[ad_1]
For months, NFL vaccine laggards clung to the nebulous need for more. More data, more research, more approval.
Now they will need more excuses.
That’s what Monday’s biotech news brought in, thanks to the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine. This is a development that will certainly be followed in the coming months by further approvals in the space, just as it will certainly be reversed by some NFL players who refuse to be vaccinated. But this time around, players won’t be able to rely on the lack of FDA approval, leaving some to continue to enter their own nebulous concoction as to why they are refusing an extra layer of protection against COVID-19.
The overwhelming amount of favorable science and billions of vaccinations around the world were not enough, so it’s likely that FDA approval won’t make a difference either. They will continue to want to do their own research, as if spending time between lab coat practices and scanning electron microscopes. Unlike the game where they make a living, the goalposts of their reasoning will move to the destination furthest from a vaccination needle.
And next month, when the rosters are reduced to 53 players, some will surely be cut for it, in large part because the responsibility of being a COVID risk trumps productivity on the pitch. Now that FDA approval is underway, this is how teams should treat it. If navigating COVID is part of a franchise’s operations manual, it should also be considered part of the playbook.
Running, blocking, tackling, throwing, vaccinating.
The summary situation of Cam Newton’s COVID protocol
If a player’s performance in any of the required areas is poor – or totally nonexistent – then it is a handicap that can open up a competitive advantage for another team. And unless a player has a valid reason for failing in one of those areas (or an ability that negates that failure), they’re likely to be cut – just like so many other assessments of the NFL that focus on not becoming a weak link.
Don’t assume the risk isn’t real either. The New England Patriots and Cam Newton showed this on Monday, when a sketchy scenario unfolded that violated NFL-NFLPA testing protocols, sidelining Newton for three valuable practices that will now go on the offensive. from first team to rookie Mac Jones. The word “summary” applies in this scenario because the Patriots and Newton both violated a COVID testing protocol that has been hammered into every team’s head when it comes to unvaccinated players. This protocol is simple and well known throughout the league: Unvaccinated players cannot leave town and effectively perform their own independent COVID tests while they are away.
By standards agreed to by the league and players’ union, private testing is a failed test and requires an unvaccinated player to go through a five-day onboarding process upon return. It is a process that takes them out of the establishment and out of the practices.
For their part, the Patriots appear to be part of the rap for the failure, stating that Newton attended a team-approved fixture. It’s remarkable because it suggests New England didn’t know one of the strongest, most basic rules about unvaccinated players – that they can’t leave town and do their own independent testing.
Never mind that it sounds amazing for any NFL franchise, let alone the Patriots. Even Newton should have known because unvaccinated players have been given flashing red guardrails when it comes to testing and traveling. Both of these realities and who’s at fault are just a flip flop of what this all really states – the fact that Newton wasn’t vaccinated created the whole scenario for this to happen in the first place. Just like any other unvaccinated player creates this possibility.
Availability is key for NFL players
Keep this in mind: if this was the regular season and Newton had done it on a typical day off for players – which is Tuesday – that means his five-day onboarding process would have lasted until Sunday. And if there had been a game this Sunday, he would have missed it. That’s an important point to consider for a former league MVP who is likely putting up his last pit to prove he’s still a viable starting quarterback.
This is the competitive disadvantage of transporting an unvaccinated player, stated in the simplest terms. Either him or the team – or both if you think that’s what happened here – can sort of stumble upon a rule everyone should know about. This is a rule that would not have been in place for Newton if he had been vaccinated.
But Newton clearly isn’t, which has placed him and the Patriots in a scenario where they seem unfit not to know one of the most basic protocols for unvaccinated players. This is all great for Mac Jones, who could be in a corner-flip with Newton for the starting position by the time the season begins (if he isn’t already). A draw that should probably include vaccination as part of the assessment. If all else is equal, availability is important for starting shifts. And the vaccinated player has an advantage over the unvaccinated player when it comes to protocols and the ability to be constantly available.
This is how the assessment should be framed for every NFL player now with regards to vaccination. Unless there is a proven and demonstrable medical reason for a player not to be vaccinated, shooting should be considered part of the ability. More specifically, the availability. That should be the case for any Minnesota Vikings players who seem to have a relentless need for further investigation, as well as a few others who continue to defy logic and choose less protection.
A week ago, they could claim that the vaccine was only an experimental drug. They could stand on it with an emergency use designation. And they could say that the FDA hadn’t approved it, pretending to have only taken FDA-approved substances in their entire life.
They can’t say that anymore. The Pfizer vaccine has full FDA approval. This means that it is supported by a lot of data, studies and tests dating back to the start of this pandemic. That should be enough for those NFL players who have been clamoring for more to hang on when it comes to shooting.
Now they have it. And if players are still refusing it now, the league should consider making that decision as part of their athletic evaluation. Or in the case of the rampant competitive disadvantage that lurks, their devaluation.
More from Yahoo Sports:
[ad_2]
Source link