Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

[wolfman]

Let’s get back to hockey....

Looking like HS hockey is going to happen. I can’t wait.

[blueblood]

Drop the puck

[Rails Hockey]

.

[Wise Old Man]

Proctor and Duluth have already decided that they will be full distance learning to start. Hermantown will probably follow suit next week. Esko has decided on Hybrid for now.

Sports are going on as planned, Soccer and Cross Country have been moving forward as if it's a regular season.

Sports can and will go on regardless of what's going on in school.

Hunters, the Hockey Dad's didn't even get to vote yet and that's what the MSHSL has decided. Your Fight might be with the Soccer Dads!

And, Duluth East's girls' soccer team already has a positive case and the entire team is quarantined for two weeks.

[Wise Old Man]

(WOM quote):
"As for your example of the skateboarders, I agree they were partaking in risky behavior in relation to Covid. However, again, the fact they were outside meant their risk was much less than your son and the others skating that day".

WOM:
So even though the skateboarders were passing a joint from one another ...
Somehow because they were outside, miraculously the virus disappears in the few seconds that it takes one of them to say "ere" to the other....

I've seen a lot about this virus but not that it's killed from the short trip from one skateboarders mouth to another... on a blunt.

I better buy a skateboard!

This stuff gets wackier each day but I'm sure the Duluth city council would agree with your assessment that these skateboarders are much less risky than hockey players and will soon appropriate even more funds to skateboard parks... and free ganja... because the science indicates that the virus can't possibly live on something as wholesome... as a doobie.

As far as you putting your kids in camps this summer, I'm happy for you that you didn't have you in your ear telling yourself that you were forcing your kids into dangerous behavior.
But I would like to take this time to publicly shame you for you making that decision yourself.

"Dog"... it's called reading comprehension my friend. I never uttered the words that the virus wouldn't survive on the joint as it was passed between the three idiots sharing it. Obviously, for them, in that specific situation, with those specific set of circumstances, they're risk is significantly elevated compared to those inside playing hockey. What I did say, was that as a general rule, outdoor activity is far less risky than indoor activity.

And don't believe everything USA Hockey is saying about how safe they BELIEVE it is to play. Most rinks' HVAC systems aren't strong enough to mix the air well enough in regards to Covid. They talk about how there's plenty of air mixing due to air currents created by players simply skating. If you actually read the research about potential aerosolization of the virus, when it's put into the air by players coughing, sneezing, or breathing hard from skating, it basically sits in the air approximately 3-5 feet above the ice. Sure, the air mixture caused by the movement of players skating definitely forces the smaller, aerosolized particles to move around within the area of the actual ice surface and benches. However, if you have even a single infectious player skating around the rink every 2 minutes, breathing as hard as his body can for 45 seconds at a time, he or she is putting a significant amount of viral load into that area. Not to mention how much that player puts out the first 30-45 seconds after he sits back on the bench.

Also "Dog"...yes, I took some risk at putting my kids in a camp this summer. However, my wife and I assessed the pros and cons, especially who was running the camp and how the camp was run , and determined it offered the least possible amount of risk. And, just so you're aware, we are very likely not allowing our kids to play organized hockey this year. I have a pretty good sized backyard rink and, I've made some other purchases that will provide them a great opportunity to continue to work on their skills.

I noticed you chose not to answer my question about if every time your child left the house there was a 15% chance that they'd come home with a life altering disease to their heart or lungs or kidneys, or, worse yet, even possibly die. Of course, you're not the only one. But, when a parent is faced with THOSE types of risks/odds, it's not shocking they'd prefer not to have to think about it....

Finally, what does the Duluth City Council have to do with the skateboarder situation? I thought that was in a Twin Cities suburb..

Also, what does the

And Hunters:
On behalf of many current Hunter fans who cringe at your posts.... lighten up Francis.

[Wise Old Man]

Wise Old Man you’re misnamed. And you’re alarmist.

While we can disagree about conclusions regarding risk, let’s get the facts straight. Right now MN Health shows that there have been a ballpark of 6,000 cases of COVID in Kids aged 15-19, and there are 219,000 kids in that age group. While I do question your stat that “15% of kids who develop COVID get myocarditis” I’ll go with it purely for arguments sake. On this data your scenario and question are simply wrong. Here’s what you asked:
“ IF...you knew that EVERY time your son or daughter left the house, there was 15% chance they could come home with a life altering disease or, even worse, die, would you let them out of the house?? “

Let that settle in for a second and see if you can detect your own error.....Do you see it? I’ll lay it out for you (let me know if you need pictures):

There isn’t a 15% chance that very kid will get myocarditis. Right now the 6,000 cases among The 219,000 kids this age reflect a little more than 3% of kids this age getting COVID. And among that 3%, you say 15% of this kids will get myocarditis. That’s 900 kids out of 219,000. Something like .45%.

Will I let my kid go outside knowing there’s a .45% chance of getting myocarditis? Yes. Especially because if when they catch COVID you test them (upon recovery) FOR myocarditis before returning to play. Just like the NHL.

Again, you seem triggered, WOM. And your analysis belies an underlying penchant for fear mongering.

I’d like my kid to play hockey, to have a normal high school experience. I also let him drive (where the risk of danger is more real than the .45% of that myocarditis that’s causing people like you to shout “keep them in their homes to protect them.”

Actually my friend, you're the one who doesn't understand. That's OK. I'll explain in more detail. Everyone else is trying to say there's hasn't been hardly any infections of players or, significant outbreaks at rinks. AND...even if there were, we haven't had a single kid that age group die that didn't have underlying conditions, or, get seriously ill that we're aware of. Again, not sure how we would definitively know as I'm pretty sure that kid's parents wouldn't be advertising it to the public but... Actually, I think we've only had one child under 18 in our state parish from Covid so far (thank God), and he had significant underlying health issues.

MY point is, and has been for the last four months, we don't know what we don't know. Meaning, that as an administrator, having the health and safety of the athletes I'm responsible for being the absolute highest priority, our approach should be that, considering the latest info on aerosolization of the virus, AND the recent risk of myocarditis, lung scarring, kidney damage, general cardiovascular damage, and others, it's our (local administrators)/MH/MSHSL/ USA Hockey's responsibility to be extremely over-cautious, until we either get a widely distributed vaccine or, have better research that definitively proves these other medical issues aren't as risky as we think they currently may be. Unfortunately, since neither USA Hockey or Minnesota Hockey have any direct liability for any Covid related legal challenges, and they stand a ton to lose financially if they don't sanction a season, of course they're going to do everything possible to at least try to have as normal of a season as possible. However, the MSHSL does carry the liability, along with the individual schools and districts as well. Thus, they're much greater reservation in allowing team contact sports to be played.

Not to mention the other elephant in the room regarding this virus which is the fact that it's extremely easy for a player or coach or official to bring it to their home/family or, if kids are back in school on an even hybrid model, into the school. Also, from what I've told, there are groups of parents of non-extracurricular students who have supposedly hired lawyers to take the MSHSL to court if even one "positive" kid can even be close to proven they picked it up due to another student that's participating in athletics or choir or robotics who probably brought it into the school after participating in those activities. The MSHSL lost over $500,000 last year and that's with a boys state hockey tournament. Very likely that won't occur this year, at least at the "X" with 19,000 fans. Meaning...their finances are going to be even worse by the end of this school year. That means that they can't even afford to defend a potential lawsuit, let alone pay out damages if they lose.

First, in reference to your, "While I do question your stat that “15% of kids who develop COVID get myocarditis” I’ll go with it purely for arguments sake", statement; I've linked to the articles that discuss this at least twice already in posts that aren't more than earlier on page 7 or no further back than page 6. So quit being lazy and actually read some of the earlier posts so you actually have legitimate context before responding. It might save you some minor embarrassment. These are studies by experts at the various world-renowned research hospitals attached to almost every BIG10 school who are on the BIG10's medical advisory board. THEY are the one's stating that they have found myocarditis in about 15% of those athletes that have tested positive for Covid, even a few that were completely asymptomatic. So, I'm pretty confident in the accuracy of that info.

Back to..."getting our facts straight". Again, everyone says there's always some kind of risk to anything you do in life. Which, is definitely true. And, since everyone is saying there's such a small chance of a bad outcome in playing, despite the fact that it's possible that as many as 15% of young athletes who play that become infected may come down with myocarditis -- along with the lung scarring, kidney damage, or cardiovascular damage -- it makes sense to extend the 15% risk of a bad outcome to leaving the house in general in order to emphasize the risk assessment equation. That's the point...would you allow your child to leave the house, if no matter what the activity was, there was a 15% chance they could come home with a life-altering medical issue or, even die? The idea is to put the same level of risk for non-hockey activity as for hockey related activity. Pretty easy to understand from my point of view. I think YOU may have been over-thinking things my friend...

Also, in regards to your point that IF your kid is unlucky enough to develop myocarditis post-Covid that "you" would test them for myocarditis before returning to play...just like the NHL. Ummm, I'm pretty confident that it's not automatic that your doctor/specialist treating your child for Covid, will automatically do a cardiac MRI. They may if you ask but, I doubt that's standard procedure. Meaning, YOU would probably have to pay for most or all of that. Pretty sure that's one of the more expensive MRI's to do. Probably well over $2,000. That could be pretty prohibitive to a lot of families.

One last thing, you can call my emphasis on caution regarding a kids' long-term health as "triggered", or "alarmist", or a "fear mongerer". There's an old saying... oh, that's right, something about "sticks and stones" I believe. "6AA"... I'll ask you the same question I've asked others throughout this debate, are you currently serving in any type of youth sports, administrative leadership position where your name would have to go on the "dotted line" to allow kids to play? Or, better phrased, are you putting your name out there as being even partially liable for the health of not only, the kids, coaches, officials, and other volunteers in your program, but also all of their extended relatives or classmates? Asking for a friend...

[Wise Old Man]

Wise

At the risk of undoing our world peace agreement........

I find your quotea 'below from your Dept of Health contact very interesting

"The younger of the two wouldn't comment but, the older one said that, although they had recommended to Walz that he should probably retain greater restrictions on indoor sports, it was stated that if he didn't open hockey rinks specifically, he was told by his political advisers that it would be a PR nightmare. The reason being was that the perception regarding hockey parents is that they're the "craziest" of all the sports parents and, even though it was understood that it would be a smaller percentage of the overall number of hockey parents that would be complaining -- probably 20-30% max of the total hockey playing population - they would be "complaining" extremely loud. So, Walz decided to open the rinks and gyms with the intent that IF there was a significant outbreak in either a gym or rink, they would immediately restrict activity again."

The reason this MDH comment is interesting , it shows politics are a MDH consideration, not just health. It also shows considerable judgement is involved in making all these decisions. So things arent black and white. No one, even the experts, are correct 100% of the time.


Another point from your MDH post above I find interesting:

"But two of the brightest minds in the areas of infectious disease and finance/economics are saying another strict (actually stricter) lock down is our best bet for actually getting the virus under control. Can any of you on this forum claim to have either of these gentleman's expertise in either area? "

I find it interesting because there is no mention of the societal damage caused by the first strict lockdown much less a second one. I feel after almost 70 years of watching the society, I have considerable expertise of understanding these impacts. A quick short list includes: Unemployment and loss of family income, increased family tensions contributing to family difficulies, contribution factors to civil unrest, food shortages, loss of important medical screenings, deferral of in person education for kids that cant learn adequately from on line teaching, govt budget deficits leading to cuts in other areas, and on and on and on. We CANT just do lockdowns every time a new virus hits us for the rest of time. e.

So Wise, hoping we can keep our previous very respectful world peace agreement , but perhaps add an appendix?

"West"... I'm confident you and I have established a solid bond of respect and, I intend to ensure that is maintained! First, when it comes to these types of large societal decisions, I'm never surprised that "politics" might enter into them. Are you? And, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the "experts" aren't right anywhere close to 100% of the time. But, they're still the best we have and, I believe we as a society should allow them to lead the way in regards to how we best respond to this challenge of our lifetime.

Yes, there was some societal damage done during the first lockdown. However, as they pointed out in their letter, we didn't do nearly as strict of a lockdown as we needed to or, as the vast majority of the other countries that locked down did. And, for most of them -- in fact, I believe all of them -- their economies have come out of their far stricter and longer lockdowns quicker and better than we have. As for the other societal damage -- psychological, addiction, abuse, etc.. -- those are all much more difficult to measure. Whereas, we know if we don't get the virus below the 1 in 100,000 per day threshold, we stand to lose -- according to new projections released today -- close to 300,000 lives by December 1st...Let that one sink in Westy...(it's OK if I call you "Westy", isn't it?) Seriously though....THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD....as of today, South Korea, whose first diagnosed case was on the same day as ours, has a total of 19,400 infections but, only 321 deaths.... That's what happens when you do a proper initial lockdown, in coordination with a stringent national testing program, and a thorough contact-tracing program. Again, they and most of the other "western" democracies that have "opened up" since June all had far more stringent lockdowns than us. Heck, we had some states that barely locked down at all. All of those countries dealt with those same other "societal damages".

Westy...as for doing a lockdown every time we have a new virus? If we don't have a vaccine and, it has a fatality rate of even 1% or higher, then yes, we may have to do a lockdown when those occur. And, the vast majority of the other "societal damages" are directly or indirectly due to the obviously considerable financial stressors for all of those who've lost their jobs -- like me. However, almost all of those other countries that had stricter lockdowns also chose to do UBI payments (between $3,000 and $5,000 per adult per month) until their economies could significantly recover. Although we've provided some financial help, it's no where near what those other countries have done. And, we're obviously now not doing anything from a federal standpoint which will certainly have a significant impact on the economy if that isn't addressed asap.

As usual, I genuinely appreciate your comments/responses and I'll do anything I can to help improve our budding relationship!

[Wise Old Man]

Just to recap where we are:

It is o.k. for my kid to go to school with 1000 people two days per week (that's half of his full school size, and they are starting out in hybrid learning).

It is o.k. for him to work 8 hour shifts at Cub grocery store and interact with people and be sure that everyone else gets groceries.

It is o.k. for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at big box stores like Target, Home Depot and Menards and interact with people and make sure that everyone else gets the supplies they need for home and home projects.

It is o.k. for for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at restaurants like Applebees, McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos, Chik-Fil-A, Buffalo Wild Wings and others to be sure that everyone else gets to eat in or take out food when they don't want to cook.

It isn't o.k. for him and his buddies to play high school hockey (or other sports and/or activities) for themselves and their social wellness.

"OMRiver".... First, I personally don't think it's safe for your kid to go to school with 1,000 kids each day even just two days a week. In fact, if your child is literally in school with a 1,000 other kids, then your districts' social distancing plan is garbage. Next, based on our current number of cases per 100,000 per day -- as Osterholm indicated in his Op-Ed --bars, and restaurants shouldn't be open for indoor dining. However, since they are and, those establishments, as well as the other employment examples you cited are all technically considered "essential", it's difficult to say the kids working there shouldn't go. Of course, while those kids are on the job, they're now required to wear masks and, in many of those places, gloves as well. Whereas, they aren't wearing a surgical mask while they're playing hockey and expelling the largest amounts of infectious viral droplets compared to any other time of their day since they're heart rates and respiration are at the highest levels they'll probably be at during the entire day.

And again I'll emphasize, if they get infected, they're not the only ones that are affected by their infection. Why is that aspect of this so difficult for so many of you to acknowledge? It's actually just as significant and maybe more, as the possibility the player infected at the rink might develop either a significant case of Covid itself, or one of the other numerous post-infection maladies I've mentioned earlier.

[Wise Old Man]

Well stated Old Man!

I made a rare trip to Home Depot the other Day when I didn’t want to wait two days for replacement bad light fixture from Amazon. Watching the check out: people getting garden flowers and supplies, people getting interior paint for redecorating projects, etc. etc.

In other words, much more than just critical plumbing or electrical repairs

. Most people’s things were for discretionary activities, and people are out and about interacting with others at congested indoor locations.

I’m not being critical of them , just pointing out that there are many many discretionary activities that people do where they have to go out to crowded indoor locations .

So youth hockey risk should not be viewed in a vacuum .

"Westy"...I don't think youth sports should be viewed in a vacuum. However, those examples you just gave are all adults making decisions. And, I also again agree with you -- great minds and all -- that people are doing things that aren't truly essential. Which is exactly what Osterholm's argument was. Our lockdown(s) were pathetic. Back to the comparison you made, to me, a bunch of adults who are legally allowed to be the final arbiter for their personal level of acceptable risk, is completely different than possibly unnecessarily exposing kids to a virus we don't have a vaccine for, but has potential significant life-long health affects. Again, it's still all about liability when you're talking about a youth sports organization. I don't think most of the "c'mon, let's play" people on here are genuinely considering the risk to those of us "signing off" on it.

[Wise Old Man]

I thought this article was highly appropriate to put in this thread:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/severe-c ... s-uk-study

A large team of experts found that confirmed virus cases among babies and youth under 19 only accounted for less than 1 percent of all patients in a given cohort. The in-hospital death rate was “strikingly low” among this age group, according to the report, at 1 percent compared to the cohort including all ages at 27 percent. A total of six out of 627 pediatric patients died, “all of whom had profound comorbidity,” study authors wrote.

"Severe disease was rare and death [was] exceptionally rare in this...large prospective cohort study of children admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19," study authors wrote.

Very interesting article/study. And, very good news if true. However, here's a link to another recent article from the American Academy of Pediatrics;

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019- ... ta-report/

From the article:

"On August 20, the age distribution of reported COVID-19 cases was provided on the health department websites of 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. While children represented only 9.3% of all cases in states reporting cases by age, over 442,000 children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic.
A smaller subset of states reported on hospitalizations and mortality by age, but the available data indicated that COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children."

So, it seems to agree regarding the incidence of severe illness relating directly to Covid. However, I respectfully point out that the main thrust of your point seems to be about the lack of actual deaths or hospitalizations. MY biggest points have always been the risk of secondary spread and, more recently, the seemingly much higher risk of post-infection maladies that are likely to be long-term issues or, potentially, later in life disabilities.

Here's a slightly less recent New York Times article about how infectious kids might be:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/heal ... ldren.html

Here's a recent Wall Street Journal piece;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/latest-res ... 1596978001

Again, kids might not get as sick with actual Covid as adults but, they certainly seem to carry it and spread it as effectively as adults. Again, that only emphasizes the risk of secondary infection if kids are in school or in other bigger groups doing indoor activities.

[Wise Old Man]

USA218 thanks for the report. It (and your) analysis is consistent with my response (a few threads above) to Wise Old Man.

The kids are not at risk to any concerning degree. And their risk to others can and should be appropriately mitigated.

Please see the links I provided above to articles/research that clearly indicates kids are just as likely to carry and spread Covid as adults. Eventually, we'll find out if the report 218 provided is accurate, or the other three (of about 10 that were included in my Google search) that I provided that run counter to 218's.

And AGAIN...this isn't as much about the risk of kids dying from Covid itself, or, going to the hospital due to a more severe case of Covid. It's about them spreading it to others who won't have as easy of a time, and also about the various post-infection maladies that are afflicting numerous individuals, including asymptomatics -- as many as 15% of infected BIG10 athletes have developed myocarditis -- along with the lung scarring, kidney damage, and cardiovascular damage.

Hey "Westy"...how many times do think I'll have to repeat my point before October 1st?

[Wise Old Man]

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-ne ... -minnesota https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-ne ... -minnesota

Wow....shocker...

[Wise Old Man]

Just to recap where we are:

It is o.k. for my kid to go to school with 1000 people two days per week (that's half of his full school size, and they are starting out in hybrid learning).

It is o.k. for him to work 8 hour shifts at Cub grocery store and interact with people and be sure that everyone else gets groceries.

It is o.k. for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at big box stores like Target, Home Depot and Menards and interact with people and make sure that everyone else gets the supplies they need for home and home projects.

It is o.k. for for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at restaurants like Applebees, McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos, Chik-Fil-A, Buffalo Wild Wings and others to be sure that everyone else gets to eat in or take out food when they don't want to cook.

It isn't o.k. for him and his buddies to play high school hockey (or other sports and/or activities) for themselves and their social wellness.

When working staff And at school masks are being worn, correct? are wearing masks correct? Washing hands correct? Family units do not need to use masks when together. Look at the guidance. Unless one family member(hockey pkayer) is taking high risk in which case they should have a mask. Buck up and be an ADULT. The kids should not be playing sports during a pandemic!!!!When doing high risk activities that infect others when the undo risk effects other families and the school district. That is where a free choice should end!!!!!!!!!

You guys have any sense of what your choices could effect others! At all!

Up until July 22 there was no mask requirement. Employees may have worn them (which science says is supposed to protect others from them and not the other way around) but others didn't from March until July. Currently, for kids working in food service or restaurants, they are wearing them but others sitting at the table and ordering from them do not. I'm hoping that everyone has been and continues to wash their hands regardless of what is going on with the pandemic. It's obvious that as long as it fits what you need (groceries, supplies, food, etc.) it's o.k. that they're on the front line. But if it's something for them...they're gong to kill us all!

I know you're on here to troll and this will be my last response to you directly. It's been a pleasure.

OLRiver....I'm sorry you feel I and/or others wanting to take the cautious route are trolling you or anyone else. I can genuinely say that I am not. Most "trollers" aren't putting in the time I am to back up their positions. No offense but, when you decide to hyper-exaggerate -- "But if it's something for them...they're gong to kill us all!" -- that's how these discussions get sidetracked. No one is saying anything like that. So, you going down that road, even as a tool to try to make your point (speaking of "trolling"), isn't helpful. Your insinuation that myself and others that agree with me are cherry-picking the information ("It's obvious that as long as it fits what you need (groceries, supplies, food, etc.) it's o.k. that they're on the front line.) just to make some kind of imaginary points to win a high-school debate, simply isn't accurate. We're literally discussing potential preventable death or life long disability of our kids, just because they, or we, want them to play a sport. Again, my name will have to go on the line to allow them to play in my area. So trust me, I'm not doing this for a lark or for entertainment. Is your name going on the line to determine whether kids play in your area? Asking for a friend...

[Wise Old Man]

Just to recap where we are:

It is o.k. for my kid to go to school with 1000 people two days per week (that's half of his full school size, and they are starting out in hybrid learning).

It is o.k. for him to work 8 hour shifts at Cub grocery store and interact with people and be sure that everyone else gets groceries.

It is o.k. for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at big box stores like Target, Home Depot and Menards and interact with people and make sure that everyone else gets the supplies they need for home and home projects.

It is o.k. for for his buddies (who he will see at school) to work 8 hour shifts at restaurants like Applebees, McDonalds, Burger King, Dominos, Chik-Fil-A, Buffalo Wild Wings and others to be sure that everyone else gets to eat in or take out food when they don't want to cook.

It isn't o.k. for him and his buddies to play high school hockey (or other sports and/or activities) for themselves and their social wellness.

When working staff And at school masks are being worn, correct? are wearing masks correct? Washing hands correct? Family units do not need to use masks when together. Look at the guidance. Unless one family member(hockey pkayer) is taking high risk in which case they should have a mask. Buck up and be an ADULT. The kids should not be playing sports during a pandemic!!!!When doing high risk activities that infect others when the undo risk effects other families and the school district. That is where a free choice should end!!!!!!!!!

You guys have any sense of what your choices could effect others! At all!

Hunter, you have a choice as does everyone else. Just because you don't like the choice other are making within the guidelines that does not make you right and others wrong........Face the facts, if your kid attends school (hockey or no hockey) they greatly increase their chance of contracting the virus as a result of many discretionary activities. Many have given you many examples of these types of activities, yet you don't acknowledge those risks.... If hockey continues, that will be the only contributing factor to the spread of this disease. That is the message I am hearing from you. I guess you have the answer, shut down hockey and the virus goes away?

To further my point on activities which may be contributing to the spread, from one of the articles you link to.
"Ehresmann said the Department has received 1,086 complaints of noncompliance with executive orders in the state, with noncompliance with masking as the number one category."

Stay home and protect yourself and your family, I respect that.

"MWS"... For the record, I'm keeping my kids at home for school. I'm also not in complete agreement with "Hunters" points regarding his kids wanting to go to school and thus kids shouldn't play sports. However, I'll point out that neither you or many others seem willing to address the point that allowing kids to gather and participate in an indoor activity, which isn't truly essential (there are numerous other physical activities kids can do outside or in smaller numbers -- yes, in winter too), and which has been proven to be far more likely to promote spread versus other outdoor activities, significantly increases the risk of secondary spread to others outside of that activity. How is it you and your child should be allowed to risk the lives of others, some you've never met? Please, I'm genuinely interested in your answer to that question. That goes for the rest of you on the other side of the debate as well. Let's hear your reasoning...

[Wise Old Man]

http://kttc.com/2020/08/28/minnesota-re ... atherings/

Some good reading!

I’ll save the told you so till everything shuts down again because of people bad choices!

What's your point? There is a pandemic and social gatherings contribute to the spread?

"MWS"...pretty sure his point is... truly UNNECESSARY gatherings contribute to unnecessary spread.

[Wise Old Man]

For anyone who says we can’t fully return to normal until we develop a vaccine, we need to keep in mind that there is a real chance that day never comes. We’ve never developed a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. If that’s the case it’s not reasonable to expect society to just hole up forever. Playing hockey isn’t any more dangerous than physically attending school. I don’t have any faith that 16 year olds are going to social distance in hallways, cafeterias, gyms, or classrooms. Think back to when you were that age and remember how many pieces of safety advice you disregarded from your parents. Teens drive too fast, ride cars without seatbelts, drink, use tobacco, use social media for inappropriate reasons, and exhibit a multitude of other dangerous behaviors. You have to be recklessly naive to expect that they’ll always wear a mask and stay six feet apart from each other.

I also have to wonder why you allow your children to play hockey anyway. It wasn’t too long ago that a young man became paralyzed from what people who saw it live described as a rather innocuous play towards the end boards. Given the statistics on how the virus affects young, healthy people, that appears to be just a likely a threat and it’s always present.

If you advocate for returning to class in person, there isn’t a good reason to not allow for sports.

"Warriors"...good effort and, I agree with much of what you state regarding the fact teenagers will do risky stuff. As well as your point that if kids are returning to class, then there isn't justification for preventing them from playing sports. However, I do think I see a few "holes" in some of your other arguments.

First, your vaccine comment. You're correct that we've never developed a vaccine for a coronavirus before. And yes, it's possible we might not have a vaccine as soon as we think or, although far less likely, ever. Although, we were getting close for the original SARS virus. Nor have we ever had in the history of modern society or any complex problem, as many people and funds focused on a single issue. Considering what experts like Fauci and Osterholm are saying about their opinions on whether we'll have an effective vaccine, I think there's a darn good chance we'll have multiple vaccines available by June of next year.

Finally, yes, there is risk in playing the game. Including paralysis and, even death. However, by the time this is all done, I'm pretty confident that more kids that play sports will be affected by other life long disabilities that are a result of a Covid infection than any other type of physical disability that one "normally" gets from playing the sport. Trust me, I pray I'm wrong about that, but I doubt I will be.

[Wise Old Man]

I can't believe you guys kept me up this late.Luckily, I can sleep in this morning. See all of you tomorrow night...err, morning.

[6AAGuy]

WOM:

Your continued insistence on the 15% scenario (basically you say there’s a 15% chance a kid playing hockey (or going outside)) will get myocarditis) is flawed. Again, you’re assuming that 100% of kids playing hockey will get COVID, and 15% of those would get Myocarditis. Yet only 3% of kids that age group have tested positive for COVID.

Also, In a conversation a few weeks ago our pediatrician told me that as of about four weeks ago, they have now started standard myocarditis testing for kids who have contracted COVID, before returning to play. He referred to the NHL’s procedures as being in part responsible. I haven’t fact checked him for a written rule, but I think he suggested it was fairly standard.

As far as your concern for liability, and your fear of lawsuits against your group if some kids contract COVID, let me ask you: is that rational? When will that fear subside? When there’s a cure? When COVID is eradicated? Even if there’s a vaccine, which may be months or years away, how long until it’s issued to everyone? How long until COVID disappears from the earth? Until then, certainly, you will always be at risk of a parent suing your group if their kid catches COVID. How about the next contagious disease that comes around?

I’m afraid it appears like you are a member of a group running a program that will never be up and running again. And your leadership team will meet and have nothing to lead. No program to run.

But I will give you this—by shutting the doors on your program until the world is free from COViD you will have a 100% chance that no kid ever gets sick again at a hockey rink. Then you can still meet and discuss how good a job you’ve done at keeping kids safe!

[WestMetro]

After making world peace with Wise Man several times , I’m officially signing off this thread!

I will see you all at Saint Thomas 4.30 today for the Bantam elite minors league championship game, featuring possibly one the best 2007s in the country , Cullen Potter of Team Wisconsin .

PS I have found out I need to bring three masks per game to Saint Thomas Ice Arena , it is such a cold rink that breathing tends to crystallize up on the mask over the course of an hour and a half.

[InThePipes]

I’m officially signing off this thread!

The only wise statement in this thread over the last couple of days is the statement above.

[Wise Old Man]

WOM:

Your continued insistence on the 15% scenario (basically you say there’s a 15% chance a kid playing hockey (or going outside)) will get myocarditis) is flawed. Again, you’re assuming that 100% of kids playing hockey will get COVID, and 15% of those would get Myocarditis. Yet only 3% of kids that age group have tested positive for COVID.

Also, In a conversation a few weeks ago our pediatrician told me that as of about four weeks ago, they have now started standard myocarditis testing for kids who have contracted COVID, before returning to play. He referred to the NHL’s procedures as being in part responsible. I haven’t fact checked him for a written rule, but I think he suggested it was fairly standard.

As far as your concern for liability, and your fear of lawsuits against your group if some kids contract COVID, let me ask you: is that rational? When will that fear subside? When there’s a cure? When COVID is eradicated? Even if there’s a vaccine, which may be months or years away, how long until it’s issued to everyone? How long until COVID disappears from the earth? Until then, certainly, you will always be at risk of a parent suing your group if their kid catches COVID. How about the next contagious disease that comes around?

I’m afraid it appears like you are a member of a group running a program that will never be up and running again. And your leadership team will meet and have nothing to lead. No program to run.

But I will give you this—by shutting the doors on your program until the world is free from COViD you will have a 100% chance that no kid ever gets sick again at a hockey rink. Then you can still meet and discuss how good a job you’ve done at keeping kids safe!

6AA... If your pediatrician said a post-Covid myocarditis test is becoming standard then that is very good news. I genuinely hope that's true. Also, you are correct that the appropriate way to look at the post Covid infection risks of the other maladies -- we'll use your example of mtocarditis -- is 15% of those who become infected. I stand corrected. And, that certainly changes the dynamic of my "15% question". However, my research indicates that children are now 9% of the total cases nationwide, versus the 3% you provided. Here's part of an NPR story from Aug. 11:

"Since the beginning of the pandemic, at least 340,000 children have tested positive for the coronavirus, representing roughly 9% of U.S. cases to date. The rise in child cases, according to the report, was largely fueled by states in the South and West, including Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, Montana and Alaska."


"Data from South Korea suggest that children younger than 10 may not spread the disease easily, but that teenagers do — perhaps as effectively as adults. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers another cautionary tale, for schools considering reopening: In late June, the disease spread quickly among staff and children at a Georgia sleepaway camp. In a matter of days, at least 260 campers and teen staffers tested positive. Interestingly, of the campers tested, the youngest campers, ages 6 to 10, had the highest infection rate: Fifty-one percent tested positive."

Obviously, based on how quickly a number of schools in the South that opened just after this article was written, had positive cases occur, I think it's safe to say that it will occur in most situations that allow kids back in the buildings. Personally, I think we've had significantly more kids get infected at the various hockey camps and tournaments (especially the tournaments) than has been confirmed through positive tests. Because kids are generally asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, I just don't think that the parents of players who don't feel Covid is a big deal -- probably (and especially) a significant number of the parents of kids who allow their kids to play in these bigger tournaments -- are getting their kids tested, even if their kids are mildly symptomatic.

Also, according to the CDC, of the kids under 18 who are admitted to the hospital, 1 in 3 end up in the ICU. As for your question whether it's rational for our group to be concerned about liability related to Covid and, when will our "fear" subside; my answer is when we have a legitimate vaccine. Which, literally almost every medical expert involved with this virus is saying will happen by early spring or June at the latest.

Now, IF we were to get unlucky and for some reason it was determined that we wouldn't have a vaccine until June of 2022, then yes, one's perspective and approach would need to change. However, I've been told by people I trust in the insurance business that, by that point, there would be Covid liability policies available. To me, this is highly likely to be a very temporary thing from a youth sports perspective. So, why not take the cautious route if it's very likely to be a single season? I think we would all be really surprised if we just did a season of truly ADM practices, with minimal kids on the ice, possibly including a fair amount of half-ice 3 on 3, how much skill development and improvement in skating we would see. Trust me, as long as MH/USA Hockey say it's OK to push forward, we will have a program. But, I and a few others in our group will continue to push for our greater group to keep the potential liability in mind. Anyway, thanks for your well reasoned response. Much appreciated.

[Wise Old Man]

After making world peace with Wise Man several times , I’m officially signing off this thread!

I will see you all at Saint Thomas 4.30 today for the Bantam elite minors league championship game, featuring possibly one the best 2007s in the country , Cullen Potter of Team Wisconsin .

PS I have found out I need to bring three masks per game to Saint Thomas Ice Arena , it is such a cold rink that breathing tends to crystallize up on the mask over the course of an hour and a half.

Westy... I hope you'll be back on this particular thread but, if not, thanks for participating. Stay warm at St. Thomas and maybe someday you and I can have a beer together.

[Wise Old Man]

New Study out of South Korea. Here's the link to the article;

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/health/k ... _term=link

Children can carry coronavirus in their noses and throats for weeks even if they don't show any symptoms, which might explain how the virus can spread silently, researchers in South Korea reported Friday.

"In this case series study, inapparent infections in children may have been associated with silent COVID-19 transmission in the community," the researchers wrote in a new study."

""In this study, the authors estimate that 85 infected children (93%) would have been missed using a testing strategy focused on testing of symptomatic patients alone," they wrote."

[blueblood]

Here’s a study for you:

MN tier 1 has been going since the week of July 13th

[ClassAGuy]

Here’s a study for you:

MN tier 1 has been going since the week of July 13th

Not sure that is gonna hold up. I am sure you would even understand a league that meets for a few practices and plays some games on the weekend mainly while school has been out of session is not gonna give us a great indiction on things.

The Key will be this fall once school gets rolling and flu season hits.

No matter what the High School season will be getting reduced I think even you and your staff at Tonka are preparing for that.

The question becomes how much will get cut and will there be the travel restrictions like in soccer.

I have faith we will have hockey just its gonna be shortened and as to how much it does I think is where MN Hockey steps in.

Hoping for the best but I think for sure we have hocey just will it be a shell of season like soccer or will we see a few restrictions and game cuts but not a total change.

MSHSL has already cut a few sports seasons down meaning they will do it to all of them just how it works.

Who knows though but interesting discussions! Hoping for a middle ground approach unlike what you read on here. We are most likely not gonna just play the season liek its scheduled and I don't see it getting canceled there will be a middle ground and where that as and how much gets cut is what we should be talking about more.