|
TNET: ACC releases revised COVID-19 forfeit, testing guidelines
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 2,632
|
Editor [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43441
Joined: 12/12/12
|
TNET: ACC releases revised COVID-19 forfeit, testing guidelines
Aug 19, 2021, 3:24 PM
|
|
ACC releases revised COVID-19 forfeit, testing guidelines
GREENSBORO, N.C. (theACC.com) – The Atlantic Coast Conference announced today its 2021-22 COVID-19 Game Rescheduling Policy and several key updates to protocols within the league’s COVID-19 Medical Advisory Group (MAG) Report. The COVID-19 Game Rescheduling Policy, which was approved by the league’s Read Update » |
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [18780]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12813
Joined: 11/30/95
|
wait while I get my popcorn everyone!***
Aug 19, 2021, 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96791]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29201
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Both teams could get a loss
Aug 19, 2021, 3:41 PM
|
|
for the same game?
Very interdasting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18245
Joined: 6/10/09
|
This is awesome news. Vaccinated players don't have to test
Aug 19, 2021, 3:52 PM
|
|
and Clemson is almost at 100% vaccination status as a team.
This ensures no cancellation and nobody missing due to covid (unless they're actually sick)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30764]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34460
Joined: 6/22/03
|
ah no .. what? where do you see they wont get tested?
Aug 19, 2021, 6:24 PM
|
|
all students have to test once a week
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22352
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Is there another way to interpret this?
Aug 19, 2021, 7:16 PM
|
|
"...fully vaccinated individuals will no longer be required to participate in a surveillance testing regime under the latest revisions, testing must still be administered to unvaccinated student-athletes, coaches and sport support staff..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30764]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34460
Joined: 6/22/03
|
contradicts Clemson's policy***
Aug 19, 2021, 9:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [37531]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9297
Joined: 6/13/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51524]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43075
Joined: 8/10/04
|
How many games will FSU cancel this year?***
Aug 19, 2021, 4:03 PM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24595
Joined: 5/14/02
|
They wouldn't have canceled last year if it was a loss...
Aug 19, 2021, 5:10 PM
|
|
like it will be this year. They won't cancel any...I assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55284]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58346
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: They wouldn't have canceled last year if it was a loss...
Aug 19, 2021, 6:01 PM
|
|
I wouldn't go that far to say they wouldn't have canceled last yeas if it had been a loss. A one-zero is better than 55-3 score showing on the score board!!!! With that, I believe they would have canceled last, and they may cancel this year to give Clemson more time to cool off!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24595
Joined: 5/14/02
|
As long as it counts as a Clemson win and FSU loss I'm happy***
Aug 19, 2021, 9:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 8/30/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15501]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21400
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: They wouldn't have canceled last year if it was a loss...
Aug 20, 2021, 7:07 AM
|
|
Something bad is coming FSU's way. They need just to hunker down and take that beating like a jackarse in a hail storm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1257]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/13/99
|
Is this for everyone, or everyone except FSU?***
Aug 19, 2021, 4:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64946]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33158
Joined: 12/3/03
|
If the guidelines were not updated to make what FSU did to
Aug 19, 2021, 4:09 PM
|
|
us last year an automatic forfeit, I don't even care to look at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16058]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24595
Joined: 5/14/02
|
What FSU did last year would count as a loss this year***
Aug 19, 2021, 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15501]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21400
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: What FSU did last year would count as a loss this year***
Aug 20, 2021, 7:08 AM
|
|
And, it should have last year, too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30804]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22858
Joined: 11/1/03
|
I have a feeling that rankings won’t be impacted by forfeits.
Aug 19, 2021, 8:45 PM
|
|
Could have teams in the playoff with 3-4 forfeit losses. Doubt it’ll happen, but I think it’s possible. It’ll mess up the conference championships games, but since that isn’t an automatic qualifier to the playoff, it could be in the realm of possibility that none of the 4 CFP teams will play in their conference championship games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 3740
Joined: 9/5/20
|
So much here that is disappointing.
Aug 20, 2021, 5:11 AM
|
|
It’s actually difficult to read this and think medical experts created it.
It is absolutely ridiculous to randomly test people that are not showing symptoms. The PCR test is not designed for this and it does not detect Covid. And a positive PCR test does not mean you have Covid. To randomly test people that are not showing symptoms is utterly ridiculous because the PCR test is incredibly flawed and has a high false positive rate and without knowing how many cycles it took to get the positive the test is meaningless. The test goes to 40 cycles when anything over 27 and you are absolutely positively not infected nor can you spread Covid.
Testing when there are no symptoms is also ridiculous when you’re not testing people that have been vaccinated. It is utterly ridiculous to only test unvaccinated people because we know for a fact that the vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid.
And how did they come up with 85%? That number is totally random. It’s arbitrary.
This is nonsense. It’s theater. It’s to look like they care. It is designed to look like they are doing something important to protect people. It’s total BS!
There should be NO Random testing of anyone, vaccinated or unvaccinated! People should only be getting a test if they are showing symptoms.
This nonsense does not follow science and it’s as if these people don’t understand the PCR test. This reads like a policy that is designed to coerce people into getting vaccinated.
And I would be very curious to know how they define a Covid case. Because if you consider someone to be a Covid case based purely on a positive PCR test that is not science. But that’s probably what they are doing because why randomly test someone that does not have symptoms? Scientifically speaking the only person that has a confirmed case of Covid is someone that has symptoms and tests positive. And even then it’s possible they could have a cold and not Covid since Covid symptoms often look like a cold and given the inherent flaws in the PCR test you could easily get a positive result.
Message was edited by: Lowcntry_Tiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [121]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 152
Joined: 9/11/00
|
Re: So much here that is disappointing.
Aug 20, 2021, 8:09 AM
|
|
It does look like a policy to encourage vaccinations. I suspect that some making the policy understand that thrre may be a good number of false positives with the testing methods. Otherwise, instead of categorizing people as "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated", they would categorize them as "vaccinated or naturally immune" and "unvaccinated and no natural immunity". I'm no doctor,
but it really seems like the 2 categories ought to be "inoculated" and "uninoculated" with antibody test results determing an individual's categorization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8262
Joined: 9/13/01
|
Re: TNET: ACC releases revised COVID-19 forfeit, testing guidelines
Aug 20, 2021, 12:52 PM
|
|
Conveniently doesn't address the scenario of "One team has a few COVID cases but sufficient players available, and the other team refuses to take the field." Looking at you, FSU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 2,632
|
|
|
|
50
