Even cynically there'd be some value to waiting.
by rockmcd (2020-08-06 14:12:37)

In reply to: I do not understand the hurry  posted by jt


Remember when one player in the NBA tested positive and they shut everything down for months? Now you've got two separate instances of 10+ people testing positive on baseball teams, and they just shut those teams down for a week and otherwise continued with the sport.

Just looking at this from a purely cynical point of view and putting the ethics aside just for the sake of argument, I don't think that football games should be the very first events that take place on college campuses. The reason I say that is because these campuses don't yet have a baseline for what a "normal" rate of infection is on a week to week basis, and without that baseline anything that happens on campus during the first week/month is going to be an "increase" and people will point to football games as a contributor, fairly or unfairly. To put it another way, it's problematic that nobody has defined what the tolerance level is going to be for positive tests among football players, staff, and the student body at large.

Alternatively, if they wait until campuses have been open for at least a couple months then (again, cynically for the sake or argument), the student body will be the guinea pigs. They'll have already dealt with the drama and consequences of the first students that get quarantined or sent home or sent to the hospital. They'll have already experienced an infection rate among the students and will have made the decision of whether that's acceptable or not to keep the campus open. So then once football games begin, they'll at least have the information to determine whether the infection rates for their football players and staff are greater or less than that of campus at large.

Just wait until the Spring.