Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Locked

Odds of a season happening

Yes 100%
37
42%
50-50
34
39%
probably not
14
16%
no way
3
3%
 
Total votes: 88

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:34 pm

Wise Old Man wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:03 am

And to your point that the MDH should "get out of the way and let the Mayo lead"; you do realize that both the U of M and the Mayo are directly involved in helping the MDH develop their policies and guidelines? That is why Walz and our state are being as conservative as they are. Because the Mayo experts are telling them that's what the best science indicates they should do.
This is laugh out loud funny.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:39 pm

7TIMECHAMPS wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:23 am
Wise Old Man wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:44 pm
7TIMECHAMPS wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 pm


What is your number? It isn't zero. You have to consider the other long term effects on education, the economy, mental health, physical health (people scared to go to the hospital), etc. And all of this worsens racial disparities that are causing a lot of issues right now. Your question isn't a fair question and is really a cop out from having a real conversation about balancing everything.

This was all in the name of not overwhelming hospitals. I haven't seen a single hospital overwhelmed yet. Hospitals are far more likely to be filing bankruptcy than overwhelmed by COVID (what is the long term effect of some of these rural hospital closings?). Most of the U of M models predicted we would peak between 500-1500 daily deaths and have about 25,000-50,000 for the year. Do you think that will end up being correct? For a reference if we did about 25 a day the rest of the year we would end up being in the neighborhood of 5,000. I understand that it is hard to make decisions with a new unprecedented virus but it goes both ways. You can't give the governor and experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong.

In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.

Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.


In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.

Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.




7TIME, I'm sorry but, I believe I have been engaging in a legitimate conversation about the pros and cons of shelter-in-place vs opening up in a responsible way. Heck, just look at the average length of my posts. :D As for my number, it actually IS in fact, ZERO. Unfortunately, as an individual I only have an infinitesimal ability to affect that outcome. Now, based on the simple fact that there are millions of others in our country that approach this debate the same way you do, is zero preventable deaths in our society due to Covid realistic? Obviously not. And, the reality is -- and this is the whole key to minimizing preventable and unnecessary deaths -- all I can do personally is behave in a responsible way -- don't go out unless I really need to, wear a mask when I am out in public, especially indoors, maintain social distance, and wash my hands often. Don't get me wrong, I don't walk in your shoes each day so, I'm honestly not accusing you of not doing the little things "right" when you're out and about. Since we're obviously going to open up, I can only hope that those that go out do so in a responsible way. So, I've now provided you my number. What is yours? What is GoalieDad's"? What is HockeyCrazy's"?

On a separate note, based on the currently available data, some of those potential side issues you mentioned that some people are predicting are probably being made worse by stay-at-home orders, actually haven't gotten significantly worse or worse at all -- child abuse being one. Some of them have, but most of those have not become significantly worse. As for the reasons why many of those rural hospitals you referenced are being forced to close; the vast majority were in very poor financial shape before Covid, usually due to significant cuts in federal funding in the last 3 years. But yes, the cutbacks in elective surgeries during Covid has also had an effect.

And yes, the lock downs were initiated to reduce the risk of overwhelming the health care system and allow them to build up PPE and ventilators. The experts are saying the reason we haven't been overwhelmed IS because those shelter-in-place orders worked. Also, no, I don't believe we'll likely reach the number of deaths in our state that the U of M models have predicted, BECAUSE Minnesota is being more conservative in our approach. I've provided this info much earlier in this discussion -- but, I'll emphasize it again. This insistence on criticizing/questioning the "lack of accuracy" of the models of Covid outcomes is disingenuous. I linked to an article over a month ago published in Science Magazine that explained in strong detail why the modeling of outcomes in pandemics is one of THE MOST DIFFICULT to model due to the number of variables and how often they change as the situation evolves. Remember, almost every model in mid-March was saying if we didn't shut things down to the degree we did, we would see between 1 and 1.5 million deaths before a vaccine was available. Still, if we stay at our current average of 900-1,000 deaths per day over the last month, we'll reach 200,000 by September. Which means there's a good chance we might hit 300,000 by the end of the calendar year. However, the overall numbers nation-wide are now trending up which means we could be well past 200,000 by September.

What is amazing to me is how often I end up repeating myself in these back and forths but, not A SINGLE STATE has opened in accordance with the CDC's own guidelines. You guys criticize Walz and yet, even he and his administration have opened things up more than the CDC's guidelines allow. As for your contention that it's unfair of me to "give the governor and his experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong." I'm sure you won't be shocked to hear this BUT...it's an apples to oranges comparison. First, I'm not giving Walz and his administration a "pass". They've made mistakes -- some of them significant -- like their policy with LTHC facilities. However, I view Walz and our state administration in a far more positive light regarding their decisions and actions as they're trying to make the best decisions possible based on the best scientific/medical advice available in the area of this virus that they're getting from two of the most prestigious hospital systems in our country and even the world in the U of M and the Mayo clinic.

On the other hand, this administration's mistakes were due to their decision to absolutely ignore the best advice of their medical experts once those experts realized what was going to happen. We haven't had a Covid task force update in how long now? Why do you think that is? I know what my answer to that question is. What's yours? As for your response to my closing argument in my previous post; seriously 7TIME, I explained in detail why we are treating this virus/situation differently than previous viruses. It IS that much different than those others. In my last post, I provided the number of cases of SARS in the U.S. -- 8 cases. The number of deaths was ZERO. That's right, ZERO. You and others are going to seriously try and compare our response to SARS to that of Covid?? Because the details matter when comparing them and -- I'll repeat myself again on a specific point that you and others seem to refuse to even try to answer -- there isn't a single scientist, medical specialist, or researcher that has legitimate level of expertise in the area of this virus that believes we should be opening up to the degree even Minnesota has, especially if we can't get even 70% of the population to where a mask in public. If you think you can find one, please link to that person's comments.

Also, in response to your question about "what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety?" Again, I'm pretty sure I answered that. The moment any individual's words or actions legitimately risks the physical safety of another person as determined by a jury or judge. It's why individuals that were caught coughing or spitting on produce early in this situation were arrested for that activity. As to your comment that you can risk someone else's life every time you get in your car; yes, that's obviously true. Especially if you're impaired in any way. However, your actions while driving that legitimately risk my safety (or anyone else in my car), doesn't risk anyone who WASN'T in the car at that moment. However, if by your actions you risk me being infected by Covid, that also exposes and risks the life of my wife, my kids, my 78 yr old father, his girlfriend, and then obviously anyone else that any of us come in contact with. Is it really that difficult see the fallacy in your analogy?

Heck, let's look at another significant cause of death your side tries to compare Covid to; smoking. Obviously, the person who smokes or vapes is, for the most part only risking their own health, especially considering all of the laws passed nation-wide the last 15 plus years that prohibit smoking in public buildings and private businesses. Weird, as a society we came to the understanding -- thru science I might add -- that we were allowing too many individuals to directly and significantly affect the health of those that shouldn't have to be exposed in such a dangerous way. The consequence being smoking bans being implemented by numerous states which significantly reduced deaths from second-hand smoke. And, if you'll recall, we had a significant debate about "personal freedoms" then as well. Yet, now the vast majority of people are more than happy those bans were instituted. The general point is, we banned smoking indoors because one person's actions were having a definitive, provably negative effect on not just their own lives, but anyone else's exposed to their smoke.

Finally, I want to address the last sentence of your response. IF, repeat IF that was directed at all at me, please show in detail where I have in ANY previous posts made ANY statements that would support a wish or desire to see more vs less deaths. Everything I've stated and argued for or against has been made to illustrate we aren't doing enough to prevent unnecessary or preventable deaths. Nor have I seen any other poster insinuate in any way they are actually desiring more deaths as we move forward. Quite frankly, I'm extremely disappointed in you and feel an apology is in order here.


Sorry but it isn't zero, otherwise you would have been sheltering in place your whole life to prevent influenza deaths right? Why would it matter if people were dying of influenza or Covid? Also, have you left your house in the last 3 months? Even with a mask you are still risking people. And to be clear you do not plan on leaving your house for any reason other than emergency medical care until the entire country is vaccinated correct? I would expect nothing less from somebody with your position, so if so good for you.

Sorry again but you are wrong on the child abuse as well. Most experts are worried the cases are going unreported and the kids aren't getting help. Here is a quote from a CNN article if you like. ""When children are no longer visible to the vast majority of people who are trained and required to report, and then you see this kind of decline, we get super concerned," said Melissa Jonson-Reid, a professor of social work research at Washington University in St. Louis."

We have actually in some ways been more aggressive in our approach than we had predicted with the models. I believe the Minnesota model had said if we shelter in place until May 30 we would see 25,000 deaths. So far we have been more aggressive than that and the deaths rates have been far less. A tough job obviously but we need to adjust our response with what is actually happening.

Did I ever say anything about SARS? I don't believe I did, but yeah good point there it isn't SARS.

You do realize that the "scientists" have been flat out wrong on numerous occasions with this virus, correct? Do I need to go through the long laundry list of wrong statements by various health organizations, such as the WHO? The CDC told us not to wear masks, it wouldn't help but instead we should wash our hands diligently. How does that look right about now? Very tough job for them and not saying we should discredit everything that they say but an objective look needs to be given to everything. However, for good measure here is your boy Anthony Fauci speaking directly about the closure of schools "The idea of keeping schools closed in the fall because of safety concerns for children might be "a bit of a reach," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases". And here is another quote, "Fauci seemed to think that keeping schools closed in general was not necessary." Here is a link to the article below. And since you always follow the best science you agree with that, right? School closure would be tied very closely to our topic here of athletics. Link below. Happy now?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/fauci ... index.html

We actually have a very good example of this transmission to people beyond the original infected person in the flu. Maybe death rates aren't the same but it does kill people and is transmitted in the exact same way. Can you not see the fallacy in your thought process? The was or wasn't in the car at that moment makes no sense. I could endanger a whole schools bus full of kids if I hit it with my vehicle. That is somehow better?

I never said anything about smoking so I am not responding to that. I don't know why you like to put words in my mouth sometimes.

That was not in reference to you but rather someone that is diligently waiting to say I told you so this fall if there is a spike in cases and stated so earlier. I believe another poster addressed it as well.
[/quote]


Why would my number of preventable deaths not be zero just because of flu? Yes, regular flu is transmitted similarly to Covid. However, Covid is FAR more contagious than the flu and, can spread exponentially. And I'm sorry but, the fact that we don't have a Covid vaccine which makes it much deadlier at this point than regular flu so, no, I don't see how flawed my thinking is. The difference in lethality is THE difference maker in how we choose to approach how to deal with limiting it's spread. Because we have a vaccine for the flu, it doesn't spread exponentially. Also, in the vast majority of flu deaths the person dying didn't have the shot.

The point is, Covid is so much worse than flu and, coupled with the fact we obviously don't have a vaccine yet, the only way to significantly reduce spread and avoid unnecessary and preventable deaths is to shelter in place. And actually, I can count on one hand the number of times I have left the house that didn't involve necessities or medical treatment for my family. I have two kids with underlying health issues. So, my wife and I have actually been extremely careful about limiting any contact with others.

As for the SARS numbers, I originally provided those in response to a point GoalieDad made regarding the fact that we've had these viruses every few years recently yet, prior to Covid, we hadn't reacted in the way we have to Covid. My point obviously was that there's just simply no comparison between the two regarding risk of overall death to our population. As for my child abuse assertion, after researching more I have to acknowledge I was wrong on that. I'm very confident I heard something on MPR a couple weeks back where they interviewed an expert in that area and she said that they had actually seen a drop in cases since the shutdown. However, and I've said this before as well, I haven't seen any experts on these side issues arguing strongly against the shelter-in-place orders to reduce Covid spread as I believe they understand that Covid is still going to kill a lot of people even with the shelter-in-place orders and, that the increases in problems or deaths in those other "side issues", won't come close to the impact of Covid.

7TIME, in regards to the scientists making mistakes, I guess the main difference between how you I approach that topic is that, due to this being a brand new virus my expectations on the number of mistakes that may be or, have already been made is that they're going to happen and we just need to roll with the punches. Whereas, since the scientists/experts are in favor of keeping things locked down more often than not, you and others seem to be less tolerant of those mistakes/missteps and use those mistakes to justify the approach of opening things up.

Nexr, your link to the CNN article didn't work. But, I found it on my own and read it. And yes, I'm open to any ideas that can help get kids back to school -- if it's safe to do so. However, as I've already stated three or four times, my rationale for keeping schools closed is not so much for the direct safety of the kids as much as it is about preventing/reducing secondary spread. That's the same reason I have for why it will be difficult to play hockey (or any other contact sport) in the fall. Not because the kids themselves are at a significant risk, but because they could bring it home or to school and get other older, compromised adults sick. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make myself on this particular issue.

As for your car death analogy, yes you could hit a school bus and kill or seriously injure a bunch of kids. As bad as that would be, that's where your behavior's direct or indirect effect on causing unnecessary and preventable deaths ends. With Covid being able to spread exponentially, if you decide not to shelter-in-place but instead go out at a time when you're pre-symptomatic and begin a chain of infections, effectively becoming a "super spreader" you could ultimately be the start of a chain of deaths of who knows how many others. Now, multiply that by how many thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of people that don't agree with shelter-in-place and thus are going to push the envelope regarding going out and acting normally.

I included the smoking info as the number of deaths per year attributable to smoking/second hand smoke has also been used by others as a way to compare to Covid which, is also a flawed comparison since, as I stated, we actually did adopt laws that "took away" what some people felt was their "right"/"freedom" to smoke where they wanted or, from say a bar owner's perspective, they should have the freedom to allow smoking in their establishment if they wanted to. Yet, government intervened and passed laws that helped keep people safer.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:50 pm

7TIMECHAMPS wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:53 am
Also, I would like to verify that even if schools and activities open this fall your kid will be staying home and not participating? With a vaccine not likely by September I am sure you have already made that decision and are planning for home school. Just want to make sure. I wouldn't want anyone not practicing what they preach. And with your tolerance at 0 your bar is pretty high. I am sure you will meet it though.
As I mentioned in my last post, my two older kids have underlying health issues. And, my 13 yr old did very well with the distance learning. So, if it seems like things are going the wrong direction Covid wise but the schools are still in session, then yes, I'll keep all three at home.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:06 pm

7TIMECHAMPS wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:44 am
Two epidemiologists that wrote an article in the NYT with a study that suggests our lockdowns were/are likely too harsh. Here is a quote, "Forget about maintaining — or, if infections resurge, resuming — sweeping measures designed to stem the virus’s spread in all forms. Just focus on stopping the superspreading." Dr Cowling is actually co-director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control at Hong Kong University. I would interpret this as games with no fans should be ok. Or something that I haven't seen brought up yet, play outdoors? Seems to be a lot of evidence that being outdoors limits transmission.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opin ... 2d4d1be1fe

7TIME, good article. I was aware of the fact that, at this point, the super spreaders were potentially responsible for up to 80% of all infections. However, notice that they didn't suggest any detailed strategies on exactly how to focus on stopping the super spreading. Sorry, unless they're willing to provide those types of details, their advice is just words. So far, minus a vaccine, the only way we have been able to significantly slow the spread is to shelter-in-place.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:08 pm

goldy313 wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:34 pm
Wise Old Man wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:03 am

And to your point that the MDH should "get out of the way and let the Mayo lead"; you do realize that both the U of M and the Mayo are directly involved in helping the MDH develop their policies and guidelines? That is why Walz and our state are being as conservative as they are. Because the Mayo experts are telling them that's what the best science indicates they should do.
This is laugh out loud funny.
Why is that exactly?

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:02 pm

I am not risking my job on social media, violations of social media policy has become a heck of a lot more dangerous in the last week.

Suffice it to say Mayo and Walz are not on the same page quite often and in major policy areas. Walz is political Mayo is not. One has a stellar reputation to stand behind and would never risk that for short term financial gain. The other is a political animal that takes direction from political people and has changed policy over night. For one the first Tuesday in November is the most important day in the next two plus years, for the other it is just another day and will adapt accordingly.

I posted in May how the Rochester School District came up with a plan in conjunction with the Olmsted County Department of Health and the Mayo Clinic to have a graduation ceremony only to have Gov Walz unilaterally decide that wasn’t safe. Walz, a high school social studies teacher, overnight became smarter than the Mayo Clinic. Hard to believe he did this on his own. You and Hunters can and probably will. Even though graduation was supposed to be June 6th and Walz allowed protests with 100 times the number of people (90) he unilaterally decided was too many to be safe at a football stadium that seats 3000.

This is not political per se, that is what politicians do.....on both sides. Business has to adapt to what ever party is in control or perish. Mayo has thrived no matter who is in control. They also have to generate income to stay in business. No matter Walz’ stance.

FWIW, Wisconsin has been completely open for 29 days and the rates of positive tests,hospitalizations and deaths have gone down. CNN’s constantly whining about Arizona is at the very least wrong. Statistics show a decrease in ICU patients even with elective surgery being allowed.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:37 am

goldy313 wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:02 pm
I am not risking my job on social media, violations of social media policy has become a heck of a lot more dangerous in the last week.

Suffice it to say Mayo and Walz are not on the same page quite often and in major policy areas. Walz is political Mayo is not. One has a stellar reputation to stand behind and would never risk that for short term financial gain. The other is a political animal that takes direction from political people and has changed policy over night. For one the first Tuesday in November is the most important day in the next two plus years, for the other it is just another day and will adapt accordingly.

I posted in May how the Rochester School District came up with a plan in conjunction with the Olmsted County Department of Health and the Mayo Clinic to have a graduation ceremony only to have Gov Walz unilaterally decide that wasn’t safe. Walz, a high school social studies teacher, overnight became smarter than the Mayo Clinic. Hard to believe he did this on his own. You and Hunters can and probably will. Even though graduation was supposed to be June 6th and Walz allowed protests with 100 times the number of people (90) he unilaterally decided was too many to be safe at a football stadium that seats 3000.

This is not political per se, that is what politicians do.....on both sides. Business has to adapt to what ever party is in control or perish. Mayo has thrived no matter who is in control. They also have to generate income to stay in business. No matter Walz’ stance.

FWIW, Wisconsin has been completely open for 29 days and the rates of positive tests,hospitalizations and deaths have gone down. CNN’s constantly whining about Arizona is at the very least wrong. Statistics show a decrease in ICU patients even with elective surgery being allowed.
Goldy, solid post and I appreciate your perspective. I did a little more research and the Mayo, the U of M, and the state are working closely together on testing and now also on contact tracing. Obviously, that's different than working with them on decisions regarding how much Walz decides to "turn the dial" on re-opening. Which relates to your point about Walz's decision to not allow the graduation ceremony you referenced. To me, that's a situation where he just feels it's important to be seen as being consistent. Meaning, although that high school had the ability to do the ceremony and still maintain proper social distancing and probably pull it off in a statistically safe way, the vast majority of schools around the rest of the state weren't able to. So, in order to avoid an appearance of favoritism, he chose not to allow it. Personally, I don't have a problem with his approach, especially considering the specifics of the situation we're in.

Yes, Walz is a politician and, it's not shocking he's acting like one as he and his administration work through these challenges. To be clear, not saying you're shocked about it as it doesn't seem you are. However, it seems like some of you guys who are more critical of Walz are getting hung up on him "allowing" protests and yet, not allowing other activities or events. If I'm off base on this, then please correct me. Still, my response to that criticism is, considering what happened to Floyd, outside of literally declaring Marshall Law do you really think he had any ability to limit or stop the protests? This has become a seminal moment in our nation's history so, I don't think it would matter what side of the political isle the governor was on, he'd still be getting criticized.

My opinion is that, in general, this situation -- the combo platter of Covid and Floyd's death in his state -- is so unique that we as citizens should be willing to allow a little more wiggle room in regards to how we evaluate his performance. That's NOT to say he's above ANY criticism by you or anyone else. Citizens are obviously free to do so. Still, my willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt probably has more to with the fact I've served in leadership positions a number of times previously and have faced my own challenges in those positions, versus the fact I align with him politically which I acknowledge I do.

To your point about Wisconsin; it is interesting they haven't had more of a spike in cases. I suspect most of us were expecting one. I also suspect that the lack of a significant spike might also have something to do with a lack of population density in most of their larger cities (outside of Milwaukee). As for your statement that ICU bed occupancy in Arizona is dropping, based on a quick search I just did this morning, that doesn't appear to be an accurate statement. Here's a link to an article from a couple days ago: https://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article ... -situation. You may owe CNN an apology... :)

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:56 am

Many hospitals, including mine, took normal patient care floors and turned them into ICU’s expecting an in flux of Covid-19 patients.

Oversimplified math....we had 25 ICU beds, we took general patient care floors and turned them into ICU beds. Giving us 250 ICU beds. We never saw an increase in ICU bed use due to Covid-19 so we returned our general medical floors back from ICU floors to gen-med floors. Our ICU bed numbers decreased. The ratio of Covid-19 to ICU beds increased but is only due to the fact we took some ICU beds out of control and returned them to gen-med floors.

All numbers have to have context and the MSM is not providing context.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:53 pm

goldy313 wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:56 am
Many hospitals, including mine, took normal patient care floors and turned them into ICU’s expecting an in flux of Covid-19 patients.

Oversimplified math....we had 25 ICU beds, we took general patient care floors and turned them into ICU beds. Giving us 250 ICU beds. We never saw an increase in ICU bed use due to Covid-19 so we returned our general medical floors back from ICU floors to gen-med floors. Our ICU bed numbers decreased. The ratio of Covid-19 to ICU beds increased but is only due to the fact we took some ICU beds out of control and returned them to gen-med floors.

All numbers have to have context and the MSM is not providing context.

Goldy, very good context to your situation that I’m sure is similar to many others around the country as well. Thanks for sharing. The details/nuance always matter. Unfortunately, often due to time or spacing limitations, the media doesn’t always provide that nuance. And, due especially to perceived time constraints, we as individuals often rush through what we read and miss the details or, if it’s more than a paragraph or two long, we won’t even start reading to begin with. 😎

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:53 am

Context does not always fit the narrative that is being told.

When we stopped “elective” surgeries we also stopped, for the most part, Cardiac and Thoracic surgery. Those surgeries, by their very nature, often require post operative ICU stays, 1-7 days typically. Resuming these surgeries increased the ICU admissions. Resuming these surgeries plus the return of units that were turned into ICU’s back to general care floors would show an increase of ICU beds as a percentage even if there was no Covid-19.

I wish both the state health departments and the media would put the numbers they report in context. The numbers with context are there, I see them. That would require due diligence which has become too high a bar, unfortunately.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:58 pm

goldy313 wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:53 am
Context does not always fit the narrative that is being told.

When we stopped “elective” surgeries we also stopped, for the most part, Cardiac and Thoracic surgery. Those surgeries, by their very nature, often require post operative ICU stays, 1-7 days typically. Resuming these surgeries increased the ICU admissions. Resuming these surgeries plus the return of units that were turned into ICU’s back to general care floors would show an increase of ICU beds as a percentage even if there was no Covid-19.

I wish both the state health departments and the media would put the numbers they report in context. The numbers with context are there, I see them. That would require due diligence which has become too high a bar, unfortunately.


Kind of surprised that no one else has addressed this yet but, as one of the three or four "realists" in this specific conversation -- and please, I'm genuinely NOT impugning anyone on the other side of the discussion regarding the nature of their ideas or opinions, I just think assigning a descriptor to our perspective is more nuanced than say if we were described as being "negative" or "glass half empty" regarding how we currently feel about the chance we'll have fall or winter high school sports this year -- I found it very encouraging that the latest research regarding the risk of infection of kids/people aged 1-20 years old that was released on Monday, indicates that those in that age range are 50% less likely to become infected. If that holds up over the next month or so, that has to strengthen the case for allowing at least a partial return to classes this fall, along with making it a little easier to justify a possible return to sports, even team contact sports, in a pretty normal "game play" fashion. For the indoor sports, I would still think there would probably be a limit on attendance -- probably just parents and, with each parent/set of parents being required to be 6 ft. apart from any other parent/set of parents, along with masks being required as well. I haven't actually heard anything to that effect regarding those potential details, rather just throwing stuff against the proverbial "glass" 8)

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:41 pm

And......then Fauci says he can't see how football can be played unless they're able to create a "bubble" around every team. What a roller coaster we're on. Luckily, it's only the middle of June so, all this will change at least 5 times.... 8)

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:52 pm

The MSHSL pretty much said the same thing today for football. The article in the Star Tribune has a picture of Minneapolis North working out...I hope that is a picture from years ago because if it is not 🤦‍♂️, I don’t think you can pack anymore kids into that small an area.

ClassAGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by ClassAGuy » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:16 am

July 27th

BIG Date .... Finally at that time MDH and the MN Department of ED will make an announcement on what they are recommending for the Fall.

3 Options listed in the Paper

#1- Back to school as normal (MSHSL Sports Happening)

#2- Online Learning like this spring (MSHSL Sports NOT Happening)

#3- Hybrid Model- Less then 50% capacity at school, Some will start home some will go to school to limit the number of people in the school as a whole. A mix of In Person and Online. One thing that stuck out to me was in the Hybrid they want School Busses to have less then 50% YIKES!

If they pick Option #3 I think Hockey will have a tough time having a season under those guidelines. All Sports would.

As Goldy pointed out the Trib had quotes from the MSHSL saying that they may offering some sports but not all.

They are going to listen to the MDH and said they would offer Low Risk and maybe Medium Risk but but High risk would be limited to only Practices and No Games... Hockey again is High Risk

Gonna have to wait another month but man the news of June 19th makes hockey happening this November look even more bleak at least its winter and not fall sport... But again November is when many predict the second wave will hit... Depressing news for hockey 20-21 in MN.

I hope I am wrong but again as I thought the MSHSL will listen to the MDH... MN Youth Hockey Might be more daring like Amateur Baseball and just outright ignire the Government. The High School League will not so they will be final answer to this questiosn.

SpOilerfan
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:31 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by SpOilerfan » Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:18 am

And the Junior leagues will go on, maybe start later. Elite League looks like a go for now with tryouts planned not sure where they go from here.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:09 pm

SpOilerfan wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:18 am
And the Junior leagues will go on, maybe start later. Elite League looks like a go for now with tryouts planned not sure where they go from here.
Superior International Junior Hockey League (SIJHL) is now tentatively planning on starting in mid-October vs 2nd week of September.

HockeyCrazy1970
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by HockeyCrazy1970 » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:31 pm

SpOilerfan wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:18 am
And the Junior leagues will go on, maybe start later. Elite League looks like a go for now with tryouts planned not sure where they go from here.
Since about half of the players are picked and protected before tryouts...it is my understanding that there will not be tryouts. Just invites.

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:29 pm

24 hours later the MDH does a 180 and allows youth sports, including hockey to start in the next 5-14 days.

While I am glad, the rapid about face just shows how bad the leadership has been.

Minnesota Amateur Baseball called the states bluff. Nearly 100 places were allowing baseball and the number was growing each day. It wasn’t just going to stop with townball, and I think the MDH knew it and by allowing youth sports they are hoping to keep some control.

The death of George Floyd, as criminal as it appears, took the heat off the Walz’s administration handling of the deaths in LTCF, and he has used to the extreme. Over 1000 deaths has become page 8 news.

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:43 am

Walz wants to be a NHL hub, let the Vikings and Gophers play football but God forbid Caledonia ( in Houston County and their 5 positive cases) play football. Because we are 1 Minnesota😂

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:00 am

FWIW Mike Max does a great interview with the manager for the El Rosa town ball team. Google it. As much as Maxy used to annoy me I have come to respect him lately.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Sat Jun 20, 2020 11:40 am

goldy313 wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:00 am
FWIW Mike Max does a great interview with the manager for the El Rosa town ball team. Google it. As much as Maxy used to annoy me I have come to respect him lately.
Goldy, I understand that since the stay-at-home orders first started, the number of changes or inconsistencies in how the state has reacted to certain things has been frustrating to you and others -- me as well. And, like you, I have been especially frustrated with their decisions on how to handle the LTC facilities. However -- and this is specially confusing to me in respect to how you've reacted throughout this as you are involved in the medical field -- considering this is a brand new virus, literally every expert in relation to this thing has made it a point to say that yes, we're going to make mistakes and have to reverse previous positions at times. Hopefully not very often but, it's going to happen. And, I've already provided links to actual respected scientific publications that demonstrate that modeling predicting infection and death rates for a pandemic like this is actually one of the most difficult things to model and thus, we should all be a lot more tolerant of any inconsistencies or changes that occur regarding those models. Yet, one of the biggest complaints for people who like to criticize the science, especially in regards to how soon or how much we open up, is how often the various models have changed.

That being true, all any elected official can do is make the best possible decisions based on the best possible info at that given moment. It doesn't matter what those leaders' political affiliations are, everyone of them is going to struggle at times with making the best decision possible. Still, I think the leaders that have erred on the side of following the science and acted conservatively regarding how fast they reopened are the ones who've been lauded in a general way as having done the best job dealing with this. And, like it or not, Walz has been generally praised by both sides as having been better than most.

To your point a few posts back that the 180 turn on youth sports being able to play games is an indicator of how poor the leadership has been; I'm sorry but, I'll say it again, I think yours' and others expectations are simply too high. Yes, amateur baseball decided to start playing and, I know of two adult softball leagues that had been playing games for two weeks as well. Do you really expect the state to dispatch the county sheriff to enforce the MHD's directives and shut them down? Talk about your "slippery slopes"... Especially if, after the numbers had been trending the right way the last few weeks, the state had already decided to announce a decision to allow games within the next week or so anyway (which was exactly the case). Meaning, if the state had already decided to go in that direction anyways, town ball isn't really "calling the state's bluff". From my perspective, that sudden change is actually a demonstration of good leadership. Why pick an unnecessary "fight" when you've already decided to remove the reason for the "fight" anyway?

Next, as I've stated previously, if public health/safety is what is supposedly driving our decision-making regarding Covid, I don't believe any sport that creates a significantly increased risk of transmission or illness should be playing (see the number of positives in the Clemson football program). However, IF we're going to make an exception, are you really trying to tell me that you don't see a significant difference between allowing professional athletes/leagues to play versus potentially risking the health of actual children by allowing them to play? Seriously? Actually, I'm not even in favor of allowing college sports to play. Technically, they're amateurs as well. Especially IF the priority is reducing risk of spread/actual illness.

I'l also emphasize again that when it comes to youth or high school athletics, administrators are obligated to operate under a worst case scenario mind set. Which, is allowing activity that the science says will legitimately increase risk of infection and possibly -- not likely but possibly -- a child (anyone thru their senior year of H.S.) going to the ICU or, even worse -- even as unlikely as that is. Remember, we don't know for sure yet whether having it provides any immunity. We also don't know whether those that get significant symptoms but, don't need to get hospitalized, will experience any type of significant long-term/permanent damage to themselves. This sucks but, it is what it is until we have a therapeutic that literally keeps 99.9999% of all people who get it out of the ICU or, a vaccine.

To be clear, the science seems to show that being outside greatly reduces the risk of infection, especially if you're playing baseball or softball and as long as each player has their own batting helmet, bat, and water bottle. So, I'm fine with allowing those sports to continue. However, I just think we need to be a little more sensitive to the incredible challenges that our current elected leaders are facing before we get too critical of their performance. For me, I try to remember not to be too critical, especially if I've never walked a day in that person's shoes.

ThatMNHockeyGuy62
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:44 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by ThatMNHockeyGuy62 » Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:29 pm

Wise Old Man, I agree that Goldy’s points seem to be counter to what we’re hearing from most health care professionals (do we even know if he’s actually a health care professional? I seem to remember him previously stating that he was an AD or worked in an AD office years back, and he’s also a ref... that’s a lot of shoes to wear for a doctor or nurse... not impossible but.)

However, you keep saying there needs to be something preventing 99.9999% of ALL people out of ICU. Where are you getting that number? It’s nonsense. It will never happen. The flu had a survival rate of 99.86% in 2017-2018, and presumably at least two to four times the number who passed went to the ICU. Conservatively then, we can say 99.5% of people with the flu stay out of ICU. That’s 1 out of 200 who do go to the ICU. We don’t stop sports or school for that. Why all of a sudden does it need to be 1 out of 1,000,000? That’s a massive difference.

Finally, all evidence so far shows yes, there is at least decently long term immunity, and several studies show that potentially those who have come down with other coronavirus’s also carry a level of immunity (this part is less proven at this point). This is also necessary for a vaccine that you also say needs to happen to play sports.

I’m all for being cautious, but let’s be realistic too. Using hyperbole only lessens your point.

goldy313
Posts: 3573
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by goldy313 » Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:25 pm

I am in my mid 50’s now.....I went to college, then joined the Army, I went into teaching after that.

When I first got out of the Army I was a teacher and a football coach in small town Iowa. After a couple of years my school, like many at the time, had budget cuts and my position was cut. However, our AD took just over a year sabbatical to be with her husband who was diagnosed with ALS. So the school moved me into the AD position during that time and I continued coaching. When she came back, I was let go but that was the plan when I took the AD job anyhow.

I never really enjoyed teaching so I went back to school and now work in healthcare and have for over 20 years, first in Fairmont then Rochester. I did enjoy coaching but you can’t coach and work 12 hour shifts at the hospital. You can officiate though, so I went into that. I can still be involved in sports and give back.

ThatMNHockeyGuy62
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:44 am

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by ThatMNHockeyGuy62 » Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:29 am

goldy313 wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:25 pm
I am in my mid 50’s now.....I went to college, then joined the Army, I went into teaching after that.

When I first got out of the Army I was a teacher and a football coach in small town Iowa. After a couple of years my school, like many at the time, had budget cuts and my position was cut. However, our AD took just over a year sabbatical to be with her husband who was diagnosed with ALS. So the school moved me into the AD position during that time and I continued coaching. When she came back, I was let go but that was the plan when I took the AD job anyhow.

I never really enjoyed teaching so I went back to school and now work in healthcare and have for over 20 years, first in Fairmont then Rochester. I did enjoy coaching but you can’t coach and work 12 hour shifts at the hospital. You can officiate though, so I went into that. I can still be involved in sports and give back.
Impressive!

Wise Old Man
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Will there be high school hockey for 2020-2021?

Post by Wise Old Man » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:05 am

ThatMNHockeyGuy62 wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:29 pm
Wise Old Man, I agree that Goldy’s points seem to be counter to what we’re hearing from most health care professionals (do we even know if he’s actually a health care professional? I seem to remember him previously stating that he was an AD or worked in an AD office years back, and he’s also a ref... that’s a lot of shoes to wear for a doctor or nurse... not impossible but.)

However, you keep saying there needs to be something preventing 99.9999% of ALL people out of ICU. Where are you getting that number? It’s nonsense. It will never happen. The flu had a survival rate of 99.86% in 2017-2018, and presumably at least two to four times the number who passed went to the ICU. Conservatively then, we can say 99.5% of people with the flu stay out of ICU. That’s 1 out of 200 who do go to the ICU. We don’t stop sports or school for that. Why all of a sudden does it need to be 1 out of 1,000,000? That’s a massive difference.

Finally, all evidence so far shows yes, there is at least decently long term immunity, and several studies show that potentially those who have come down with other coronavirus’s also carry a level of immunity (this part is less proven at this point). This is also necessary for a vaccine that you also say needs to happen to play sports.

I’m all for being cautious, but let’s be realistic too. Using hyperbole only lessens your point.
TMNH... In this case, I'm not getting that number (99.9999%) from anyone or anywhere. I'll admit, I'm exaggerating/"using hyperbole" a little to make my point but, not much. We don't stop sports for the flu because we already have a vaccine that is in the mid to high 90% of effectiveness in preventing death. The vast majority of those who die primarily from the flu haven't received that season's flu shot. Less than 10% who get Covid ever go to the hospital BUT, those that do have a significantly higher chance of going to ICU and/or dying than those that get admitted for regular flu. That's the reason that, minus a vaccine, the ONLY way to definitively prevent significant transmission of the virus is to significantly limit individual and group activity.

Next, there's absolutely zero hard evidence that having had the virus provides any immunity, even for the short term. Do they believe there's likely some immunity? Sure. But, they have no definitive evidence yet. Here's a link to an article from June 11th that discusses what's currently understood by the scientific community at this point in time;

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/11/cor ... velopment/

Here's the opening paragraph...

"Scientists stress that just because someone has recovered from Covid-19 and produced antibodies to the coronavirus does not mean they are protected from contracting it a second time. No one’s yet proven that."

And, if you read the entire article, the researchers quoted seem to be indicating they don't absolutely need to prove/see any conclusive natural immunity in order to produce an effective vaccine. Meaning, we can achieve herd immunity through an effective vaccine alone. So, again I emphasize that, at this point, any kind of comparison regarding vulnerability to infection, infection rates, hospitalization rates, severe illness rates, death rates, or possible immunity between the flu and this virus are simply not supported by any scientific data.

To be clear, I'm not saying you think it's just like the flu in any of the categories I listed. I'm just trying to emphasize that any attempt to compare this to the flu, even in regards to how we as a society ultimately choose to manage this from the standpoint of a return to school or sports perspective, is simply misguided at this moment in time as there's just too much we don't know about this virus yet. And to reiterate, any administrator with any experience is going to err on the side of extreme caution when it comes to the health and safety of the kids they're responsible for. I'll say again that no one wants there to be a "normal" school year and season for all sports more than me as it's how I earn a living. But, unless we get the therapeutic or vaccine very soon, I just don't see how we can make it work, especially if we do get a legitimate "second wave" that likely hits right around the time hockey gets in to full swing.

Locked