science.That'll show em!
Sports have been back for a couple months now. They were on our tv at the peak of the pandemic in July. But it still felt spooky seeing coaches in masks and no one but cardboard cutouts in the stands. That didn't feel like things were over at all. It was a daily reminder that they weren't. The same will be true watching college football in huge, empty stadiums.So the greater concern is that people see sports are back and think this is all over. I hope your momentum desire turns out true
Yeah, but you're smarter than the average bear.Well, I didn’t need the NBA using up most of Oklahoma’s original testing capacity in March to be aware of testing then, but it may not be the best model to emulate. Hopefully that is far from the case here.
Sports have been back for a couple months now. They were on our tv at the peak of the pandemic in July. But it still felt spooky seeing coaches in masks and no one but cardboard cutouts in the stands. That didn't feel like things were over at all. It was a daily reminder that they weren't. The same will be true watching college football in huge, empty stadiums.
Easier but still not great. What about elementary schools? Why don’t they get daily rapid testing yet?
I assume everyone will get it eventually. It's easier when you only have to test 1,400 (Big Ten Players). There's tens of millions of elementary school kids.
Yeah.... the logistics of testing everyone is going to be challenging. We are going to have to have certain organizations go first to figure out ways of doing this before it can be widespread. Honestly, I am way more excited to see rapid antigen testing put to use than I am the actual football games.I assume everyone will get it eventually. It's easier when you only have to test 1,400 (Big Ten Players). There's tens of millions of elementary school kids.
Did you just move to this country?Sure, eventually is great. But what about nursing homes? Can we, as a society, say that it's truly more important to use our limited testing resources to prioritize athletes over at risk populations who still can't be protected by rapid testing? How many resources are being prioritized at many levels to bring sports back instead of protecting the people who are most at risk for dying? Because we can't test every nursing home or hospital we shouldn't test any?
We're going to end up having the same discussion around vaccines, btw.
Yeah.... the logistics of testing everyone is going to be challenging. We are going to have to have certain organizations go first to figure out ways of doing this before it can be widespread. Honestly, I am way more excited to see rapid antigen testing put to use than I am the actual football games.
I think... ok, I hope that is right. You're dealing with politicians at all levels of government who are risk-averse and usually allergic to any forward thinking. It is going to take rich, well-run organizations to go first to provide a blue print before governments will open up the checkbook at such a large scale.This is the best argument for why it's okay to prioritize athletes. I'm not convinced, but if you tell me testing and isolating athletes in a controlled manner with antigen testing helps us better understand how to do it for other populations then I'm on board.
TheC, I've agreed more with you today than we have in months. Maybe football can really bring us all together! Maybe there is hope for our country after all!!It's an obvious and understandable criticism. The obvious answer is because there are not enough tests, nor the budget, nor the logistical plan to do the whole campus.
So then the question becomes, should we not test anyone if we can't test everyone? And this is where I lean toward testing athletes and going forward. I may be naiive, but I truly believe that estabishing this testing program for athletes will speed up the process for testing larger populations. For example, I wonder how many people across the country heard about rapid antigen tests for the first time today because they care about football coming back? The momentum for rapid antigen testing will only keep building and that is what we need right now to get approval for these different versions and get production increased and get federal, state and local governments to buy a bunch of these tests.
That’s not a very sound assumption when we are repeatedly told that more testing only means more cases.I assume everyone will get it eventually. It's easier when you only have to test 1,400 (Big Ten Players). There's tens of millions of elementary school kids.
Ha! I think the obvious conclusion from this is that you should start to agree with me more. 😂TheC, I've agreed more with you today than we have in months. Maybe football can really bring us all together! Maybe there is hope for our country after all!!
Happy Wednesday all.
"That's a great question".I’ve changed my mind again. Why is football able to get testing but not the rest of the campus? Disappointed in Phillips on this answer:
"That's a great question".
The ultimate weasel response.
I know, because I used it in 1998. I was testifying before the US Federal Trade Commission regarding an antitrust concern they had. The examiner asked me a question which I didn't have a good answer to. So of course I replies "that's a good question". Before I could say more, the FTC guy said "We're with the Government. We get paid to ask good questions".
Mic drop.
At least I stayed out of jail.
I guess that maybe I only agree with you when you are right!Ha! I think the obvious conclusion from this is that you should start to agree with me more. 😂
Yep... that’s the comeback I would have used too.I guess that maybe I only agree with you when you are right!
Bingo!huh? Why? They are finally following science. And the testing proves they will continue the science.
That’s not a very sound assumption when we are repeatedly told that more testing only means more cases.
Actually I know you were referring to rapid antigen testing, not COVID.By “it” I meant rapid antigen testing for all and not Covid. Sometimes context gets lost on message boards.
Actually I know you were referring to rapid antigen testing, not COVID.
The assumption that “everyone” will receive such testing is not a safe one to make given proven disinterest in making such things happen by top leadership.
Sure, eventually is great. But what about nursing homes? Can we, as a society, say that it's truly more important to use our limited testing resources to prioritize athletes over at risk populations who still can't be protected by rapid testing? How many resources are being prioritized at many levels to bring sports back instead of protecting the people who are most at risk for dying? Because we can't test every nursing home or hospital we shouldn't test any?
We're going to end up having the same discussion around vaccines, btw.
Totally agree. A national disaster from a top down. We’re now bordering on rant board stuff, but I remember when general honesty was compatible with discourse. Facts were shared and it was problems, solutions and priorities that we debated. Gone!
I‘m not at all surprised that test availability played into changing their minds. The Abbott test is ramping to 50M produced per month by October.I don't know for certain, but I'd like to think they already have a commitment from Abbot for a certain number of tests. My guess is that the availability of tests is only going to improve going forward. Wait- maybe availability is the wrong word. The numbers of tests will increase, but the demand will increase as well, so I would think the BIG has a contract.
Kinda sad, too that the math doesn’t even contemplate the need for testing beyond our own borders. Our situation is so poorly controlled that Abbott’s capacity is fully needed right here, and Abbott’s capacity is insufficient to even begin to address needs in countries without public or private capabilities to produce tests on their own.I‘m not at all surprised that test availability played into changing their minds. The Abbott test is ramping to 50M produced per month by October.
I haven’t seen math regarding how many we’d need to implement a full testing strategy such as the one you’d like (me too, by the way), but 50M still doesn’t seem like enough. It IS enough to address significant at-risk populations. Like a lot of us have been saying, we need a plan, and if we had one, that would help the U.S. prioritize who gets the tests.
Sorry, but I don’t buy this. There are plenty of medical organizations who could help develop test plans for at risk populations first. But, like I said in the previous post, I don’t know how far 50M tests will stretch, because we currently have no plan to guide priorities.I think... ok, I hope that is right. You're dealing with politicians at all levels of government who are risk-averse and usually allergic to any forward thinking. It is going to take rich, well-run organizations to go first to provide a blue print before governments will open up the checkbook at such a large scale.
For fans, what?
My guess is, to prevent overwhelming home field advantage, you won’t see any fans anywhere until law in each state in the footprint allows fans.I definitely hope at some point some fans are allowed to attend (family only at the start).
I remember when you lost to Miami (OH).
/fake news I was a freshman in 1996
FWIW I think for nursing homes, you wouldn’t necessarily want to test those in it all the time - once they get it they are in big trouble. I think you mostly keep them sequestered, and use the rapid testing for anyone who comes into their “bubble” - employees at the home and selected potential visitors. Do you can let them see their families without endangering the mini bubble. Also the scale of testing B1G athletes daily is nowhere near the scale of testing even a fraction of nursing homes in the country daily. So it’s not like one can replace the other.Sure, eventually is great. But what about nursing homes? Can we, as a society, say that it's truly more important to use our limited testing resources to prioritize athletes over at risk populations who still can't be protected by rapid testing? How many resources are being prioritized at many levels to bring sports back instead of protecting the people who are most at risk for dying? Because we can't test every nursing home or hospital we shouldn't test any?
We're going to end up having the same discussion around vaccines, btw.
yet let's all agree that that college football players shouldn't be a priority for any testing program.FWIW I think for nursing homes, you wouldn’t necessarily want to test those in it all the time - once they get it they are in big trouble. I think you mostly keep them sequestered, and use the rapid testing for anyone who comes into their “bubble” - employees at the home and selected potential visitors. Do you can let them see their families without endangering the mini bubble. Also the scale of testing B1G athletes daily is nowhere near the scale of testing even a fraction of nursing homes in the country daily. So it’s not like one can replace the other.
And yes there are some prioritization questions about vaccines, but it’s not nearly as bad - you theoretically only need to get everyone once, not repeatedly, so the numbers and scale of production + distribution are much more doable.
As Lou Holtz said, the players and parents had no voice so President Trump came in and straightened out the geek Chancellors. Whether he bullied them, we dont know, but the end result was that Trump forced them to look at the science.Bingo!
I agree. Finally the Big10 took the politics out of it and focused on the science. Really nuts that it took this long it's good to see that they learned from the errors of their way and that our players will finally be able to fulfill their dreams and do so in a responsible safe way.
Go Cats!
As Lou Holtz said, the players and parents had no voice so President Trump came in and straightened out the geek Chancellors. Whether he bullied them, we dont know, but the end result was that Trump forced them to look at the science.
Most likely, due to geography and political affiliation, the Big10 originally put science aside.
And yes there are some prioritization questions about vaccines, but it’s not nearly as bad - you theoretically only need to get everyone once, not repeatedly, so the numbers and scale of production + distribution are much more doable.