This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

A rule without consequence is not a rule. by tdiddy07

Any public health regime that assumes compliance with a rule by a group that compares mask wearing to Nazi Germany is just fucking stupid. That really shouldn't be controversial. So starting with that assumption, there are two separate issues.

1) What should ND do to protect the public at its football games?

If it were June and we had low infection rates and no vaccine breakthroughs, the current rule would be more understandable. Even assuming lack of compliance for the unvaccinated, at least those predictably not complying with the rule will arguably only hurt others also not complying. Of course, that's not foolproof. Masks can be broken through, especially if there are no set restrictions on the kind of mask If a third of the crowd is unvaccinated, one person complying with the rule and wearing a mask has significantly greater risk is all others don't comply. Mask policies requires group compliance to show meaningful risk reduction.



2) What should ND do to show leadership on a national public health issue?

It should mandate vaccination for attendance. Because it has a position of both practical influence and it fancies itself to endeavor to act in a position of moral authority in all things]. Incentivizing vaccination is a morally just position that is more important than home game revenue. Quibbling over the effectiveness rates of vaccines misses this point. ND should be a leader in a global health emergency. It should act so that it is easier for others to act in kind.

This is the bigger issue and the bigger failing. However, assuming ND decides to be cowards, you come back to the first issue. Except now it's not June. Breakthrough cases are at an all-time high, and the vaccinated are now vectors. I got vaccinated primarily to protect others. Secondarily to protect myself. Tertiarily to enable freedoms such as not having to wear a mask. In an analysis of public health risk, that first concern is primary. I now can't guarantee that I am not infecting others. The idea that I would take umbrage at a Catholic university requiring me to take action to protect others at minimal inconvenience is preposterous. ND is not the State. It is a mission-based enterprise that expects me to care about others at least as much as I care about myself. Since I give a shit about that, I would not feel outraged if ND asked me to take a precaution while infections continue to climb. And for any person who would feel so outraged, I would greatly discount the value of their opinion in crafting solutions to public health issues.