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

jg2112
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

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

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:36 am

goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:29 am
Hunter:

Nothing in my comments weighed in on whether the guidelines were right or wrong. The guidelines may, or may not, be necessary for public health and safety. My point was about our individual freedoms and the rule of law. And who should be making these decisions. We live in a representative Republic, not a monarchy. I am not willing to hand over my rights and freedoms for a virus. These viruses come every 4-6 years. The response should be within the law to protect not only our health but also our freedoms.
This is the deadliest virus in 100 years.

Your kid can skate.

The Governor acted in good faith to preserve medical resources against a pandemic we are still confronting, one that will probably be worse this fall because we didn't have the collective will to see this through. These new guidelines don't help either, especially when juxtaposed against what has occurred in every major and minor American city the past two weeks.

THAT is the issue for this thread - the last three months and, in particular, the past two weeks have put fall and winter sports in imminent threat of cancellation.

Duluthguy
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:30 pm

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

Post by Duluthguy » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:45 am

goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:36 am
Crazy: I am happy for Alberta, but I think you miss my point.
Minnesota doesn't have any laws laying out the guidelines. Nor do most of these states or Providences. They are executive orders. The one state that has legally challenged the authority of the Governor, Wisconsin, is completely open because the Courts determined that the Governor did not have the authority to issue these guidelines and lockdowns. Minnesota's law is a little tougher, but come June 12, Minnesota's Governor's powers, and thus the Executive Orders, shouldn't have the power of law. They should go away.
I'm not sure it's correct that the "governor's powers" to declare a peacetime emergency will go away on Friday. The way I understand it, to extend another 30 days, he needs approval from a majority of the five "constitutional" officers: Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, State Auditor, and Secretary of State. All are DFLers, so they're expected to approve a declaration of a Governor or their own party--as they've already done a handful of times this spring.

In addition, the legislature can overturn a governor's emergency declaration if a majority of the state Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives both vote to do so. While the Republican-controlled senate would be expected to vote to overturn, the DFL-controlled house likely wouldn't, which would mean an extension of an emergency order would stay in place.

In short, if Governor Walz wishes to extend the peacetime emergency, he'd likely be able to.

Beyond that, someone could sue the Governor, as has happened in Wisconsin. Such a case would likely wind up before the state Supreme Court. But remember, five of the seven current justices were appointed by a DFL Governor (all by Mark Dayton).
Last edited by Duluthguy on Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

HockeyCrazy1970
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:55 pm

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

Post by HockeyCrazy1970 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:00 am

goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:36 am
Crazy: I am happy for Alberta, but I think you miss my point.
Minnesota doesn't have any laws laying out the guidelines. Nor do most of these states or Providences. They are executive orders. The one state that has legally challenged the authority of the Governor, Wisconsin, is completely open because the Courts determined that the Governor did not have the authority to issue these guidelines and lockdowns. Minnesota's law is a little tougher, but come June 12, Minnesota's Governor's powers, and thus the Executive Orders, shouldn't have the power of law. They should go away.
Our systems of laws protect our freedoms. We shouldn't turn them over to one person. If we allow Walz to continue to extend these powers when will they end. What is the definition of emergency? There is no scarcity of local government resources at this point so why are emergency powers needed? The Minnesota people should stand up and say NO. The power to respond to the emergency lies with the legislature. The legislature is the people's voice under our Constitution.

Unless the legislature passes laws or guidelines limiting the number of people who can be on a rink at one time, or if kids can play games or not, it is up to USA Hockey, MN Hockey and the MSHSL to determine if we play. It is up to the rink managers to figure out a safe way to operate their rinks. Then it will be up to the free people of MN to determine if they want their kids to play or not.
GoalieDad31,
I'm with you! I was just continuing a comment from one of my earlier posts about Canada being ahead of us with opening up their hockey...

Hunters1993
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:22 am

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

Post by Hunters1993 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:37 am

But your need to do things does not outweigh the public safety of others and societies good in whole. Sorry to break it to you.

I can’t wait till October, November when the numbers skyrocket when all you guys take to getting your gatherings back.
How many c-chip games will it take Hawks?

jg2112
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

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

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:40 am

Hunters1993 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:37 am
But your need to do things does not outweigh the public safety of others and societies good in whole. Sorry to break it to you.

I can’t wait till October, November when the numbers skyrocket when all you guys take to getting your gatherings back.
As you know, the issue isn't the number of infections. The issue is the number of ICU beds. That's what drives these responses, so far as we've been told.

The government didn't have enough information as to forecasting this the past 3 months. Hence the stay at home. I hope now they have a better sense as to how to proceed.

That all said, all it will take is one HS football team being put on the sideline with COVID-19 to cause a panic.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

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

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:55 am

Riddle me this, riddle me that...…

My position in my business and my role on several non-profit boards (including MH and District 16) is the safety of all concerned.

In District 16 we are contemplating not allowing team competition (games or tournaments) with areas of the state or North Dakota or others that have a large number of covid cases. This is obviously full of potential problems. As leaders (district board) we have the responsibility to determine it - fortunately we are NOT motivated politically.

I am not a fan of the governor but respect that someone has to take this responsibility.

I am hoping this thread can continue with less political response and more factual or possible factual data.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 10, 2020 12:10 pm

goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:29 am
Hunter:

Nothing in my comments weighed in on whether the guidelines were right or wrong. The guidelines may, or may not, be necessary for public health and safety. My point was about our individual freedoms and the rule of law. And who should be making these decisions. We live in a representative Republic, not a monarchy. I am not willing to hand over my rights and freedoms for a virus. These viruses come every 4-6 years. The response should be within the law to protect not only our health but also our freedoms.
First and foremost, as someone who spent 20 plus years taking an oath to defend the Constitution, I'm all about maintaining individual freedoms. Still, I'm sorry but the way I was raised, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As I stated in my last post -- as well as numerous others previously in this thread -- I haven't read anything in any scientific or research journals, nor heard/seen anything from a single person with legitimate expertise in the area of these types of diseases that hasn't stated this is FAR worse than any of the other viruses/diseases due the combination of its ability to spread easily, along with the severity of symptoms it presents. For instance, there were only 8,098 cases globally and only 8 in the U.S. Out of those total global cases, there were 714 deaths for a 15% fatality rate. So, 8 U.S. Sars cases compared to almost 2 million confirmed Covid cases. Do you still think that's a good comparison? :roll:

Do Ebola and Sars have much higher death rates? Absolutely. However, because they have more severe initial symptoms, it's easier to slow the spread. And, because they have higher percentage of death, that helps contain those viruses as well. Thus, to address your point that we've never reacted this way before, the fact is, we've never dealt with a previous viral threat that presented with these specific details regarding spread, symptoms, and outcomes. It's truly that much different than the others you mentioned.

As for your frustrations regarding our governor and the way you perceive his decisions around Covid and our state; you may disagree with WHAT he's decided to this point but, everything that has been done regarding his emergency declarations has been legal. The way he has handled this crisis has received far more praise than not, especially from a national perspective. You flat out stated you feel Walz has been "abusing" his powers. I would argue that his decision to use emergency declarations in this specific situation and under these specific circumstances is a far less egregious "abuse of power" than most of the executive orders issued by a certain elected official, or that same official's decision to attempt to blackmail one of our allies. :mrgreen: But, I digress...

I'm sorry but, considering what we were facing back in March and the extremely reduced timelines that decisions needed to be made in, are you really arguing we should've allowed the state legislature to attempt to make the required decisions/policy? Really...? Come on, the way this (or any other) split house legislature had operated over the last 20 years of intense politicization of literally every issue imaginable is a definitive testament to their inability to move with the speed that was required -- regarding anything! That's why our state constitution/charter allows these types of powers in these truly unique situations. You state that the youth sports guidelines should just "go away" on June 12th as they don't have "the power of law". First, nobody here at least looks upon them as law. They are just what you called them, guidelines. However, they come from the Minnesota Department of Health and, they are a product of the best current science on Covid and it's spread. Thus, the governor and the vast, vast majority of mayors, county boards, and other local policy making entities are going to base their Covid related decision-making on that advise. Especially considering they've developed that guidance and advice in partnership with the U of M and the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 5 hospitals in the world. Do you really think Walz and his administration are just pulling ideas about Covid out of a hat without any consultation from the best medical minds they have access to? Because that's how your criticism reads.

I'll close by saying this, no offense but, your individual freedoms end when your words or actions provably and significantly increase mine or my family's risk of unnecessary and preventable consequences -- in this case, severe disease or death. It's no o different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's the obvious potential risk of that action that makes it illegal. Not whether or not someone was actually injured or died. I'm sorry but, I find yours and others positions on this extremely disappointing, especially considering the likelihood that the "restrictions" of your or child's freedoms isn't likely going to last past March 1st of next year. Is losing a season of full game play in any sport extremely disappointing for the child? Sure especially if they're truly passionate about it. However, and for the umpteenth time, I want you to provide me your number of preventable and unnecessary deaths that would be too many to complete re-open the economy. Please, tell me what that number is. because that is the essence of your argument. All I ask is that you and others own it and have the strength of your convictions to truly stand behind it.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 10, 2020 12:50 pm

To clarify in my last post; the 8,098 total global cases and the 8 total U.S. cases is in reference to SARS

goldy313
Posts: 3597
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

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

Post by goldy313 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:11 pm

elliott70 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:55 am
Riddle me this, riddle me that...…

My position in my business and my role on several non-profit boards (including MH and District 16) is the safety of all concerned.

In District 16 we are contemplating not allowing team competition (games or tournaments) with areas of the state or North Dakota or others that have a large number of covid cases. This is obviously full of potential problems. As leaders (district board) we have the responsibility to determine it - fortunately we are NOT motivated politically.

I am not a fan of the governor but respect that someone has to take this responsibility.

I am hoping this thread can continue with less political response and more factual or possible factual data.
Locally we are seeing some areas where the whole system is breaking down. As an example the lacrosse team near me has a scheduled practice from 5:30 - 7:00. The kids show up at 6:45 and adhere to the social distancing guidelines as they stretch until 7. At 7:00 practice ends, at 7:01 it is just a bunch of kids and a coach or two doing drills and scrimmages on their own. The same scenario happens at the hockey rink, soccer fields, and soon in the gyms.

Local softball teams are now designating Wisconsin as their home so they can go to tournaments and get games. They may practice in Minnesota but come the weekend they are Wisconsin teams.

Minnesota Amateur Baseball is going to get going in many places no matter Walz’ stance under their own guidelines. They are hoping for games next weekend.

Minnesota Hockey, the MSHSL, and others better figure out how to get back to play because others will do it outside those governing bodies. Ice rinks don’t care if the group renting the ice affiliates with USA Hockey or the MSHSL.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

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

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:28 pm

It's a maze filled with obstacles and slippery slopes.

???

7TIMECHAMPS
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 pm

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

Post by 7TIMECHAMPS » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 pm

Wise Old Man wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:10 pm
goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:29 am
Hunter:

Nothing in my comments weighed in on whether the guidelines were right or wrong. The guidelines may, or may not, be necessary for public health and safety. My point was about our individual freedoms and the rule of law. And who should be making these decisions. We live in a representative Republic, not a monarchy. I am not willing to hand over my rights and freedoms for a virus. These viruses come every 4-6 years. The response should be within the law to protect not only our health but also our freedoms.
First and foremost, as someone who spent 20 plus years taking an oath to defend the Constitution, I'm all about maintaining individual freedoms. Still, I'm sorry but the way I was raised, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As I stated in my last post -- as well as numerous others previously in this thread -- I haven't read anything in any scientific or research journals, nor heard/seen anything from a single person with legitimate expertise in the area of these types of diseases that hasn't stated this is FAR worse than any of the other viruses/diseases due the combination of its ability to spread easily, along with the severity of symptoms it presents. For instance, there were only 8,098 cases globally and only 8 in the U.S. Out of those total global cases, there were 714 deaths for a 15% fatality rate. So, 8 U.S. Sars cases compared to almost 2 million confirmed Covid cases. Do you still think that's a good comparison? :roll:

Do Ebola and Sars have much higher death rates? Absolutely. However, because they have more severe initial symptoms, it's easier to slow the spread. And, because they have higher percentage of death, that helps contain those viruses as well. Thus, to address your point that we've never reacted this way before, the fact is, we've never dealt with a previous viral threat that presented with these specific details regarding spread, symptoms, and outcomes. It's truly that much different than the others you mentioned.

As for your frustrations regarding our governor and the way you perceive his decisions around Covid and our state; you may disagree with WHAT he's decided to this point but, everything that has been done regarding his emergency declarations has been legal. The way he has handled this crisis has received far more praise than not, especially from a national perspective. You flat out stated you feel Walz has been "abusing" his powers. I would argue that his decision to use emergency declarations in this specific situation and under these specific circumstances is a far less egregious "abuse of power" than most of the executive orders issued by a certain elected official, or that same official's decision to attempt to blackmail one of our allies. :mrgreen: But, I digress...

I'm sorry but, considering what we were facing back in March and the extremely reduced timelines that decisions needed to be made in, are you really arguing we should've allowed the state legislature to attempt to make the required decisions/policy? Really...? Come on, the way this (or any other) split house legislature had operated over the last 20 years of intense politicization of literally every issue imaginable is a definitive testament to their inability to move with the speed that was required -- regarding anything! That's why our state constitution/charter allows these types of powers in these truly unique situations. You state that the youth sports guidelines should just "go away" on June 12th as they don't have "the power of law". First, nobody here at least looks upon them as law. They are just what you called them, guidelines. However, they come from the Minnesota Department of Health and, they are a product of the best current science on Covid and it's spread. Thus, the governor and the vast, vast majority of mayors, county boards, and other local policy making entities are going to base their Covid related decision-making on that advise. Especially considering they've developed that guidance and advice in partnership with the U of M and the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 5 hospitals in the world. Do you really think Walz and his administration are just pulling ideas about Covid out of a hat without any consultation from the best medical minds they have access to? Because that's how your criticism reads.

I'll close by saying this, no offense but, your individual freedoms end when your words or actions provably and significantly increase mine or my family's risk of unnecessary and preventable consequences -- in this case, severe disease or death. It's no o different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's the obvious potential risk of that action that makes it illegal. Not whether or not someone was actually injured or died. I'm sorry but, I find yours and others positions on this extremely disappointing, especially considering the likelihood that the "restrictions" of your or child's freedoms isn't likely going to last past March 1st of next year. Is losing a season of full game play in any sport extremely disappointing for the child? Sure especially if they're truly passionate about it. However, and for the umpteenth time, I want you to provide me your number of preventable and unnecessary deaths that would be too many to complete re-open the economy. Please, tell me what that number is. because that is the essence of your argument. All I ask is that you and others own it and have the strength of your convictions to truly stand behind it.
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.

jg2112
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

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

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:31 pm

This argument isn't worth having anymore, because we've all lost the argument. Look at what we're arguing about.

I wish to remind everyone here that the thread is asking whether there will be high school hockey this winter, not your interpretations of the Constitution, executive authority, public safety v. personal liberty, or hospital solvency.

I'm pessimistic hockey will happen but I hope I'm wrong for my daughter's sake. I hope all your kids skate this winter.

Hunters1993
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:22 am

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

Post by Hunters1993 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:06 pm

This just in Emergency Powers continue for 30 more days. It is no longer up to MSHSL or Minn Hockey. =D>

Oct and Nov will be interesting for those rushing their kids out for all important practices and games. Not looking forward to it but when the CDC and WHO speak I listen and that is where you get reliable information.
How many c-chip games will it take Hawks?

goldy313
Posts: 3597
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

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

Post by goldy313 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:44 pm

Hunters1993 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:06 pm
This just in Emergency Powers continue for 30 more days. It is no longer up to MSHSL or Minn Hockey. =D>

Oct and Nov will be interesting for those rushing their kids out for all important practices and games. Not looking forward to it but when the CDC and WHO speak I listen and that is where you get reliable information.
#-o
How many times has the WHO issued a statement then backtracked on it in just the last 3 days?
The CDC declared thought a disease,
Walz and the MDH are so lost, in 3 months can’t slow the deaths and death rates in LTCF. And now we are the only state in the entire country that treats every area of the state the exact same in terms of restrictions, Walz can’t figure out Houston County is different than Hennepin County.
Yes, reliable information.

What is humbling is a virus, one of the simplest of all living things has science absolutely guessing. We can put a man on the moon but 6 months in can’t, for the life of us, figure this out.

Let Mayo take the lead, the MDH is useless.

grindiangrad-80
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:00 pm

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

Post by grindiangrad-80 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:00 pm

Hunters1993 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:06 pm
This just in Emergency Powers continue for 30 more days. It is no longer up to MSHSL or Minn Hockey. =D>

Oct and Nov will be interesting for those rushing their kids out for all important practices and games. Not looking forward to it but when the CDC and WHO speak I listen and that is where you get reliable information.
[/you.

I can’t wait till October, November when the numbers skyrocket

You are looking forward to it or You aren’t looking forward to it.

Which one is it?

Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 10, 2020 11:44 pm

7TIMECHAMPS wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 pm
Wise Old Man wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:10 pm
goaliedad31 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:29 am
Hunter:

Nothing in my comments weighed in on whether the guidelines were right or wrong. The guidelines may, or may not, be necessary for public health and safety. My point was about our individual freedoms and the rule of law. And who should be making these decisions. We live in a representative Republic, not a monarchy. I am not willing to hand over my rights and freedoms for a virus. These viruses come every 4-6 years. The response should be within the law to protect not only our health but also our freedoms.
First and foremost, as someone who spent 20 plus years taking an oath to defend the Constitution, I'm all about maintaining individual freedoms. Still, I'm sorry but the way I was raised, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As I stated in my last post -- as well as numerous others previously in this thread -- I haven't read anything in any scientific or research journals, nor heard/seen anything from a single person with legitimate expertise in the area of these types of diseases that hasn't stated this is FAR worse than any of the other viruses/diseases due the combination of its ability to spread easily, along with the severity of symptoms it presents. For instance, there were only 8,098 cases globally and only 8 in the U.S. Out of those total global cases, there were 714 deaths for a 15% fatality rate. So, 8 U.S. Sars cases compared to almost 2 million confirmed Covid cases. Do you still think that's a good comparison? :roll:

Do Ebola and Sars have much higher death rates? Absolutely. However, because they have more severe initial symptoms, it's easier to slow the spread. And, because they have higher percentage of death, that helps contain those viruses as well. Thus, to address your point that we've never reacted this way before, the fact is, we've never dealt with a previous viral threat that presented with these specific details regarding spread, symptoms, and outcomes. It's truly that much different than the others you mentioned.

As for your frustrations regarding our governor and the way you perceive his decisions around Covid and our state; you may disagree with WHAT he's decided to this point but, everything that has been done regarding his emergency declarations has been legal. The way he has handled this crisis has received far more praise than not, especially from a national perspective. You flat out stated you feel Walz has been "abusing" his powers. I would argue that his decision to use emergency declarations in this specific situation and under these specific circumstances is a far less egregious "abuse of power" than most of the executive orders issued by a certain elected official, or that same official's decision to attempt to blackmail one of our allies. :mrgreen: But, I digress...

I'm sorry but, considering what we were facing back in March and the extremely reduced timelines that decisions needed to be made in, are you really arguing we should've allowed the state legislature to attempt to make the required decisions/policy? Really...? Come on, the way this (or any other) split house legislature had operated over the last 20 years of intense politicization of literally every issue imaginable is a definitive testament to their inability to move with the speed that was required -- regarding anything! That's why our state constitution/charter allows these types of powers in these truly unique situations. You state that the youth sports guidelines should just "go away" on June 12th as they don't have "the power of law". First, nobody here at least looks upon them as law. They are just what you called them, guidelines. However, they come from the Minnesota Department of Health and, they are a product of the best current science on Covid and it's spread. Thus, the governor and the vast, vast majority of mayors, county boards, and other local policy making entities are going to base their Covid related decision-making on that advise. Especially considering they've developed that guidance and advice in partnership with the U of M and the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 5 hospitals in the world. Do you really think Walz and his administration are just pulling ideas about Covid out of a hat without any consultation from the best medical minds they have access to? Because that's how your criticism reads.

I'll close by saying this, no offense but, your individual freedoms end when your words or actions provably and significantly increase mine or my family's risk of unnecessary and preventable consequences -- in this case, severe disease or death. It's no o different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's the obvious potential risk of that action that makes it illegal. Not whether or not someone was actually injured or died. I'm sorry but, I find yours and others positions on this extremely disappointing, especially considering the likelihood that the "restrictions" of your or child's freedoms isn't likely going to last past March 1st of next year. Is losing a season of full game play in any sport extremely disappointing for the child? Sure especially if they're truly passionate about it. However, and for the umpteenth time, I want you to provide me your number of preventable and unnecessary deaths that would be too many to complete re-open the economy. Please, tell me what that number is. because that is the essence of your argument. All I ask is that you and others own it and have the strength of your convictions to truly stand behind it.
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.
[/quote]



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.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 12:03 am

goldy313 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:11 pm
elliott70 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:55 am
Riddle me this, riddle me that...…

My position in my business and my role on several non-profit boards (including MH and District 16) is the safety of all concerned.

In District 16 we are contemplating not allowing team competition (games or tournaments) with areas of the state or North Dakota or others that have a large number of covid cases. This is obviously full of potential problems. As leaders (district board) we have the responsibility to determine it - fortunately we are NOT motivated politically.

I am not a fan of the governor but respect that someone has to take this responsibility.

I am hoping this thread can continue with less political response and more factual or possible factual data.
Locally we are seeing some areas where the whole system is breaking down. As an example the lacrosse team near me has a scheduled practice from 5:30 - 7:00. The kids show up at 6:45 and adhere to the social distancing guidelines as they stretch until 7. At 7:00 practice ends, at 7:01 it is just a bunch of kids and a coach or two doing drills and scrimmages on their own. The same scenario happens at the hockey rink, soccer fields, and soon in the gyms.

Local softball teams are now designating Wisconsin as their home so they can go to tournaments and get games. They may practice in Minnesota but come the weekend they are Wisconsin teams.

Minnesota Amateur Baseball is going to get going in many places no matter Walz’ stance under their own guidelines. They are hoping for games next weekend.

Minnesota Hockey, the MSHSL, and others better figure out how to get back to play because others will do it outside those governing bodies. Ice rinks don’t care if the group renting the ice affiliates with USA Hockey or the MSHSL.

Goldy, yes those individual teams are going to other neighboring states to play games. Some are registering through the neighboring state's chosen governing body but many are not. Meaning, the parents/coaches are simply registering their teams in weekend tourneys and, many of them are just taking the risk of not having insurance in case a player is significantly injured. Obviously, minus some type of active enforcement, there are going to be people who push the boundaries. Unfortunately, people in administrative positions like Elliott, myself, and even the MSHSL board, have significantly more responsibility to the health and safety of our players than the vast majority of the summer hockey programs. And thus, our decisions will also be based on what the CDC, MDH, and other state and local governments are recommending. We will not and cannot allow what other summer sports or, more specifically, any non-USA Hockey summer hockey teams/organizations are doing to dictate our decision-making processes.

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.


Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 12:33 am

goldy313 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:44 pm
Hunters1993 wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:06 pm
This just in Emergency Powers continue for 30 more days. It is no longer up to MSHSL or Minn Hockey. =D>

Oct and Nov will be interesting for those rushing their kids out for all important practices and games. Not looking forward to it but when the CDC and WHO speak I listen and that is where you get reliable information.
#-o
How many times has the WHO issued a statement then backtracked on it in just the last 3 days?
The CDC declared thought a disease,
Walz and the MDH are so lost, in 3 months can’t slow the deaths and death rates in LTCF. And now we are the only state in the entire country that treats every area of the state the exact same in terms of restrictions, Walz can’t figure out Houston County is different than Hennepin County.
Yes, reliable information.

What is humbling is a virus, one of the simplest of all living things has science absolutely guessing. We can put a man on the moon but 6 months in can’t, for the life of us, figure this out.

Let Mayo take the lead, the MDH is useless.
Goldy, please remember it took us 10 long years of intense effort to put a man on the moon. The world wide scientific/medical communities have only known/been working on this virus for about 7 months. And, by all accounts, we'll have a widely distributed vaccine between 2 -2.5 years earlier than any previous vaccine. I'd say that's pretty darn good. Don't you? Also, I'm pretty confident we aren't the only state doing the "all or nothing approach" to how we've chosen to limit spread. Yes, I get it. A number of counties have very few cases. But c'mon Goldy, you're in the medical community. The virus knows no borders -- country, state, county, or municipality. If these smaller communities end up with even 10 or 20 cases because we don't at least try to get people to limit their travel into those areas, those hospitals/clinics will be overwhelmed and you know it. As I said last night, I was raised that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of few or the one. Remember, I've lost my job to the fact Covid is keeping sports from playing. I don't come to my opinions and beliefs lightly.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 189
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 1:04 am


As I just stated in my last post to Goldy, I have lost my job due to Covid preventing sports from being back to normal. I have acknowledged in numerous posts since the economy went in the tank that the loss of both jobs and potential small busineses was tragic. But again, IT'S A ONCE IN A HUNDRED YEAR GLOBAL PANDEMIC. There was always a chance it would lead to great hardship and sacrifice. The sad truth is, our federal government could've chosen to handle the economic upheaval and kept things pretty well locked down until we had a vaccine the way Canada or many of the other western European democracies have chosen to do. Pay every adult $2K-$3K per month, as well as the $500 per child living at home, along with delaying payment on all student loans, home mortgages, and car loans and adding the unpaid months onto the end of each loan. And finally, actually put the vast majority of business financial help into the small businesses instead of giving millions and billions to big corporations that chose to mainly do stock buybacks after their 2017 tax cut windfall, versus actually spending it on their employees or, saving some for a rainy day.

The sad part is, there are economists that believe we would've spent far less money with that reaction, than we already have, even without any new Covid rescue bills. But again grindiangrad, that's the 3rd or 4th time I've raised this point and, so far, I don't believe anyone here has pushed back in any sort of detailed way that proves the idea as inaccurate or misguided.

Oh, and our federal government could've reacted to the virus the way South Korea did -- first confirmed case on the same day as ours -- by actually leading and coalescing the scientific and medical communities together as soon as possible and get an accurate and widely distributed testing and contact tracing system in effect. Which to this point, has allowed them to be at only 276 deaths vs our 112,400. Let that sink in... only 276 deaths. And, their total confirmed infections are currently at 11,947 vs our 2 million plus. That my friend is an astounding contrast which should never have happened. :evil:

7TIMECHAMPS
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 pm

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

Post by 7TIMECHAMPS » 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
Wise Old Man wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:10 pm


First and foremost, as someone who spent 20 plus years taking an oath to defend the Constitution, I'm all about maintaining individual freedoms. Still, I'm sorry but the way I was raised, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As I stated in my last post -- as well as numerous others previously in this thread -- I haven't read anything in any scientific or research journals, nor heard/seen anything from a single person with legitimate expertise in the area of these types of diseases that hasn't stated this is FAR worse than any of the other viruses/diseases due the combination of its ability to spread easily, along with the severity of symptoms it presents. For instance, there were only 8,098 cases globally and only 8 in the U.S. Out of those total global cases, there were 714 deaths for a 15% fatality rate. So, 8 U.S. Sars cases compared to almost 2 million confirmed Covid cases. Do you still think that's a good comparison? :roll:

Do Ebola and Sars have much higher death rates? Absolutely. However, because they have more severe initial symptoms, it's easier to slow the spread. And, because they have higher percentage of death, that helps contain those viruses as well. Thus, to address your point that we've never reacted this way before, the fact is, we've never dealt with a previous viral threat that presented with these specific details regarding spread, symptoms, and outcomes. It's truly that much different than the others you mentioned.

As for your frustrations regarding our governor and the way you perceive his decisions around Covid and our state; you may disagree with WHAT he's decided to this point but, everything that has been done regarding his emergency declarations has been legal. The way he has handled this crisis has received far more praise than not, especially from a national perspective. You flat out stated you feel Walz has been "abusing" his powers. I would argue that his decision to use emergency declarations in this specific situation and under these specific circumstances is a far less egregious "abuse of power" than most of the executive orders issued by a certain elected official, or that same official's decision to attempt to blackmail one of our allies. :mrgreen: But, I digress...

I'm sorry but, considering what we were facing back in March and the extremely reduced timelines that decisions needed to be made in, are you really arguing we should've allowed the state legislature to attempt to make the required decisions/policy? Really...? Come on, the way this (or any other) split house legislature had operated over the last 20 years of intense politicization of literally every issue imaginable is a definitive testament to their inability to move with the speed that was required -- regarding anything! That's why our state constitution/charter allows these types of powers in these truly unique situations. You state that the youth sports guidelines should just "go away" on June 12th as they don't have "the power of law". First, nobody here at least looks upon them as law. They are just what you called them, guidelines. However, they come from the Minnesota Department of Health and, they are a product of the best current science on Covid and it's spread. Thus, the governor and the vast, vast majority of mayors, county boards, and other local policy making entities are going to base their Covid related decision-making on that advise. Especially considering they've developed that guidance and advice in partnership with the U of M and the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 5 hospitals in the world. Do you really think Walz and his administration are just pulling ideas about Covid out of a hat without any consultation from the best medical minds they have access to? Because that's how your criticism reads.

I'll close by saying this, no offense but, your individual freedoms end when your words or actions provably and significantly increase mine or my family's risk of unnecessary and preventable consequences -- in this case, severe disease or death. It's no o different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's the obvious potential risk of that action that makes it illegal. Not whether or not someone was actually injured or died. I'm sorry but, I find yours and others positions on this extremely disappointing, especially considering the likelihood that the "restrictions" of your or child's freedoms isn't likely going to last past March 1st of next year. Is losing a season of full game play in any sport extremely disappointing for the child? Sure especially if they're truly passionate about it. However, and for the umpteenth time, I want you to provide me your number of preventable and unnecessary deaths that would be too many to complete re-open the economy. Please, tell me what that number is. because that is the essence of your argument. All I ask is that you and others own it and have the strength of your convictions to truly stand behind it.


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.
[/quote]


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.

7TIMECHAMPS
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 pm

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

Post by 7TIMECHAMPS » 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.

7TIMECHAMPS
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 pm

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

Post by 7TIMECHAMPS » 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

edgeless2
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:08 pm

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

Post by edgeless2 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:31 am

On the face of the emergency declaration extension, it would seem that it is motivated by access to federal funds if certain bills pass in DC, no state wants to be left out. U of M board of Regents are meeting this week to put plans in place for both the return/non-return of students in a few short months. The consensus is they will take a wait and see approach, which just leaves us citizens in limbo. At some point they will have to take action, one way or another. I believe what they decide will have a huge impact on what Walz decides about resumption of High Schools, given the fact the the U will have to decide before anyone else does. Given the state of information/misinformation, it will be interesting to see what they decide, they can’t take the wait and see approach for much longer. I’m thinking mid to late July they will be forced to choose.

goldy313
Posts: 3597
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 12:24 pm

Minnesota Amateur Baseball gave the go ahead to playing in Minnesota last night, there will be games this weekend in Minnesota!

Locked