General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[KINGS17]

You can keep saying that, but everyone can read your posts. You realize that right?

Everyone can read them, apparently you don't comprehend my posts. You seem to be incapable of presenting a logical, well-reasoned argument on most anything.

I doubt little will change in regards to a vaccine by September when training camps are set to open in the NHL. Without a proven vaccine nothing will have changed in regards to the possibility of the virus spreading.

This portion of your recent post is particularly ridiculous, but seems to be one of your favorite tactics when you don't comprehend what others have posted.

Also good to know that people aren't people anymore once they turn 45 or if they happen to have an underlying condition. f*** 'em , I guess eh "land of the free, home of the brave"?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I personally don't think it's as large of an issue in a controlled environment like the nhl proposes, but it's worth pointing out it's not just players--there are a lot of coaches and other nhl staff that are in the risk groups. Most of the coaches are in their 50s and 60s.

 

[Bandit]

Everyone can read them, apparently you don't comprehend my posts. You seem to be incapable of presenting a logical, well-reasoned argument on most anything.

I doubt little will change in regards to a vaccine by September when training camps are set to open in the NHL. Without a proven vaccine nothing will have changed in regards to the possibility of the virus spreading.

This portion of your recent post is particularly ridiculous, but seems to be one of your favorite tactics when you don't comprehend what others have posted.

I can comprehend just fine, there's nothing to reason with when you don't acknowledge basic realities like we learn more as time goes on. You continue to talk about the NHL as if it's only the players, and as if coaches and support staff are optional and can just stay home "if they feel uncomfortable." You also subscribe to the fantasy that everyone involved, and their families, are going to remain perfectly quarantined during all of this.

Do you think Jay Boumeester was aware of his pre existing condition? How about Rich Peverly, Jiri Fischer? Or would they just be acceptable losses? A number on a spreadsheet and not an actual person with an actual life? All for the benefit of your entertainment.

 

[Bandit]

I personally don't think it's as large of an issue in a controlled environment like the nhl proposes, but it's worth pointing out it's not just players--there are a lot of coaches and other nhl staff that are in the risk groups. Most of the coaches are in their 50s and 60s.

I've said that countless times, but I guess I can't comprehend or make a logical argument. This is especially true if you're going to introduce families into the mix:

"Hey Timmy, I know you're only 2 but wear your mask and don't lick that doorknob!" Good f***ing luck.

 

[Master Yoda]

I've said that countless times, but I guess I can't comprehend or make a logical argument. This is especially true if you're going to introduce families into the mix:

"Hey Timmy, I know you're only 2 but wear your mask and don't lick that doorknob!" Good f***ing luck.

Will we learn more about the virus in 3-4 months? Probably.
Do we already know enough to make this decision? Many will argue yes.

In the next few months, yes, the numbers could change. Yes, we could be closer to a viable treatment. Yes, we might know more about how the virus spreads (but again arguably we already know a lot).

And also in the next few months, no, the risk won't disappear. No, we can't expect that nobody will be infected. No, we can't guarantee that none of the players have an unknown pre-existing condition. And no, we can't guarantee that a player won't die in a traffic accident on the way to a game.

Knowing more about the virus probably won't change the fact that we still have to keep 2 year olds from licking the door knob.

 

[KINGS17]

I can comprehend just fine, there's nothing to reason with when you don't acknowledge basic realities like we learn more as time goes on. You continue to talk about the NHL as if it's only the players, and as if coaches and support staff are optional and can just stay home "if they feel uncomfortable." You also subscribe to the fantasy that everyone involved, and their families, are going to remain perfectly quarantined during all of this.

Do you think Jay Boumeester was aware of his pre existing condition? How about Rich Peverly, Jiri Fischer? Or would they just be acceptable losses? A number on a spreadsheet and not an actual person with an actual life? All for the benefit of your entertainment.

Again, you failed to read and understand. What I posted was the players, coaches, and staff, or anyone else the players come in contact with would be required to be isolated (back and forth from the rink to a hotel with no other guests). If there are coaches or staff who are high-risk individuals, then those high-risk individuals should not be part of the group in direct contact with the players during the playoffs.

I can understand why some players would not find this kind of isolation acceptable, and in such a case they should vote to cancel the season and to not return to play the next season until they feel adequately protected. I also posted that I doubt many players would vote to cancel the playoffs. If any player votes to play, they must be serial geriatric killers, amiright?

Your argument regarding players with unknown health conditions is part of the risk all of us take by living our lives. Just another in a long line of over the top BS responses from you.

 

[crassbonanza]

Dr. Iaoaniddis had a great article today regarding the lock down and how we got to where we are: The Totality of the Evidence

It is definitely worth a read.

 

[KINGS17]

Will we learn more about the virus in 3-4 months? Probably.
Do we already know enough to make this decision? Many will argue yes.

In the next few months, yes, the numbers could change. Yes, we could be closer to a viable treatment. Yes, we might know more about how the virus spreads (but again arguably we already know a lot).

And also in the next few months, no, the risk won't disappear. No, we can't expect that nobody will be infected. No, we can't guarantee that none of the players have an unknown pre-existing condition. And no, we can't guarantee that a player won't die in a traffic accident on the way to a game.

Knowing more about the virus probably won't change the fact that we still have to keep 2 year olds from licking the door knob.

@Bandit 's whole argument is, "We don't know, what we don't know." Yet we know the demographics of those most at risk, we know almost everyone under the age of 65 without serious underlying health conditions who becomes infected will survive.

 

[Bandit]

Your argument regarding players with unknown health conditions is part of the risk all of us take by living our lives. Just another in a long line of over the top BS responses from you.

I knew you were gonna fall back to this bulllshit. You acting like the risk of a shark attack is the same going for a dip in the Pacific vs. cutting open your wrist and jumping into a tank with a Great White is patently absurd. Knock yourself out.

 

[KINGS17]

I knew you were gonna fall back to this bulllshit. You acting like the risk of a shark attack is the same going for a dip in the Pacific vs. cutting open your wrist and jumping into a tank with a Great White is patently absurd. Knock yourself out.

You cited what three or four players over the last 25 years? Yeah, I knocked you out.

 

[crassbonanza]

I knew you were gonna fall back to this bulllshit. You acting like the risk of a shark attack is the same going for a dip in the Pacific vs. cutting open your wrist and jumping into a tank with a Great White is patently absurd. Knock yourself out.

The latest CDC estimates are showing an IFR of ~.03 for anyone under the age of 50. Initially we believed this was far deadlier, which is why we took so many precautions. At the time the belief was a 3+% IFR, but we are finding that this disease is not extremely deadly for the average population. For nursing homes on the other hand, this disease is very dangerous.

I don't believe the NHL or any sports league would be moving forward if there was significant danger to the players. The optics right now would be horrible, I think the NHL has looked at the numbers and realized that this is not likely to put anyone in harm. Nevermind the fact that the disease is acting like every other upper respiratory disease and fading away as summer approaches.

 

[Bandit]

You cited what three or four players over the last 25 years? Yeah, I knocked you out.

I think you are acting like Covid 19 is a death sentence. The latest CDC estimates are showing an IFR of ~.03 for anyone under the age of 50. I

Initially we believed this was far deadlier, which is why we took so many precautions. The initial belief was a 3+% IFR, but we are finding that this disease is not very deadly for the average population. For nursing homes on the other hand, this disease is very dangerous.

No, it's very much not a guaranteed death sentence. I'm merely stating that despite what Cassius Clay wants to pretend, there are varying degrees of risk in life, and acting as if there isn't is just plain wrong.

 

[Lt Dan]

, I knocked you out.

this is all I see when I read that

 

[KINGS17]

The latest CDC estimates are showing an IFR of ~.03 for anyone under the age of 50. Initially we believed this was far deadlier, which is why we took so many precautions. At the time the belief was a 3+% IFR, but we are finding that this disease is not extremely deadly for the average population. For nursing homes on the other hand, this disease is very dangerous.

I don't believe the NHL or any sports league would be moving forward if there was significant danger to the players. The optics right now would be horrible, I think the NHL has looked at the numbers and realized that this is not likely to put anyone in harm. Nevermind the fact that the disease is acting like every other upper respiratory disease and fading away as summer approaches.

If you are an owner, and had Ken Hitchcock as your coach, and the COVID-19 pandemic occurred, then I think the owner would be justified to tell Hitch he better sit this one out, and one of the assistant coaches will take over behind the bench for the playoffs.

 

[jfont]

Speaking of lockdowns.. Here's a report on how well Mongolia did. Yes, Mongolia!

 

[KINGS17]

I personally don't think it's as large of an issue in a controlled environment like the nhl proposes, but it's worth pointing out it's not just players--there are a lot of coaches and other nhl staff that are in the risk groups. Most of the coaches are in their 50s and 60s.

There are indeed coaches and staff who are high-risk, so they should refrain from participating. The risk increases in the 50s and 60s, but if a person is healthy, I wouldn't consider them to be high-risk.

 

[KINGS17]

No, it's very much not a guaranteed death sentence. I'm merely stating that despite what Cassius Clay wants to pretend, there are varying degrees of risk in life, and acting as if there isn't is just plain wrong.

Hey Sonny Liston, I never said there are not varying degrees of risk. There's that nasty comprehension problem again.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The latest CDC estimates are showing an IFR of ~.03 for anyone under the age of 50. Initially we believed this was far deadlier, which is why we took so many precautions. At the time the belief was a 3+% IFR, but we are finding that this disease is not extremely deadly for the average population. For nursing homes on the other hand, this disease is very dangerous.

I don't believe the NHL or any sports league would be moving forward if there was significant danger to the players. The optics right now would be horrible, I think the NHL has looked at the numbers and realized that this is not likely to put anyone in harm. Nevermind the fact that the disease is acting like every other upper respiratory disease and fading away as summer approaches.

On one hand, great! It isn't as deadly as we thought. On the other, that means it's far more infectious than we thought, and that despite rates of death, we saved lots of lives by acting how we did.

But this is also a self-own for the crowd who hates projections, because this is based on...well, you know the rest. That's saying I like favorable projections but reject unfavorable projections. We don't believe the CDC, now we believe the CDC. Etc.

Nothing wrong with being a bit malleable as we're all working with shit data as usual, but the end-to-end flip-flopping over either partisan measures or favorable narratives is transparent.

 

[King'sPawn]

Ultimately, my point is people will take higher risks on protocol or number fudging in the name of winning a championship, while these policies and procedures are hammered out in the name of the economy and revenue.

I fully concede nothing may change and people may still die as a result of best laid plans.

I just don't think the risk of damage, life, or optics are worth trying to salvage the season.

The time can be spent to review options and policies, and perhaps write up different response scenarios for future crises. And preseason is always the best time to try out changes. More resources for physical and psychological health can be prepared and provided.

Even with the perfect plan, the months of players not being fit and competing in intense playoff hockey runs a much greater risk of injury.

I understand injuries happen, but we really shouldn't be flippant about how they be treated.

The NHL was not prepared for this, and that's okay. I just think that in their rush, corners will be cut. I worry people (whether it's players, personnel, or staff at facilities and hotels) will unnecessarily suffer as a result of those corners. And I frankly expect more sensitivity towards that possibility.

 

[crassbonanza]

On one hand, great! It isn't as deadly as we thought. On the other, that means it's far more infectious than we thought, and that despite rates of death, we saved lots of lives by acting how we did.

We do not know if we saved any lives. Did we cure the disease with the lockdown? Did we delay the disease with the lockdown? Are we going to stay locked down until a vaccine is cured? Did we kill a lot more people than we saved with the lockdown?

Most reproduction trends(actual data not projections) show that the virus had already started declining before lockdown measures were put in place. The health minister of Norway believes that they likely could have achived the same success without a lockdown: https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/no...olled-infection-without-lockdown-health-chief

But this is also a self-own for the crowd who hates projections, because this is based on...well, you know the rest. That's saying I like favorable projections but reject unfavorable projections. We don't believe the CDC, now we believe the CDC. Etc.

This is not projections though. This is modeling from data we have. Not from data we predict. I don't know why you are so hung up on this aspect. The Imperial model code has been ripped to shreds in the community, to the point where he refuses to release the full code to the public. He also used data that was withdrawn from the medical community prior to his use(which is where the extremely high IFR data he used came from). Even if these were projection models, it does not mean that we have to accept all models. If someone puts together a model that is shit, then it can be questioned as many people did regarding the Imperial model.

If you get a chance, you should read the article I linked above by Dr. Ioaniddis, where he discusses projections.

Nothing wrong with being a bit malleable as we're all working with shit data as usual, but the end-to-end flip-flopping over either partisan measures or favorable narratives is transparent.

What flip flopping? Are you discussing me changing opinions? I have changed my opinion on the whole subject, I initially understood the concept behind "bending the curve". That makes sense to me, we do not want to overwhelm our healthcare system because that could lead to additional deaths. However, I did not agree with the lockdown until the disease is eradicated concept, especially when all of the numbers are painting this disease as significantly less dangerous than we initially thought. I do not believe we will ever be able to eradicate a disease through a lockdown in a globalist society. Sure if we were an island that never interacted with the outside world it is possible, but we are not.

Also, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and am registered blue. As far as I know most democrats are big supporters of the lockdown, so I don't think I am being partisan with my opinions.

 

[KINGS17]

On one hand, great! It isn't as deadly as we thought. On the other, that means it's far more infectious than we thought, and that despite rates of death, we saved lots of lives by acting how we did.

But this is also a self-own for the crowd who hates projections, because this is based on...well, you know the rest. That's saying I like favorable projections but reject unfavorable projections. We don't believe the CDC, now we believe the CDC. Etc.

Nothing wrong with being a bit malleable as we're all working with shit data as usual, but the end-to-end flip-flopping over either partisan measures or favorable narratives is transparent.

It is the models projecting a number of deaths far exceeding reality which were the problem. I think we all agreed early on the number of cases were drastically understated.

 

[Lt Dan]

0 deaths in OC again today

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

We do not know if we saved any lives. Did we cure the disease with the lockdown? Did we delay the disease with the lockdown? Are we going to stay locked down until a vaccine is cured? Did we kill a lot more people than we saved with the lockdown?

So we don't know those things until we measure them, correct? Are you saying we can't reach that conclusion until we test people for antibodies? At what point are you willing to accept that what we did saved lives?

Because if you cannot accept that assumption, you cannot possibly accept the data extrapolation you suggest without testing the entire population.

I think it's a safe assumption we've saved lives based on the premise you propose (which as you point out are CDC estimates) because for the disease to not be so deadly that means it was even more infectious. Ergo, shutting down huge public gatherings being productive SHOULD be a safe assumption.

Most reproduction trends(actual data not projections) show that the virus had already started declining before lockdown measures were put in place. The health minister of Norway believes that they likely could have achived the same success without a lockdown: https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/no...olled-infection-without-lockdown-health-chief

Sure. And Sweden's herd immunity experiment isn't working as planned either, given they've only achieved 7% of such and have suffered far greater deaths than their lockdown scandanavian neighbors.

Stockholm Won't Reach Herd Immunity In May, Sweden's Chief Epidemiologist Says

I guess it's maybe just coincidence, but I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor.

This is not projections though. This is modeling from data we have. Not from data we predict. I don't know why you are so hung up on this aspect. The Imperial model code has been ripped to shreds in the community, to the point where he refuses to release the full code to the public. He also used data that was withdrawn from the medical community prior to his use(which is where the extremely high IFR data he used came from). Even if these were projection models, it does not mean that we have to accept all models. If someone puts together a model that is shit, then it can be questioned as many people did regarding the Imperial model.

If you get a chance, you should read the article I linked above by Dr. Ioaniddis, where he discusses projections.

You're right--I'm extremely hung up on this aspect because it's selective absorption. The Imperial model is a red herring at this point. We're talking about models based on data available up-to-the-day and I'm grumpy as f*** that people are accepting as gospel, for example, CDC PROJECTIONS (whatever euphemism you want to use for them, I frankly don't care), when not even a month ago the discourse here was that 'you can't trust models.'

Again, malleability is important. I'm not faulting people for changing their tunes per se because as I said before we're all on a bad data ride together and just trying to make sense of what we get. But I have to call out confirmation bias. It drives me up the wall.

What flip flopping? Are you discussing me changing opinions? I have changed my opinion on the whole subject, I initially understood the concept behind "bending the curve". That makes sense to me, we do not want to overwhelm our healthcare system because that could lead to additional deaths. However, I did not agree with the lockdown until the disease is eradicated concept, especially when all of the numbers are painting this disease as significantly less dangerous than we initially thought.

Also, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and am registered blue. As far as I know most democrats are big supporters of the lockdown, so I don't think I am being partisan with my opinions.

Not you in particular. I just notice a very large anti-projection crowd suddenly being pro-data-modeling when it's fitting their desired outcomes, even despite the existence of contrary data-based narratives (i.e. Sweden example above). People are picking and choosing study outcomes like they're buffet items with no skepticism at all and disregarding the rest with cynicism.

The reality is we're getting conflicting data and narratives from a variety of places with partisan tinges depending on state and we're STILL not testing enough to have such certainty in our assumptions. I think most people are on board with 'proceed cautiously,' but it's like there's a camp trying to prove caution is stupid (see: security guard getting killed for asking someone to wear a mask).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It is the models projecting a number of deaths far exceeding reality which were the problem. I think we all agreed early on the number of cases were drastically understated.

To paraphrase Fauci, if it looks like we overreacted, we did our job. I don't expect everyone to agree with that, and that's fine. But those models were based on what we knew at the time, which was next to nothing other than this is extremely infectious--without knowing the possible death rate, and for a while it was looking as high as 10%, the actions were taken to mitigate the spread. Now, knowing (guesstimating, really) it's actually MORE infectious, less deadly, is that really a problem? There's a reason opening is accelerating.

 

[crassbonanza]

So we don't know those things until we measure them, correct? Are you saying we can't reach that conclusion until we test people for antibodies? At what point are you willing to accept that what we did saved lives?

Because if you cannot accept that assumption, you cannot possibly accept the data extrapolation you suggest without testing the entire population.

I think it's a safe assumption we've saved lives based on the premise you propose (which as you point out are CDC estimates) because for the disease to not be so deadly that means it was even more infectious. Ergo, shutting down huge public gatherings being productive SHOULD be a safe assumption.

So, what was the purpose of the lockdown in your opinion? What goal did it achieve? What goal did it succeed at? If you argue that it saved lives through slowing the spread, then do you think it is magically just going to go away? or do you think we are going to have to stay locked down until we find and distribute a vaccine? You can't say something saved lives until the virus has run it's course, because the purpose of the lockdown was to lengthen the period of activity.

Sure. And Sweden's herd immunity experiment isn't working as planned either, given they've only achieved 7% of such and have suffered far greater deaths than their lockdown scandanavian neighbors.

Stockholm Won't Reach Herd Immunity In May, Sweden's Chief Epidemiologist Says

I guess it's maybe just coincidence, but I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor.

So, it seems your argument here is the opposite. They have the same amount of exposure as the other countries that did lock down? Doesn't that mean that the lockdowns were not effective if the virus still spread the same?

As a side note, Sweden already admitted to their mistakes. ~80% of their deaths were from nursing homes, they did not do a good enough job protecting them and suffered because of it.

You're right--I'm extremely hung up on this aspect because it's selective absorption. The Imperial model is a red herring at this point. We're talking about models based on data available up-to-the-day and I'm grumpy as f*** that people are accepting as gospel, for example, CDC PROJECTIONS (whatever euphemism you want to use for them, I frankly don't care), when not even a month ago the discourse here was that 'you can't trust models.'

Again, malleability is important. I'm not faulting people for changing their tunes per se because as I said before we're all on a bad data ride together and just trying to make sense of what we get. But I have to call out confirmation bias. It drives me up the wall.

Haha, selective bias on my part, but the Imperial model is a red herring? That model was THE key model that caused this entire reaction and it had been questioned from the start, except anyone who did was silenced.

I also take it you didn't read the article I linked(which is fine, but it is a good read), but it talks about evidence based medicine vs projection based medicine. Ferguson's projection model is the only one I ahve discussed I believe and there are plenty of reasons not to trust it.

You should trust data we have today much more than data we had 2 months ago, opinions should change as we gain more information. If you are stuck on your opinion regarding a novel virus and don't adapt as we understand it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Not you in particular. I just notice a very large anti-projection crowd suddenly being pro-data-modeling when it's fitting their desired outcomes, even despite the existence of contrary data-based narratives (i.e. Sweden example above). People are picking and choosing study outcomes like they're buffet items with no skepticism at all and disregarding the rest with cynicism.

I mentioned this a while back when we talked, but I work with models every day, but for material analysis. There is a significant difference between projection models and data driven models and I don't think they should be confused.

Projection models have value, but should not be considered gospel. Data driven models are much more accurate.