Joe Barry has tested positive for COVID-19, will not coach on Thursday Night

[El Guapo]

Doesn't change the fact it's a stupid ****ing rule. Why people get mad at people affected by stupid ****ing rules instead of getting mad at the people that make the stupid ****ing rules is beyond me, but it's where we're at.

Isn't that like picking any rule that you might think is stupid (let's use littering) and saying that we shouldn't get upset at the guy who gets caught littering but the person that wrote the law against littering?

 

[Mondio]

Isn't that like picking any rule that you might think is stupid (let's use littering) and saying that we shouldn't get upset at the guy who gets caught littering but the person that wrote the law against littering?

when you only want to pick up people that are littering in blue shirts but let the rest litter away, yeah it's a stupid rule

 

[Schultz]

Or don't wear a blue shirt while littering.

 

[Mondio]

Or don't wear a blue shirt while littering.

because the shirt is what's important and not the littering...

 

[swhitset]

because the shirt is what's important and not the littering...

perhaps, but it does show the level of petty stubbornness some will cling to just to prove they are right.

Personally… i’d just change my shirt.

 

[El Guapo]

I'm already lost. Did Joe Barry get arrested for littering in a blue shirt?

 

[Dantés]

That means Lazard isn't vaccinated. The players knew about the rule entering the season.

If you’ll notice, I didn’t say otherwise. I said the rule itself is trash.

 

[Dantés]

I just provided facts, you were the one who didn't like it for some reason.

Lol. Not at all Captain. You decided to disagree with my opinion that it’s nice to have Gray given the spot we’re in.

For whatever reason, you have an overwhelming compulsion to pick fights over benign opinions.

 

[gopkrs]

That means Lazard isn't vaccinated. The players knew about the rule entering the season.

I wonder how they determine "close contact."

 

[gopkrs]

perhaps, but it does show the level of petty stubbornness some will cling to just to prove they are right.

Personally… i’d just change my shirt.

I don't like being told to change my shirt.

 

[Dantés]

The rule is designed to punish players like Lazard. It has nothing to do with safety. If he’s negative and has no symptoms, there’s no risk worth mentioning. But he gets sat down because he disobeyed. The only thing dumber than the rule are the people who defend with the argument that “it’s a rule” as if that somehow means something.

 

[swhitset]

The rule is designed to punish players like Lazard. It has nothing to do with safety. If he’s negative and has no symptoms, there’s no risk worth mentioning. But he gets sat down because he disobeyed. The only thing dumber than the rule are the people who defend with the argument that “it’s a rule” as if that somehow means something.

Except that not everyone agrees that the rule is dumb.

 

[swhitset]

I don't like being told to change my shirt.

Exactly. Neither do I, but sometimes drawing a line in the sand just to flex your muscles is as dumb as the perceived rule.

 

[Mondio]

perhaps, but it does show the level of petty stubbornness some will cling to just to prove they are right.

Personally… i’d just change my shirt.

I'd rather focus on the littering and not punishing people for silly stuff.


Be thankful you still get to make decisions for yourself.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Or don't wear a blue shirt while littering.

I always thought if the temp dropped to -20 they took the shirts off anyway ?

 

[Dantés]

Except that not everyone agrees that the rule is dumb.

Not everyone agrees that biological *** exists either. I could care less.

The rule keeps players out who don’t have symptoms or positive tests. It’s idiotic. You don’t have to be a right wing, anti-vax conspiracy theorist to see or acknowledge that.

 

[Mondio]

If you test positive you can't play for X days or X number of negative tests or without symptoms for X days. That's a good rule.

Being no more dangerous to anyone around you than any other person who's tested negative or hasn't even been tested because of vax status but are punished because you're near a vax'd person who tested positive is punitive only, not a good rule.


I happen to think the line at body autonomy is a very good line in the sand to flex muscles over.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Doesn't change the fact it's a stupid ****ing rule. Why people get mad at people affected by stupid ****ing rules instead of getting mad at the people that make the stupid ****ing rules is beyond me, but it's where we're at.

I'm not mad at Lazard at all. He knew entering the season that he could miss a game because of being a close contact to someone who tests positive if he isn't vaccinated though.

Lol. Not at all Captain. You decided to disagree with my opinion that it’s nice to have Gray given the spot we’re in.

For whatever reason, you have an overwhelming compulsion to pick fights over benign opinions.

Once again, I only mentioned Gray wasn't successful as a defensive coordinator. You decided to pick a fight afterwards.

I wonder how they determine "close contact."

The CDC defines “Close Contact” as living in the same household, being within six (6) feet of someone for at least fifteen (15) cumulative minutes, or being in direct contact with secretions from a sick person with COVID-19 (e.g., being coughed on).

The rule is designed to punish players like Lazard. It has nothing to do with safety. If he’s negative and has no symptoms, there’s no risk worth mentioning. But he gets sat down because he disobeyed. The only thing dumber than the rule are the people who defend with the argument that “it’s a rule” as if that somehow means something.

The one thing that is actually dumb is to believe that an unvaccinated person who had close contact with someone who tested positive isn't a risk to anyone else because of a single negativ test.

The rule keeps players out who don’t have symptoms or positive tests. It’s idiotic. You don’t have to be a right wing, anti-vax conspiracy theorist to see or acknowledge that.

No, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on how COVID-19 spreads.

Being no more dangerous to anyone around you than any other person who's tested negative or hasn't even been tested because of vax status but are punished because you're near a vax'd person who tested positive is punitive only, not a good rule.

Once again, an unvaccinated person who has been in close contact with someone who tested positive is more dangerous to get infected and spread the virus.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not mad at Lazard at all. He knew entering the season that he could miss a game because of being a close contact to someone who tests positive if he isn't vaccinated though.



Once again, I only mentioned Gray wasn't successful as a defensive coordinator. You decided to pick a fight afterwards.



The CDC defines “Close Contact” as living in the same household, being within six (6) feet of someone for at least fifteen (15) cumulative minutes, or being in direct contact with secretions from a sick person with COVID-19 (e.g., being coughed on).



The one thing that is actually dumb is to believe that an unvaccinated person who had close contact with someone who tested positive isn't a risk to anyone else because of a single negativ test.



No, but you have to have a complete lack of knowledge on how COVID-19 spreads.



Once again, an unvaccinated person who has been in close contact with someone who tested positive is more dangerous to get infected and spread the virus.

Oh Capt, i've taught classes on Immuno and physio to undergrad students while getting a doctorate. I think I have a fairly good understanding how things work.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Oh Capt, i've taught classes on Immuno and physio to undergrad students while getting a doctorate. I think I have a fairly good understanding how things work.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make you an expert on COVID-19 by any means. I prefer to trust the experts on it despite your impressive resume.

 

[Schultz]

Impressive indeed. We now have a captain and a doctor. What could go wrong?

 

[Mondio]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make you an expert on COVID-19 by any means. I prefer to trust the experts on it despite your impressive resume.

so if I could show you at least as many current studies on Covid 19 showing similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals conducted by "experts" what would you say?

and nobody said Lazard should play with 1 negative test. He's subject to daily testing now right? for a period of time? why not 2 negative tests 24 hours apart like everyone else?

And when 2 vaccinated people are equally as capable and likely of carrying loads the same as an unvaccinated person who would test positive the day after a game they played in vs someone who's tested negative, why would you think the negative person is more of a danger? and why do you need an expert to ask the question?

and you can believe whomever you'd like. But you can not say I have a complete lack of understanding on how these things are spread. Heck, I was calling it an aerosolized virus months before the experts even hinted at it LOL but what would have known...

 

[Mondio]

Impressive indeed. We now have a captain and a doctor. What could go wrong?

DO NOT accept an invite for a 3 hour tour if there are any movie stars, millionaire's or a MaryAnn around.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

so if I could show you at least as many current studies on Covid 19 showing similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals conducted by "experts" what would you say?

It seems that both an vaccinated and an unvaccinated person who tests positive have similar viral loads. The huge difference being that a vaccinated individual has a significant smaller chance of getting infected.

And when 2 vaccinated people are equally as capable and likely of carrying loads the same as an unvaccinated person who would test positive the day after a game they played in vs someone who's tested negative, why would you think the negative person is more of a danger? and why do you need an expert to ask the question?

Once again, you ignore that the chance of a vaccinated player getting infected is extremely small to another one who is unvaccinated.

I'm fine with holding out an unvaccinated player that has had close contact to a person who tested positive based on the chances of him having been infected.

 

[Mondio]

Once again, i've ignored nothing. You saying that is the case doesn't make so and the chances being "extremely small" are getting bigger every passing day post innoculation and with every new set of data that comes in.

anyway, i'm not going debate the merits of pro or not. I will say, testing negative he should be subjected to the same rules as everyone else because he is neither sick, nor with a viral load that is evident upon testing.

He is no more dangerous than any other person on that field with a negative test.