Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

How is it political to state the fact that whether you're vaccinated or not - you're still spreading the virus to everyone...?

(09-01-2021, 02:36 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get the greatest topic of the week started by yours truly shut down please.

No. The greatest topic of the week was you whining about your avatar.

New one looks great though!

(09-01-2021, 10:23 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 06:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]There's no rule (tiko) that says vax status can't be a consideration in cutting a player. Players get cut for health reasons all the time. The NFLPA is just blustering again.

So if a player is 100% healthy but isn't vaccinated, they should be cut for "health" reasons? Yeah, ok, lol.

dude, you're triggered.

Might be wise to take a break. Nobody is saying what you think they are saying.

(09-01-2021, 10:37 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 10:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]No - but if a similarly talented roster bubble player is vaxed - then it is a very easy decision of basic risk mitigation to your team. 

One player poses less threat to expose your team to league protocols, restrictions and forfeiture. The unvaxed guy represents greater risk in those areas.

You should not get cut because you refuse to take an experimental vaccine. We will not know the effects of the vaccine until years from now. It is impossible to call it safe at this time.

correct. I don't think anyone has gotten cut over refusal to take the vaccine (and good luck proving that allegation).

Guys are getting cut because they are not talented enough to outweigh the risk, they're past their prime and too expensive or not significantly better than younger players on the squad. There's plenty of guys who haven't gotten the shot that made it through cuts unscathed.

(09-01-2021, 02:36 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get the greatest topic of the week started by yours truly shut down please.

SC proving he has no rotator cuff problems with all the self-backpatting going on here.

(09-01-2021, 02:02 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2021, 11:37 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]Probably because you don't bother looking in/reading any threads

Aren't you glad I started this topic? So much better than being in the cut tracker.  Stick with me. I will take you places

No, because the exact same things were already discussed over there. Now this thread is just 4 pages of nonsense about a big fat nothing.

This discussion isn't about "anti-vaxers" or "vaxers".  The players are grown men and can choose their own health decisions.  The discussion is about the NFLPA investigating Coach Meyer for a comment that he made.

Keep the discussion to about whether or not a team can or can not make a decision based on vaccinated or not.

(09-01-2021, 04:28 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 10:37 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]You should not get cut because you refuse to take an experimental vaccine. We will not know the effects of the vaccine until years from now. It is impossible to call it safe at this time.

correct. I don't think anyone has gotten cut over refusal to take the vaccine (and good luck proving that allegation).

Guys are getting cut because they are not talented enough to outweigh the risk, they're past their prime and too expensive or not significantly better than younger players on the squad. There's plenty of guys who haven't gotten the shot that made it through cuts unscathed.

Again, Meyer said it on video. When you say it was considered in the evaluation of which players to keep, you are guaranteed that it was used to put players on the roster and remove others.

Saying they are not talented enough to outweigh the risk is cutting them because they are unvaccinated. When you have 2 players you are deciding between them, they will use all of the analysis to decide who to keep, if vaccinated status was listed or known, that became an issue when Meyer opened his mouth.

The analysis is subjective and it is hard to prove bias normally. You usually don't have people making hiring decisions openly breaking hiring laws. If Meyer keeps his mouth shut, you can't prove much. Meyer saying it was a factor, a player pulls up the depth chart at his position and says the bottom player is vaccinated and I'm not, plays Meyer on video, and case is over.

These are not criminal cases, they don't have to provide 100% proof that they were cut because they were unvaccinated while the other player was. They just have to show that it was used in the analysis and Meyer already admitted to it.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Regardless of how you feel about Covid or the vaccine, current NFL rules makes players that are unvaccinated at a severe competitive disadvantage. A 10 day absence from a close contact could cost you 2 games, which is 10% of the season.

Everything else equal (and maybe even just simply close), you’re hurting the team keeping an unvaccinated player over a vaccinated player.

(09-01-2021, 06:42 PM)NoShoes Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of how you feel about Covid or the vaccine, current NFL rules makes players that are unvaccinated at a severe competitive disadvantage. A 10 day absence from a close contact could cost you 2 games, which is 10% of the season.

Everything else equal (and maybe even just simply close), you’re hurting the team keeping an unvaccinated player over a vaccinated player.

That's the key. It's not the lack of vaccine being the deciding factor, but all else bring equal, take the guy with less chance of having to go through the protocol. It would be similar if you had two guys of equal ability and one had a history of injury and the other was an iron man. Take the guy most likely to be available. Common sense.

(09-01-2021, 11:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 11:30 AM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]What if you don't have enough players due to covid if they are all vaxxed?

What if martians arrive at half time of the super bowl? 

Let it go. The NFL covid policy is all over the internet. Go read it. 
Here's a large part of it:
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-covid-19-ou...elled-game

I think the point is the NFL covid policy is now outdated and makes much less sense than when it was crafted.  The rule says "If a game is cancelled/postponed because a club cannot play due to a Covid spike among or resulting from its non-vaccinated players/staff, then the burden of the cancellation or delay will fall on the club experiencing the Covid infection".  As I said this in another thread, the policy was predicated on the idea that vaccinated individuals wouldnt be getting sick and spreading covid.  But now we know they can as vaccines either lose their effectiveness over time or are less effective against variants.  Or some combo of both.  You could easily see a situation where enough vaxxed players get covid where they wouldnt be able to field a roster.  And you'd never be able to prove if it was an unvaxxed person that gave covid to the rest of the team or vice versa.

But even ignoring all that, an ample amount of evidence is beginning to show unvaxxed people who have recovered from covid have much stronger and more lasting immunity (and presumably less likely to spread) than vaxxed people that never had covid.  So in essence a vaxxed person that never had covid is more of a danger to his teammates than an unvaxxed player that has already recovered from it.  

I know people will say the rules are the rules and you have to follow the rules.  But there is nothing stopping the NFL from updating their policy.  There is nothing embarrassing about admitting that the facts around covid continue to evolve as we get more evidence and that they'll adjust their policy accordingly.  I think they've created a policy far too rigid and will see too many players unnecessarily sitting out because of it.

Out of the 24 players let go by the Jags yesterday, only 1 was unvacc'd.. The other 23 were vacc'd.. The Jags are in the top 5 of unvacc'd players in the league.. So again, this "investigation" is a big fat nothing burger.

https://twitter.com/JeffDarlington/statu...7265748994

(09-01-2021, 12:33 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 12:08 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]How much is an vaxxed guy infecting the whole team gonna cost them?

Invariably less since the return protocols are correspondingly less. 

Vaxed players can return to action much quicker,  reducing the need to postpone games,  as well as making rescheduling games easier.

---

Statement from Jags:

https://twitter.com/JaguarsPR/status/143...82050?s=20

Stop using logic… someone is obviously trying to throw a fit here. Get out of the way with all that.

(09-01-2021, 10:21 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]This seems like "much ado about nothing". Everyone knows this is part of the consideration that's being made league wide. Meyer probably should learn to be a bit more coy when he's meeting with the press.

I keep reading this and variations of this.  

It begs one question:  "Is it against NFL rules to consider vaccination status when making roster moves?"  

If yes, Meyer admitted to it.  Whether or not others are secretly doing it wouldn't change the fact that Meyer publicly confessed.  

If no, then it's a non-issue.  You can't punish someone for something that isn't against the rules.

(09-01-2021, 06:07 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]This discussion isn't about "anti-vaxers" or "vaxers".  The players are grown men and can choose their own health decisions.  The discussion is about the NFLPA investigating Coach Meyer for a comment that he made.

Keep the discussion to about whether or not a team can or can not make a decision based on vaccinated or not.

I reckon the answer has to be yes. If being unvaccinated results in special punishments for player and team then the cost of rostering an unvaccinated player is higher. So if you’re a borderline cut then vaccination status is a very clear variable for consideration.  The NFL rules have made it so.

In fact, it’s so obviously the case that NFL with either have to let the non-vax penalty quietly disappear or the PA will need to put vax status into the category of medical justifications for a cut.  The nfl penalty for non-vax makes the situation no different than a borderline player with chronic knee issues.

The real can of worms comes when this precedent is used for other vaccinations. What about a player without a TB vaccination?  Or measles?  My bet is that the NFL quietly let’s the penalty disappear but you never know now days.

I have a feeling the Jags are going to be in the crosshairs of the NFLPA for a while. This organization probably has an uphill climb for a while until they reverse the previous trend.

I love Meyers 100% honest mentality. Don't care if people don't like it, I love honesty especially from a position where you just heard "the right answers" constantly.

They should be able to cut based off that because if someone spreads and you have to forfeit that is a big deal no?

(09-01-2021, 06:56 PM)rfc17 Wrote: [ -> ]But even ignoring all that, an ample amount of evidence is beginning to show unvaxxed people who have recovered from covid have much stronger and more lasting immunity (and presumably less likely to spread) than vaxxed people that never had covid.  So in essence a vaxxed person that never had covid is more of a danger to his teammates than an unvaxxed player that has already recovered from it.

And an ample amount of evidence also shows that vaxxed people who have recovered from covid have even stronger and more lasting immunity. If you haven't had covid, you're better protected with the vaccine. If you have had covid, you're better protected with the vaccine. It's not rocket science.

(09-02-2021, 07:25 AM)iapetus Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2021, 06:56 PM)rfc17 Wrote: [ -> ]But even ignoring all that, an ample amount of evidence is beginning to show unvaxxed people who have recovered from covid have much stronger and more lasting immunity (and presumably less likely to spread) than vaxxed people that never had covid.  So in essence a vaxxed person that never had covid is more of a danger to his teammates than an unvaxxed player that has already recovered from it.

And an ample amount of evidence also shows that vaxxed people who have recovered from covid have even stronger and more lasting immunity. If you haven't had covid, you're better protected with the vaccine. If you have had covid, you're better protected with the vaccine. It's not rocket science.

OK so my buddy and his immediate family all got covid. The people in his house, did not have the vaccine and none of them ended up in the hospital. Though my buddy did tell me he had it pretty bad and he took a while to recover. His two family members who had the vaccine you ask? They both ended up in the hospital and one is still having major issues but is not on the vent thankfully. So yeah, having the vaccine doesn't guarantee crap.