Stang5280 wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:47 pm
ClassAGuy wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 6:38 am
Teacher and students both expressed hardship and sadness about the long-distance learning. Many Teachers wanted to be with their students during that time. Many teachers worked very hard during the last 3 months. The statement that they got paid to not work for 3 months is not true.
I agree, that seems like an unwarranted low blow at teachers. I know that Goldy was frustrated with the poor implementation of distance learning in his district, but that was certainly not the case statewide. I know that my sister, a special ed teacher, worked extremely long hours to help students and parents this spring. She is fearful, and rightly so, of returning to the classroom this fall, particularly given the lack of progress in reducing spread of the virus in recent weeks. I’m sure that is a common sentiment among many educational professionals.
I have to a agree with ClassAGuy, Goldy's shot at teachers not having to do any work the last three months is just simply not true. I'm good friends with both an assistant principle and a guidance counselor at a local high school, along with having numerous close friends that are teachers in districts around the state including Roseau, the Range, Twin Cities, Duluth area, and Rochester. I've spoken with all of them at least once since we closed the schools and I promise you, almost every teacher has put in more hours per week doing distance learning than they did prior to it. Remember, most of these people had to learn how to structure and implement distance learning for the first time as well. I promise, it wasn't easy for the vast majority of them.
As for whether we'll have youth or high school hockey this fall; I'll repeat what I stated in a previous post. First, I have a vested interest as I'm a member of my local youth hockey association board. I've also served in numerous youth/adult athletics association leadership/board positions for the last 25 years. And, it's my opinion that recreational youth/adult sports leaders have never faced a challenge like this before. I've already stated what my high school assistant principle friend said recently when I asked him about next fall, in regards to both in class attendance or the possibility of fall/winter athletics and, his response was that it didn't look very good.
Remember, we live in a very litigious society. Over the last 20 years, this has forced administrators of all types and in all organizations involving kids (high school and below) to err on the conservative side of the "ledger" whenever the safety or health of participants/students is involved. And, the vast majority of us -- especially the volunteers at the youth levels --are going to rely on the best data/research/recommendations from state and national departments of health in how they decide which direction to go in relation to return-to-play decision making. The latest Covid research is showing that as many as 40% of those infected are asymptomatic carriers. And, the most recent research involving how Covid spreads shows it is probably being aerosolized (Science Magazine, May 27) to a point where it can linger in the air for up to hours at a time in an indoor environment. Versus the previous 6-8 minutes stated from previous research. The following are a number of excerpts the article. I've included a fair amount and I encourage all of you to read it. Lot's of very good info:
"However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1–3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. Humans produce respiratory droplets ranging from 0.1 to 1000 μm. A competition between droplet size, inertia, gravity, and evaporation determines how far emitted droplets and aerosols will travel in air (4, 5). Respiratory droplets will undergo gravitational settling faster than they evaporate, contaminating surfaces and leading to contact transmission. Smaller aerosols (≤5 μm) will evaporate faster than they can settle, are buoyant, and thus can be affected by air currents, which can transport them over longer distances. Thus, there are two major respiratory virus transmission pathways: contact (direct or indirect between people and with contaminated surfaces) and airborne inhalation."
"In addition to contributing to the extent of dispersal and mode of transmission, respiratory droplet size has been shown to affect the severity of disease. For example, influenza virus is more commonly contained in aerosols with sizes below 1 μm (submicron), which lead to more severe infection (4). In the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible that submicron virus-containing aerosols are being transferred deep into the alveolar region of the lungs, where immune responses seem to be temporarily bypassed. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing."
"Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). Therefore, regular, widespread testing is essential to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals."
"Airborne transmission was determined to play a role during the SARS outbreak in 2003 (1, 4). However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols. A study in hospitals in Wuhan, China, found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols further than 6 ft from patients with higher concentrations detected in more crowded areas (8). Estimates using an average sputum viral load for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that 1 min of loud speaking could generate >1000 virion-containing aerosols (9). Assuming viral titers for infected super-emitters (with 100-fold higher viral load than average) yields an increase to more than 100,000 virions in emitted droplets per minute of speaking."
"The World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for social distancing of 6 ft and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ~100 μm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-μm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 ft in 4.6 s whereas a 1-μm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 ft can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 ft WHO recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow air flows over distances further than 6 ft (5, 10)."
As an aside, as a fan of Michael Olsterholm, I've been surprised to hear him downplay the importance of wearing even surgical masks as a means of limiting spread. In doing so, he has pointed to studies done during the 1918 pandemic, as well as those in 1930's referenced above. However, after reading this, my opinion on mask use is "evolving" and I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Michael.
Here's a bit more from the article;
"In outdoor environments, numerous factors will determine the concentrations and distance traveled, and whether respiratory viruses remain infectious in aerosols. Breezes and winds often occur and can transport infectious droplets and aerosols long distances. Asymptomatic individuals who are speaking while exercising can release infectious aerosols that can be picked up by air streams (10). Viral concentrations will be more rapidly diluted outdoors, but few studies have been carried out on outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 can be inactivated by ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, and it is likely sensitive to ambient temperature and relative humidity, as well as the presence of atmospheric aerosols that occur in highly polluted areas. Viruses can attach to other particles such as dust and pollution, which can modify the aerodynamic characteristics and increase dispersion. Moreover, people living in areas with higher concentrations of air pollution have been shown to have higher severity of COVID-19 (11). Because respiratory viruses can remain airborne for prolonged periods before being inhaled by a potential host, studies are needed to characterize the factors leading to loss of infectivity over time in a variety of outdoor environments over a range of conditions."
"Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing. Assuming SARS-CoV-2 virions are contained in submicron aerosols, as is the case for influenza virus, a good comparison is exhaled cigarette smoke, which also contains submicron particles and will likely follow comparable flows and dilution patterns. The distance from a smoker at which one smells cigarette smoke indicates the distance in those surroundings at which one could inhale infectious aerosols. In an enclosed room with asymptomatic individuals, infectious aerosol concentrations can increase over time. Overall, the probability of becoming infected indoors will depend on the total amount of SARS-CoV-2 inhaled. Ultimately, the amount of ventilation, number of people, how long one visits an indoor facility, and activities that affect air flow will all modulate viral transmission pathways and exposure (10). For these reasons, it is important to wear properly fitted masks indoors even when 6 ft apart. Airborne transmission could account, in part, for the high secondary transmission rates to medical staff, as well as major outbreaks in nursing facilities. The minimum dose of SARS-CoV-2 that leads to infection is unknown, but airborne transmission through aerosols has been documented for other respiratory viruses including measles, SARS, and chickenpox (4)."
"Airborne spread from undiagnosed infections will continuously undermine the effectiveness of even the most vigorous testing, tracing, and social distancing programs. After evidence revealed that airborne transmission by asymptomatic individuals might be a key driver in the global spread of COVID-19, the WHO recommended universal use of face masks. Masks provide a critical barrier, reducing the number of infectious viruses in exhaled breath, especially of asymptomatic people and those with mild symptoms (12) (see the figure). Surgical mask material reduces the likelihood and severity of COVID-19 by substantially reducing airborne viral concentrations (13). Masks also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols (12, 13). Thus, it is particularly important to wear masks in locations with conditions that can accumulate high concentrations of viruses, such as health care settings, airplanes, restaurants, and other crowded places with reduced ventilation. The aerosol filtering efficiency of different materials, thicknesses, and layers used in properly fitted homemade masks was recently found to be similar to that of the medical masks that were tested (14). Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages."
"From epidemiological data, countries that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. In the battle against COVID-19, Taiwan (population 24 million, first COVID-19 case 21 January 2020) did not implement a lockdown during the pandemic, yet maintained a low incidence of 441 cases and 7 deaths (as of 21 May 2020). By contrast, the state of New York (population ~20 million, first COVID case 1 March 2020), had a higher number of cases (353,000) and deaths (24,000). By quickly activating its epidemic response plan that was established after the SARS outbreak, the Taiwanese government enacted a set of proactive measures that successfully prevented the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including setting up a central epidemic command center in January, using technologies to detect and track infected patients and their close contacts, and perhaps most importantly, requesting people to wear masks in public places. The government also ensured the availability of medical masks by banning mask manufacturers from exporting them, implementing a system to ensure that every citizen could acquire masks at reasonable prices, and increasing the production of masks. In other countries, there have been widespread shortages of masks, resulting in most residents not having access to any form of medical mask (15). This striking difference in the availability and widespread adoption of wearing masks likely influenced the low number of COVID-19 cases."
Obviously, (and based on the information from this article -- which I admit could change in the next three months) if we really acknowledge the realities of how much virus is being expelled by an infectious player in the course of even a practice (let alone an actual game) AND, we multiply that by who knows how many others may be infected, it could result in a significant viral load hanging in the air from the middle of that practice or game til the end. At the professional level, they have the financial wherewithal to do the level of consistent testing required to be able to quickly and consistently identify infected individuals and ensure they quarantine themselves for the required time frame.
Unfortunately, there is no way that can be accomplished at the high school level. Add in to the equation that, at the moment, the state health department guidelines require anyone who has had close contact with any infected individual, has to quarantine for 14 days. Thus, what happens when a player tests positive? Even if you're adhering to strict social distancing in the locker room, every teammate will have met the definition of "close contact" thru practices and game play. Meaning, for a youth team, the whole team (including coaches, managers, and parents) should now go into quarantine for 14 days! And, since the high school JV and Varsity often practice together, both of those teams, their coaches, managers, and parents will should now go into quarantine for 14 days. For either case, they now are unable to play those 3 or 4 games they have scheduled over that time frame. Or, go to that tournament that next weekend. What about if either team played a game two to five days prior to the player testing positive? I'm pretty sure the health department would strongly recommend/require THAT team's players, coaches, managers, and parents to quarantine as well! Talk about playing havoc with scheduling... And how are players and coaches going to social distance on the bench? Or, the penalty bench when there's more than one player in there? What about puck battles along the boards, or battles in front of the net? What about gatherings after whistles? Do you realize how much spittle is accidentally exchanged in those trash talking fests?
Next, if you really look at the recent document released by USA Hockey regarding return to participation, they don't even attempt to address the possibility of playing games. And, Hockey Canada's leadership is also being extremely conservative about any type of return to "normal" game play. Since Goldy brought up baseball, let's look at that sport in regards to the challenges of having even high school aged kids play it and maintain social distancing, as well as minimize potential community spread. First, how do the batter, catcher, and umpire social distance? I suppose we could have balls and strikes called from behind the pitcher, especially at the younger levels. Think about when the ball is hit into the infield. Although it's usually only three players (pitcher, SS, and 1st), as many as 4-6 players might touch the ball on a given ground ball play. Obviously, you'd require each player to have his own helmet and bat and water bottle. Is the organization going to provide all of the bats and helmets? Either way, it adds significant more cost to each player/parent -- probably $100 on the low end and as much as $250+ on the higher end. Now, let's see how well any coach/manager is able to prevent the amount of usual "grab-ass" going on in a youth baseball or softball dugout.
Finally, if you think we have an officiating shortage now, wait until you try to play any of these sports without a vaccine or proven therapeutic that literally keeps 99.999% of those infected from going to the ICU or put on a ventilator. Especially the baseball and softball umpires. The average age in most associations is usually 65+ and, most of those have preexisting conditions (in the very least being somewhat over-weight). But, even in hockey you'll have a few of those folks choose not to work. Think about the official whose proper position requires he stand just outside a blue line that's directly in front of a bench with players huffing and puffing after a shift, potentially expelling large amounts of virus right in the direction of said official. Believe me, I'm a pretty positive person and am willing to consider any reasonable changes or adjustments that would allow us to safely play this fall. However, as an administrator, I also have to consider and avoid the worst case scenario as well. Which, in this case, could lead directly to the significant illness of one or even a number of players (chances of death at that age are pretty minuscule) OR, even worse yet, the death of a coach, official, or family member of one or more players. That's why that no matter which way I look at this situation, it's very difficult to envision a path to allowing players to even practice as a team, let alone play games.