Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

remkin

Administrators
  • Content Count

    19,170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    134

About remkin

  • Rank
    Carolina Hurricanes Admin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,476 profile views
  1. Wow. Not what was said just a little bit ago. I guess the date of the playoffs keeps getting pushed back. Give me a healthy Pesce and Hamilton, and I like our chances a lot better.
  2. Agree. Only a cup win would be superior really. And the odds of that? Pretty slim.
  3. This is where the joy meter gets tricky. No question for the long term good, we're better off to win the lottery if we don't win the cup. But that would also mean a very early exit. Still, better overall.
  4. The uproar for me would be if it was Toronto winning the lottery. In fact, I'm not sure what would happen exactly. Since we get the best of the two picks, if it's down to ours this year or Toronto's next year? No way to know which is the better pick until next year's draft, but can't wait for that either since someone has to pick this year. . Am I missing something on that?
  5. They had Waddell on the other day and he said, Hamilton should be good to go. I think this will be huge. The only guy out should be Pesce.
  6. So, lottery wins aside, if my back of the envelope, at work math is right.... If Toronto wins and we lose, we pick either 14 or 15 depending on Pittsburgh, the higher pick if they also lose. If we and Toronto lose, we pick 11-15 depending on the other series. If we both win, we get pushed down into the bottom half of the next strata. If we lose in round 2, and Toronto wins, we have a pretty good chance of picking around #21. If Toronto loses in round #2 then we probably slide up a couple of spots, say around #18-19 ish depending on other results. So then, adjusting my win-win fantasy, our best case would be a Toronto loss and a series of high points percentage losses (Edmonton, Minn, Pittsburgh and the NYI) with no lottery win by Toronto. This would slide us in around #11, while still being able to go deep ourselves. Actually getting all the way up to #11 is highly unlikely though as we'd need 5 series to go exactly right and all be upsets except Toronto, likely less than 3% chance. If Toronto losses and two of the other 4 teams go right, we'd pick #13. If Toronto losses and all the wrong teams win, we'd pick #16. Toronto losing and us winning moves us from what was going to be #21 up to 11-16, and we get to keep playing (so long as Toronto doesn't win the lottery).
  7. That sort of makes sense I guess. One would think it would still go by points percentage and an adjusted expansion of their relative odds, but that does get a bit complex.
  8. Good point about the Toronto pick. That takes that fantasy off the board. We'd have to go out and then win it. I guess they just adjust the relative odds in the second drawing. It would be easier in theory to just have that winner sealed, and unseal after the losers are seeded, but then they have to keep that secret and there would be conspiracy theories abounding.
  9. If I have it right, there will be lottery that includes the 8 teams that lose in the play in slotted below those that are out. They will be slotted into 8 sequential "placeholder" spots (below the already out teams) that will be ordered by the records of the losing teams. If the lottery produces a winner in those teams, it will be determined by who slots where and revealed later. (I've also heard that they might do another lotteryl for those remaining teams if one wins a top three slot). Thus, if we, or I'm guessing Toronto, or maybe both? go out in the play in round, we would have a small chance of winning or getting a top 3 pick. Of course the most ideal thing would be that Toronto goes out and wins a top 3 slot, and we win the cup, and presumably get a top 3 pick too. This is the fairest thing to do IMO. If you get bounced in the play-in, you're technically not in the playoffs and should get something for that. Since teams that lose int the first round are treated in the draft as non playoff teams, this has the potential to bump us up a bit, even if we don't win the lottery slot, (since both Toronto and Us would have picked below 15 even with a first round exit, but now could end up higher,if either goes out in round one), but I haven't worked out all of the possibilities.
  10. The overall mortality rate of this is still in question, but the vast majority of people studying this have it under 1% now, and some way under 1%. It all depends on how many are missing from the denominator, and whether one is talking about the % of symptomatic patients or all patients that had enough exposure to make antibodies. Either way there are vast numbers of people missing from the denominator who were never tested, both ones that had symptoms and those who did not. But even the symptomatic mortality rate is under 1%. By now we all know who the high risk people are. And none approaches the risk of nursing home patients, who continue to have outbreaks. The most dramatic way to decrease the mortality of this disease short of a cure/treatment is stopping the spread to nursing homes. There is a lot of room for improvement here still. The risk of catching Covid from food handled by a possible covid positive cook is thought to be very low, but IMO they should be wearing masks until it's proven to be near zero, or proven that the masks don't matter. Do the rules for this phase require it? It would seem that they should. Mask outside as a requirement is overkill. Masks outside in any sort of congregating group do make sense. The 6 foot rule is arbitrary. Some places have a 3 foot rule. No one really knows, but one thing that's for sure is that if it's 6 feet indoors, it can be less outdoors. Might as well try to maintain 6 ft outdoors since there is no harm in it.
  11. Where I work if someone test positive, they are out, and the rest go on, even if we've been working with them. In this case, they will contact trace around that person, but even without that, every Covid patient is thought to infect about 3-4 people during the totality of their infectivity, say maybe 10-14 full days, and far less with masks and social distancing. Further in this case constantly testing everyone and immediately removing that guy drops that window even more. If one guy gets Covid, that guy is out for 2 weeks plus whatever is part of the return to play protocol, everyone else continues on. These guys will be a covid negative pool to begin with. They will take all kinds of precautions during practice and play and socially distance and even isolate away from play. In a lot of ways being in this group of people in this setting has to be dramatically safer than your average Harris Teeter.
  12. I think it could turn out to be huge having Hamilton back. He was just off the Norris pace when he went down. Most cup winners have a D man of that all around caliber. He will be rusty, but if he can get his game back, it could be a difference maker.
  13. Saying that everyone is human and has bias is stunning? Yikes. I'd say not agreeing with that is, telling.
  14. There is no question that the curve never got close to overwhelming the system and it won't. 83% full on ICU beds seems pretty close to pre covid normal to me, but I don't follow those stats normally. Anyways, there's plenty of hospital beds and ventilators for a peak far far higher than anything we will now see. And despite the shifting of the goal posts, that WAS the reason for lockdowns. It no longer applies. On herd immunity, I have had trouble getting a handle on that. Which is telling since outside of flattening the curve it's kind of the most important concept (short of a cure). I've seen wildly different numbers on: 1. What percentage of exposed patients get us there: 30-80% has been quoted. 2. How close we or anyone else is to whatever percentage we need. The idea that people will get this twice seems patently unlikely. It would be a massive story and yet I'm not aware of any proven case. No, despite the WHO guy framing it as immunity hasn't been proven, in this case no clear cut evidence of significant re infection is the key fact. So at least there's that. I tend to fall back on some common sense, face valid, observations and questions, since I'm not a super specialized academic expert in corona virus pandemics. Here's one such question. If some form of herd immunity were not in effect, how are new cases going down in the face of more testing? I guess the easy answer would be that our lockdowns have worked. But if so, then we should not just see an uptick with re opening, we should see a massive surge into the huge portion of the population still unexposed. As cases went up, that meant more people to give it to more other people. It would seem that things should just keep peaking until the herd immunity starts to slow the spread. Thus, as new cases are dropping with no cure, there are only two possibilities: there is a level of herd immunity kicking in, or the lockdowns worked mightily on the viral spread. Thing is, 8 states never locked down. Why are they not overwhelmed by now? Why is Sweden not overwhelmed? Ultimately the next few weeks will help answer this as states open and as more antibody testing gives a better picture. On Sweden reaching herd immunity, all I've been able to do is quote Swedish officials, so I don't really know. But I have listened to a few Swedish doctors responding to academic ED docs I know. They do point out that Sweden is mostly rural, but Stockholm did get the brunt of their Covid rush. Swedes are naturally "social distancy" people, which may have helped. Still, if Sweden has hit 10% and is such a rural place, maybe it does suggest we can get there. But they bear watching as their government officials have been claiming they were about there. (And Swedes trust their government). The thing is, that it's herd immunity or the effects of a never ending virus short of a cure. The cure is hyped both ways. The history is that vaccines take 2-4 years and no coronavirus vaccine exists for any coronavirus. The hope is that new tech and a world wide push will change that. No one knows for sure, but the vaccine people are saying that December would be the soonest, and even then, that would be a massive breakthrough, and not a great bet. I don't know if the vaccine will come in December, a touch sooner, or never, but I do know that further lockdowns won't stand. I get the fear about the virus, heck I'm right there. But as the true overall risk becomes clearer to the population being hit by a massive spike in unemployment, the pushback from citizens will be overwhelming if things don't keep opening up, of course, IMO.
  15. I must confess that I'm in the town I'm in because our group is independently owned, by us. I wanted to be an owner, which is increasingly rare in ED medicine. The relationship our group has had with the hospital had been very stable for 30 plus years. The hospital itself was also independent with it's own local board, but also a CEO and admin team that answered only to the local board. This all changed when a decision was made to become part of a larger hospital group and the effect on us has been slowly changing in a negative way. I don't want to get more into it than that, except to say this: the hospital, up to now, could not lay off ED physicians or PA's (who work directly for us). This is part of why I came to this town rather than, well, a better one. Our group makes what we bill, so we are seeing a big drop in pay. But at least no one is being furloughed. So there is that. At least for now.... But nursing is run and owned entirely by the hospital, and they have been cut big time. This has a similar effect on our daily lives as patients back up waiting for rooms (that were being run through our now defunct tent). I get the thing about a nurse asking to get "connected" patient ahead of the line. It happens. The key would be that nurse's reaction when the doc told her he had to go see the sick patient first. If that nurse persisted....then the jail thing would apply. As I mentioned in my manifesto up there, the tent was a sign that things were scary. It's coming down in the face of opening things up will lead to more volume. How our administration reacts to this volume is going to be key. And probably very stressful for several reasons. In many ways it could be just as problematic as the reaction to the pandemic as new volume rushes into a system not ready for it with less staff but no tent.
×
×
  • Create New...