Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


About remkin

  • Rank
    Carolina Hurricanes Admin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,889 profile views
  1. Where would I find the Hodkinson info? Also, if he's saying it's no worse than flu...well maybe if you're 20. Among other things, this has been going for 8 months and is building, I don't think any flu season of the past 100 years has done that. If we hadn't luckily advanced actual science to where it is, and had people working on Corona Virus vaccines due to SARS and MERS, the vaccines would be a year or more off. How much longer would this thing run? How much damage both directly, economically and politically might this thing have caused? More than flu, that I can tell you. In my clinical experience, I have seen patients with influenza pneumonia, and frankly it's pretty nasty, but I've seen flu pneumonia maybe 3-4 times in the past 25 years, whereas I've seen the Covid pneumonia too many times to count this year alone. I get that aspects of this have been overblown. I get the power of bias with the world's attention focused on this, political aspects folded in and a presidential election year to boot, but there is definitely something very different about this virus.
  2. Thanks Kjun. Interesting thoughts. I have not read Roger Hodkinson, but is he saying the entire thing is a hoax, or that aspects of it are a hoax? It makes no sense that it could be entirely a hoax. People come in with a clinical syndrome like nothing we've ever seen before, and they all test positive, and then some die. Even if the test makers were in on it, they'd have no way to know who was going to present with the syndrome we're seeing. The key thing is people coming in with ridiculously low oxygen saturations who's clinical picture often does not match such a dire situation. You look at an 02 sat of 65%, then you look at a pretty well appearing patient. Then you put them on oxygen and it usually climbs up to near normal. The patients who get really sick have the same "covid" look of their lungs on CXR and even more specific on CT scan. We just don't see that with any other disease. And there are many more things that add up to a distinctly specific clinical picture that almost always matches the Covid test. Obviously there has been a lot of politicization of various aspects of this. This taken together with the control of information by various entities that flow information leads to a lot of confusion and mistrust of information. Unfortunately, this then spills over to the vaccine. I am guessing that the extreme effectiveness of the vaccines will lead to people mostly taking one. Basically, you take the vaccine and you can return to normal life. Don't take it and you have to wait for herd immunity to kick in from everyone else taking it. My main fear from a herd point of view is young people, who are not at much risk, feeling (not unreasonably) that they are better off risking the disease, especially since it will eventually become less and less common as the vaccine gets out there. In a way though, that might not be terrible. The people most at risk can get vaccinated, and the rest can get the disease and do fine. End game: herd immunity. Whether or not this virus was unleashed on the world on purpose and for specific nefarious ends remains an open question. But that it exists and causes the syndrome of Covid 19? Definitely. I was just wondering if the vaccine since it directly introduces mRNA into cells might somehow cause a longer term effect of some kind. But my understanding of how it shuts itself off, or becomes inactive is nill. Once the mRNA has done it's thing, what happens to it? Is it still around years later, or is it extruded or degraded or something? From what I can see the efficacy and safety in the phase II trials is excellent. So then the only risk I can imagine is one that occurs down the road because this type of vaccine has never been widely used in humans ever before.
  3. Just watched the entire last game available (game 2?) really focusing on our guys: Suzuki, Jarvis and Rees. And yes, to my surprise the standout, by far, was Rees. They have Jarvis on the "first" line with Dach, so I have to think that he comes in with an inside track, and he does have a goal, but in this game, while he made a couple of nice plays, but was mostly not visible. Rees, on the other hand just looked involved, nearly every shift. He has two goals in two games, but more than that, he's had several good shots and scoring chances per game and he's strong on and away from the puck. He's not dazzling, but just constantly noticeable and gets pucks on the net. Suzuki, in the game I watched was close to invisible. He did not look bad, just not noticeable. Unfortunately for him, Team Canada is pretty much set at the top 3 center positions, so I'm thinking making the cut at center is going to be one of, if not the most difficult position, outside of the big 3 it will be tough. I really have to think Rees has a very good chance of making the squad. Not only because he's creating chances (which he is, regularly), but because he brings an edge and a non first round guy, not on last year's team, has to either bust out offensively or offer offense while being capable of bringing grit and at least starting out on the 4th line. Rees is doing all of that. Jarvis seems to be a guy that they had penciled into a spot since they are playing him on the top line of team White. So I'm thinking he just has to look decent to get a shot. As a winger, he has a better chance than Suzuki at center. They have one more game, I think today, then they start making cuts. Clearly all three guys need to play well for different reasons to make this insanely stacked team, but I think of the three Suzuki is on the thinnest ice and needs to look really good today. I haven't really focused on the other centers, so not sure how Suzuki's competition is faring out there. I did notice other guys, and while Kirby Dach is making the biggest splash, I did see that skill and IQ from LaPierre a couple of times. To the extent that they are honestly watching these scrimmages, Rees is the guy who should be earning a slot.
  4. Just to make it even more confusing, efficacy and effectiveness are different. Effectiveness can't really be established until the general public gets the vaccine to assure that the effect seen is not from too small of a sample in the study group. Still, it is looking very good for these two novel vaccines. Those in charge of Operation Warp Speed are now predicting May for return to normal with 70% plus herd immunity.
  5. OK Kjun, I'm assuming based on the number of people who have gotten the vaccine in the trials that it is very safe in the short term. But particularly the mRNA vaccines are completely novel. What is your best guess on the potential for long term effects? I have no Earthly idea. Clearly no one can know for sure, but pathophysiologically, or based on anything else out there? There is a significant number of people within healthcare who are concerned about that. I'm working today with a nurse who is convinced it will cause cancer. Me, I'm going to just get the thing at this point, because short term it's a no brainer IMO. But I do have some longer term trepidation.
  6. True. The US Government though pre-purchased a lot of vaccine and made deals with operation Warp Speed. Assuming that we didn't use US tax dollars to buy vaccine that was to primarily go overseas, (perhaps no longer a safe assumption), at least a good amount of it would stay here. But it definitely varies by manufacturer also. Pfizer apparently didn't take the money and so that would not apply to them. Not sure if we pre-purchased lots of Pfizer vaccine or not. I'm thinking we did. Anyone know?
  7. You are right the AstraZeneca vaccine is two doses though there was a strong immune response after one. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are the novel mRNA vaccines. The Moderna vaccine is 94.5% efficacious, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% efficacious. What's more, no patients who ended up in the ICU received the Moderna Vaccine and only one sick patient got the Pfizer vaccine. Suggesting that even the 5% who got Covid nearly all got milder disease. This may not translate entirely in the real world vaccinations if less high risk patient were in the study than in the population that gets vaccinated. Interestingly though, since the plan if to roll it out to Nursing Home patients, the population most devastated by Covid, we might find out sooner than later. If it protects those people to a similar degree, that would be phenomenal news.
  8. I'm assuming that the first phase includes Long Term Care patients too? But yeah the first phases will be to protect individuals at high risk. The next phases should be IMO to protect the herd and stop the spread by vaccinating those with the highest propensity to spread the disease. That's what makes sense to me anyways.
  9. Yeah that's going to be the issue. Johnson and Johnson says it can make 100 million doses of it's single dose vaccine by March and a billion by the end of next year. But it's trial didn't start until September. AstraZenenca says it can have hundreds of millions of doses by January, but had to pause it's trial for 6 weeks. Then again, surprises to the good could happen. If AstraZeneca gets approval in early January and has hundreds of millions of doses that are a one dose and don't require the deep freeze, things can move fast. The thing is that it seems we are on the cusp, but not quite there. I'd bet a fairly good amount that things are massively different by April, but before that? Time will tell.
  10. The problem is timing and how quickly the vaccine will get out. Reportedly there are mega doses ready to go and a plan for widespread immunization, but not by January 1. They are talking about elderly and health care workers getting vaccinated end of December. Also, it is a two shot regimen with weeks in between. Theoretically, they could allow people in with proof of vaccination to attend games. Don't want to get the vaccine? No problem, but can't go to the game. But how soon could a person be reasonably expected to have been able to get both shots? We don't know, but not even by Feb 1 probably. March 1? Maybe. Play in empty buildings that slowly fill up as people get vaccinated? Once this vaccine starts rolling out big time, this thing will be gone in a way that will amaze most people. But it has to get out there pretty widely first.
  11. I didn't realize that Suzuki was the first overall pick in the OHL.
  12. On a related, but different note, I have to think that the Canes swung hard and made a massive whiffing sound, spun around, lost their balance and tumbled to the ground with their away white jerseys, in terms of sales. I say so because I bought one. And I must confess, I have a touch of the buyer's remorse. Not because I think they're terrible (though I did opine that when they first came out, then they grew on me, then I bought one), but because I seem to be one of the only people who did buy one. I wonder what the sales figures were on that jersey? I can't imagine it was good. To be clear, I kind of like having a unique jersey, but it should not be unique the very year it's released widely to much fanfare. That is a bad kind of unique. Like the kid who is told it's dress in costume day tomorrow for school, and arrives in full regalia only to find no one else dressed up. That kind of unique. In my defense, I maybe buy every 5th jersey that comes out, and only have 3 since that glorious year of the cup. And I will be able to still pay my utility bill. On the other hand, I really didn't need it, and ultimately probably bought it because I didn't have a white one. Now I have a white one. Possibly the only one out there. I do think that the Hartford logo, and jersey is a classic hit in terms of NHL jersey history. And I actually think the two games they sported them on the ice was a success. But I have less than zero interest in actually buying and wearing a jersey with it. It's enough to occasionally shell out the bucks for one that is a legit, actual jersey. But yes, have at it. Buy the jersey of another team from time gone by. For me to buy it they'd have to add a cape, and that just never seems to happen.
  13. Here's his take on last year's draft. Adding this year's picks in, it is getting pretty thick with NHL potential in our pool. He was, to put it mildly, impressed. "An absolute banger of a draft. Almost every single pick they made has HUGE upside if things go right. I love what they came out of the draft with. The prospect cupboard was already filled, but now it is bursting at the seams."
  14. Well, I have commented on Scouch twice already, but I have been watching this guy for a while now. He follows prospects all the way down to the 7th round. Kind of wonder how he makes enough money for all of that, but it's surely a passion for him. It's funny because he mentions how well we've been drafting, and that he liked our draft, but also mentions not loving it as much as some others. Last year, he was head over heels on our draft, I'll try to link that. This year, he liked it. One interesting guy is Nybeck. Scouch is not high on him. What I've seen is that he is divisive. He has high end talent, but my read is that many scouts think that it is sort of traditional skill rather than the specific type of skill that allows tiny players to translate to the NHL. Ironically, he things Pashin, our other tiny tot, does have the kind of skill that can translate. Both have an uphill battle. Basically he, and some other scouts think that tiny dancers need ultra high end quickness and speed along with the super high end skills. Some think Nybeck just isn't quick enough or fast enough basically. On Pashin it was interesting that one of the things that dropped him is that some think he'll stay in Russia. But with a 7th round pick, this is a guy we could basically forget about until he starts lighting up the KHL, then bring him over much later. I was also interested to see what he thought of Nikishin. I was pleased to hear he saw some of what I did.
  15. I will throw this out there though. LA is rebuilding. They need young D. They have a couple of nice forward prospects, and we have Jake Bean. Just saying. Trading for a D man to get a couple of NHL years under his belt while they rebuild for a decent forward prospect is a lateral move for them. For us, we could possibly add a guy to our insane depth at up and coming forward while moving out one more guy to have to protect in the expansion draft. We've traded with them before, and it's always a touch easier for GM's to move players to the other conference. Like the huge majority of trade ideas, probably doesn't happen, but makes some sense it seems.
  • Create New...