MWS coach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:33 pm
<r>Okay, I'll bite! <E>:lol:</E> <br/>
<br/>
First on the topic of why I think it is okay to have my son play hockey. For about two months when this all started, we as a family stayed home as was recommended. Kids didn't go to friends and friends weren't allowed to come over. I am fortunate to be able to work from home so I did. My wife didn't have that option, as such she continued to serve lunches from the school so those that chose to drive thru the school to pick up free lunches. I left the house a few times during those couple of months only to go to the grocery store and when I went I filled up the cart to limit trips. On those trips, I wore a mask (long before mandated), but if by chance it could help prevent me from contracting the virus, or if I was infected, spreading it to others worth wearing one. I didn't wear one because I read something somewhere, but simply thought, wearing a mask may or may not help but if it does happen to help good. If it doesn't help, I wasn't that big of a deal to wear one. <br/>
<br/>
As restrictions started to ease, we eased our restrictions in line with the recommendations. Yes, allowed kids to visit friends and allowed friends to come over(minimally). When the rinks opened back up, yes our kids started to skate again training within the restrictions as allowed. When games/scrimmages started to be allowed, yes they participated in those. When restaurants started to open back up (patio only) we did go out to one once. When indoor dining was also an option, we also dined indoors. Now the frequency in which we choose to do this has been much less then pre-covid and typically we choose outdoor dining. <br/>
<br/>
Now here we are today and yes, kids are training, playing in games, attending Jr Camps, playing in tournaments. Back to normal hockey, well not really as there are restrictions at each and every rink from number of spectators (if any), not using locker rooms, to getting temperature checked, to getting dressed in the parking lot, to no handshake at the end of the game. So yes game is being played, but I really wouldn't call it 100% normal.<br/>
<br/>
As long as rinks are open and MDH allows games to be played, I don't see an issue with allowing my kids to play. I don't think that makes me a crazy hockey dad trying to relive the dreams of my youth and certainly doesn't mean I think hockey is more important then education. We have basically followed guidelines as mandated, thus playing hockey as permitted goes right in line with following guideline when they did nothing. Does it create potential additional risk of contracting virus. YES, but that risk is increased every time we walk out of the house and anytime we are exposed to others. Now if you think everything should be shut down, okay, I respect your opinion on that, but that is not the case now and I don't agree with saying only youth sports are what causes additional risks.<br/>
<br/>
As far as a separate school for hockey players, I would be fine with that if that is the ONLY activity causing additional risks to student who choose to attend school (all have option of choosing online only). True story, a couple of weeks ago was waiting for game to start and allowed to go into rink at NW Suburban rink. Where I was parked, I was watching skateboarders at the skate park. There was about 25 "kids" at the park of which I would guess about 15-20 being high school age. There were three boys off to the side standing under a tree. They were smoking a joint and passing it between them. I watch one of the kids coughing as he exhaled and cover his mouth with his hand. A few minutes later they were on the ramps "boarding" or whatever it is called, the kid I watched cough into his hand puts his hands behind him on a railing on the back of the ramp. I watched him, he never sanitized. I tell this story as I would suspect this kid could easily spread the virus to those he was around and anyone who touched that railing. High school kid doing risky activity that just may infect any kid in his class. High School kids are going to do all kinds of things that will potentially spread the virus among classmates, not just athletics. At least with athletics we know they are under supervision and while restrictions may or may not help in stopping the spread, at least there is an attempt to stop the spread, unlike many other activities or conduct. </r>
So here's an analogy I would use:
it is a snowy day (a dusting, not a blizzard) and we are both driving down a one lane highway where the speed limit is 55 and the minimum is 40. You are in front of me going 40 as you don't feel comfortable driving in snow. Okay, good you should only drive as fast as you are comfortable driving given the conditions. I being a little more comfortable driving in snow decide to pass you in a passing zone at a speed of 50. I pass you without incident and continue to drive at 50 to my destination. Are either of us in the wrong? No. Did I create additional risk to you and myself by passing you? Yes, of course, the less risky scenario would have been for me to follow you at 40 as an accident could have been caused by me passing you and I created additional risk by driving 10 MPH faster. I choose to take on some additional risk by passing you which in turn created additional risk for you, however I did nothing wrong, didn't break any laws and simply did a permitted activity. Overly simplified, yes, but in principle the same as choosing to play hockey as long as permitted and it really shouldn't matter who the organization is running it.
Unfortunately, people are going to contract the virus. If you want zero chance of contracting the virus, go on lock down as that is really the only way to prevent it. Do some activities create additional risk of contraction, yes. While one activity may be deemed to high of risk for one, that is not the same for all. I respect each opinion on what your risk tolerance is. It only takes the right (or wrong) person to have an interaction with or touch a surface they infected to catch the virus.
"MWS"... First, very well stated and reasoned post. Very much appreciated. Based on your description about how you and your family chose to deal with the virus early on -- obviously not being a "denier" of some sort -- you seem to be dealing with the situation in a very deliberate and considered manner. Nor do I think you're a "crazy" hockey dad just because you've allowed your son to play this summer. To be honest, if the rink your player is skating at is following all of the CDC/MDH guidelines, and it's a skills development type camp where there isn't any significant contact between the players, then there was probably very low risk, especially earlier in the summer, right after the rinks re-opened. I even allowed my two players to participate in those types of camps. However, I wasn't comfortable having them play games, especially in any type of tournament situation. Having said that, allow me to address a few of your points.
First, in the last two months I've had conversations with two different individuals at the Minnesota Department of Health in regards to questions I had about some of the rationale for certain policies regarding youth sports and return to play. During both conversations -- two different people but both in the top of the department's food chain -- I asked point blank if they were willing to share their personal opinions about whether they felt there was a significant difference in risk in playing a team sport outside versus inside. Both stated that despite the official position of the department, they believed that the science indicated that team sports played outside were considerably safer than those played indoors. However, they both acknowledged a greater risk for soccer, lacrosse, and football. Especially football due to the number of players with consistent, sustained and direct physical contact on a regular basis.
When I asked what they felt the difference in risk was between the outdoor and indoor sports, both were emphatic that it was significantly higher indoors. I asked both of them if they had kids (one male and one female). One didn't and the other did but they were in their 20's. I asked if they would let their kids play indoor team sports and both strongly indicated they would not, especially considering it had been determined that the virus was infectious in an aerosolized state. I asked why the health department hadn't put much stronger restrictions/precautions on the indoor sports. 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.
However, according to the health department person, they told Walz that since the virus hadn't really entered the youth population to any degree yet, it probably wouldn't show itself as an issue until later in the summer and, the "outbreaks" that happened might not seem as bad as many of those kids would be asymptomatic. They also told Walz that if the kids were back in the schools, even part time, to expect much more significant outbreaks in the gyms/rinks by late September or mid-October. This is a big reason why I've taken the stance on this whole topic that I have.
"MWS", in response to your specific comment that every time someone leaves their house or is exposed to others, that there's an increased risk of catching the virus; yes, that statement on its' face is correct. However, the science clearly indicates -- and our own health department agrees with this -- that playing sports indoors comes with a significantly higher risk than doing so outdoors. And, they feel that as we get into the fall and more and more kids are together, those indoor situations will become even more risky. Let me emphasize I respect the way you and your family has approached your player's summer hockey activity. You've obviously conducted yourselves within the guidelines in place.
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. Still, you are completely accurate in your point that high school kids in general are simply going to participate in higher risk activity. It's just a fact. As for my opinion on whether we should "shut down" again; well, again I'll link to a New York Times Op-Ed by Michael Osterholm and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opin ... death.html
"We believe the choice is clear. We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown, state by state, for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day."
"And, the next six months could make what we have experienced so far seem like just a warm-up to a greater catastrophe. With many schools and colleges starting, stores and businesses reopening, and the beginning of the indoor heating season, new case numbers will grow quickly. Why did the United States’ Covid-19 containment response fail, particularly compared with the successful results of so many nations in Asia, Europe and even our neighbor Canada?
Simply, we gave up on our lockdown efforts to control virus transmission well before the virus was under control."
"The United States recorded its lowest seven-day average since March 31 on May 28, when it was 21,000 cases, or 6.4 new cases per 100,000 people per day. This rate was seven to 10 times higher than the rates in countries that successfully contained their new infections. In contrast, the United States reopened too quickly and is now experiencing around 50,000 or more new cases per day. At this level of national cases — 17 new cases per 100,000 people per day — we simply don’t have the public health tools to bring the pandemic under control."
"To successfully drive down our case rate to less than one per 100,000 people per day, we should mandate sheltering in place for everyone but the truly essential workers. By that, we mean people must stay at home and leave only for essential reasons: food shopping and visits to doctors and pharmacies while wearing masks and washing hands frequently. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 39 percent of workers in the United States are in essential categories. The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential. To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible.
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus"
"We know that a stringent lockdown can have serious health consequences for patients who can’t get access to routine care. But over the past six months, medical professionals have learned how to protect patients and staffs from spreading the coronavirus; therefore we should be able to maintain access to regular medical care during any new lockdown."
"This pandemic is deeply unfair. Millions of low-wage, front-line service workers have lost their jobs or been put in harm’s way, while most higher-wage, white-collar workers have been spared. But it is even more unfair than that; those of us who’ve kept our jobs are actually saving more money because we aren’t going out to restaurants or movies, or on vacations. Unlike in prior recessions, remarkably, the personal savings rate has soared to 20 percent from around 8 percent in January. Because we are saving more, we have the resources to support those who have been laid off. Typically when the government runs deficits, it must rely on foreign investors to buy the debt because Americans aren’t generating enough savings to fund it. But we can finance the added deficits for Covid-19 relief from our own domestic savings. Those savings end up funding investment in the economy. That’s why traditional concerns about racking up too much government debt do not apply in this situation. It is much safer for a country to fund its deficits domestically than from abroad."
So, MWS, do I want to "lock down" again? Not really. 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 know I don't. So, I figure it's probably a good idea to listen to them. Obviously, despite there well-reasoned logic, we all know that another lock down isn't happening until January at the earliest. And, there's no guarantee then either. Also, I certainly haven't argued that only youth sports are causing increased risk. Nor do I feel others on here have.
With all due respect MWS, your winter driving "risk" analogy is extremely weak. Why? your decision to pass in that situation only affects you and the other driver. We already know from numerous studies that the majority of actual infection and spread is the result of super-spreader events. They just finished a new study about the bio-gen conference in Boston that occurred very early in March and concluded that that event was responsible for at least 20,000 total infections! And, I will say it AGAIN...YES, we all understand that younger kids are very unlikely to have a "bad" outcome regarding actual symptoms/sickness/death.
However, and as I demonstrated in a recent post, there is new evidence that as many as 15% of the BIG10 athletes who were infected, a number of them asymptomatic, have developed myocarditis. And, that isn't the only significant/serious post-infection malady. There are significant numbers of people who have developed serious lung scarring that, although may not affect younger people in the near future who experience that issue, will likely become a legitimate disability when they reach their 40s and 50s or older.
Since no one has answered my question from my earlier post today, I'll ask it again...
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, possibly die of a heart attack, would you let them out of the house? Especially if you knew that within 6 months, there would be a vaccine that would likely reduce their chance of the same issues down to almost zero?
I respectfully await an answer.
ready.....
Wait a minute, that's right, Jared told us he's got that one covered. 