Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
magpiemaniac

Covid 19 virus inpacts sports, NHL,Season Tix other impacts

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, surfzone365 said:

Can’t all this be solved over a Zoom ice cream 🍦  “social”? 🤷🏻‍♂️😎

 

That could be interesting or it could be :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bonivan said:

Is restriction for people from European Union to enter US already expired/lifted? What about 2 week quarantine period for people coming from abroad? Regular flights from Europe to US? I think not all NHL players can easily rent a jet to fly back to US/Canada.

That restriction would have to come from the other country, you know the US would allow them in if it meant restarting a league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped posting about 10 days ago because certain folks brought politics into every post. I hope we can get past that. I have read with interest Rem’s and Kjun’s comments about what they are seeing as medical professionals. For my part, I believe only hindsight is going to tell us where the balance between protecting public safety and preventing the collapse of the economy should have been. For those who have to make decisions now, well they are walking a tightrope. Whatever your politics, let’s hope they get it mostly right.
 

I’d like to see more discussion of if or when we might see hockey again. If they finish this season and hold playoffs as a made for tv event, I think the public would be ecstatic, but I don’t see how they generate anywhere near the revenue lost by having paying customers in the seats. I have not even seen any consensus that games can be played next year with fans in buildings. What all this means for the NHL, other pro sports and college athletics could be catastrophic. Then again maybe all those fears are overblown. I’d love to hear insights or opinions specifically on the future of hockey and sports in general. I guess it is tied with all of the medical issues that are out there, but at least would like to know what others are reading or hearing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bluedevilcane said:

I stopped posting about 10 days ago because certain folks brought politics into every post. I hope we can get past that. I have read with interest Rem’s and Kjun’s comments about what they are seeing as medical professionals. For my part, I believe only hindsight is going to tell us where the balance between protecting public safety and preventing the collapse of the economy should have been. For those who have to make decisions now, well they are walking a tightrope. Whatever your politics, let’s hope they get it mostly right.
 

I’d like to see more discussion of if or when we might see hockey again. If they finish this season and hold playoffs as a made for tv event, I think the public would be ecstatic, but I don’t see how they generate anywhere near the revenue lost by having paying customers in the seats. I have not even seen any consensus that games can be played next year with fans in buildings. What all this means for the NHL, other pro sports and college athletics could be catastrophic. Then again maybe all those fears are overblown. I’d love to hear insights or opinions specifically on the future of hockey and sports in general. I guess it is tied with all of the medical issues that are out there, but at least would like to know what others are reading or hearing.

I have not posted anything besides "the lighter side" in some time.  Conversations about restarting seasons in hockey and basketball and starting the season in baseball with notions of holding them in empty arenas or Grapefruit and Cactus leagues just seem to ignore the health and safety of the players.  Can this society just manage to put sports on the back burner until such time as public health officials deem the activity and the events as safe for our communities, our fans, our athletes.  I was happy to read Mike Trout proclaim this exact message to owners and union officials who are trying to figure out a way to move forward.  Public health officials predict this country will undergo a second and potentially more devastating wave of illness and death in the fall when the virus occurs n tandem with the flu season.  Until this thing is whipped, this is the new norm.  And it is ok.  Develop some new interests, make the most of every day, keep busy, just don't fall back to old habits that promote the spread of this disease.  If we as a country can not sacrifice this season of hockey, this season of basketball, this season of baseball, this season of football, and so on and so forth, then it may be next year's seasons that we are talking about not starting up either.  Respect the players, let them be safe, let them be with their families.  We, the fans, will welcome them back when the time is right.  Friends, the time is NOT right.

Edited by beboplar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beboplar said:

<snip> Develop some new interests, make the most of every day, keep busy, just don't fall back to old habits that promote the spread of this disease. 

I’m taking this opportunity to start shifting through my approximately 500k+ photos that I’ve taken since I began photography back in HS. I’ve always joked that taking photos and doing something with them are two different pastimes. I’m great with the former, not so much the latter.
 

I’m expecting to have a large number of Hurricanes photos dating back to the 2000 season when I moved here and got tix. Just came across some from Ron and Mario - was still shooting film back then.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player safety is a legitimate concern. But it has to be aligned with the actual risk, not the pandemic fear that tends to pervade things as if it's just one big disease. It's one virus (not counting mutations), but it's not one disease. It's probably reasonable to consider the sort of risk and NHL player has accepted by just stepping onto the ice. Player safety it is also said to be a concern when a guy takes another guy's head off, then gets a 2 game suspension instead of jail time. Or two large humans are allowed to pummel each other with bare fists, on skate, on ice. Heck, the NHL actually calls their enforcement arm "player safety".  Part of this is just to say that NHL players have somewhat self-selected as being higher on the risk taking side of things than say, a crossword puzzle enthusiast. 

 

I think a lot that goes into the decision to return in empty arenas will have to do with the "then current" state of science and as importantly the "then current" state of society. And with this thing, "then current" is measured in weeks or even days. Already 46% of people polled said they'd return to travel as soon as the restrictions and another 25% would about two months later. So, higher math says that of these people polled, nearly 3/4 would travel within 2 months of lifting. 

 

Despite that, I would say that If it were happening this week, it would be too soon for sure. NC new cases are reportedly still going up even as national cases are dropping, and society is just starting to turn the sentiment ship incrementally from lockdown to opening as the virus peak drops and the economic and social discomfort rises. But it has not really turned yet. As cases start to drop however, and the reality of a vaccine is solidly locked in at 12 months (if ever*), things will change IMO, and governments will mostly open, and those that don't will face revolt. After that, the notion of playing in empty arenas will be more acceptable. 

 

The players are at much lower risk than most for several reasons, mostly they are in the good age group. Also because there will be a testing regime before players mix and as they go. Also, players could be given the right to not play. Perhaps jack up the playoff bonuses as a gesture from the league, then let players decide to play or not. My guess is that they'll almost all play. 

 

As always, this is just my prediction. I could be wrong! 

 

* science has yet to make a workable vaccine for many things: HIV, Common Vaccine for Flu, and most directly SARS or MERS, the other bad Coronaviruses. If we wait for a vaccine we could be waiting for Godot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, remkin said:

science has yet to make a workable vaccine for many things: HIV, Common Vaccine for Flu, and most directly SARS or MERS, the other bad Coronaviruses. If we

rem, I counter that with small pox and for the most part, polio? I submit, that the efficacy of a vaccine is related to several factors, not the least of which combines the financial support as well as the dedication of the researchers involved with it, as well as the compliance of the general public (us) to submit to compliance. Lacking 100% compliance or the lack of "sexiness" of a disease (I submit how close it is to home) to generate funds (SARS and MERS), than vaccines are ineffective?

 

The truth of the matter is that vaccines don't make money, antidotes do (i.e. antivirals in this case), 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, remkin said:

NC new cases are reportedly still going up even as national cases are dropping, and society is just starting to turn the sentiment ship incrementally from lockdown to opening as the virus peak drops and the economic and social discomfort rises. But it has not really turned yet.

 

Unfortunately, this is very correct.  The highest daily counts of new cases in NC were three days ago (388), two days ago (444) and yesterday (571).  That is not a good trend for "re-opening" the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, remkin said:

Player safety is a legitimate concern. But it has to be aligned with the actual risk, not the pandemic fear that tends to pervade things as if it's just one big disease. It's one virus (not counting mutations), but it's not one disease. It's probably reasonable to consider the sort of risk and NHL player has accepted by just stepping onto the ice. Player safety it is also said to be a concern when a guy takes another guy's head off, then gets a 2 game suspension instead of jail time. Or two large humans are allowed to pummel each other with bare fists, on skate, on ice. Heck, the NHL actually calls their enforcement arm "player safety".  Part of this is just to say that NHL players have somewhat self-selected as being higher on the risk taking side of things than say, a crossword puzzle enthusiast. 

 

I think a lot that goes into the decision to return in empty arenas will have to do with the "then current" state of science and as importantly the "then current" state of society. And with this thing, "then current" is measured in weeks or even days. Already 46% of people polled said they'd return to travel as soon as the restrictions and another 25% would about two months later. So, higher math says that of these people polled, nearly 3/4 would travel within 2 months of lifting. 

 

Despite that, I would say that If it were happening this week, it would be too soon for sure. NC new cases are reportedly still going up even as national cases are dropping, and society is just starting to turn the sentiment ship incrementally from lockdown to opening as the virus peak drops and the economic and social discomfort rises. But it has not really turned yet. As cases start to drop however, and the reality of a vaccine is solidly locked in at 12 months (if ever*), things will change IMO, and governments will mostly open, and those that don't will face revolt. After that, the notion of playing in empty arenas will be more acceptable. 

 

The players are at much lower risk than most for several reasons, mostly they are in the good age group. Also because there will be a testing regime before players mix and as they go. Also, players could be given the right to not play. Perhaps jack up the playoff bonuses as a gesture from the league, then let players decide to play or not. My guess is that they'll almost all play. 

 

As always, this is just my prediction. I could be wrong! 

 

* science has yet to make a workable vaccine for many things: HIV, Common Vaccine for Flu, and most directly SARS or MERS, the other bad Coronaviruses. If we wait for a vaccine we could be waiting for Godot. 

Rem, when you say that players are in good age range are you referring to very low probability for them to end in ICU or to have COVID in any light form without for example reduction in lung function? In such physically demanding sport if your lungs do not work on 100% you might have to call it a career. And then there might be guys with asthma (I think I've heard that Pesce has asthma) which places them in a risk group. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caniac-1-1 said:

 

Unfortunately, this is very correct.  The highest daily counts of new cases in NC were three days ago (388), two days ago (444) and yesterday (571).  That is not a good trend for "re-opening" the state.

When the head of the CDC states that there will be a second, potentially more devastating wave of the corona virus in the fall/winter in tandem with the flu season, the case for shutting down sports and other non essential activities is made.  Think of all of the critics talking about how health officials warned about the current break out 3 months ahead of time and their wisdom was wisked away and ignored.  If you have any respect for the seriousness of this situation and to the athletes themselves, you will just allow this to play out and do without sports for 2020.  It's over when the fat lady sings, and folks, she is screaming.

Edited by beboplar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bonivan said:

Rem, when you say that players are in good age range are you referring to very low probability for them to end in ICU or to have COVID in any light form without for example reduction in lung function? In such physically demanding sport if your lungs do not work on 100% you might have to call it a career. And then there might be guys with asthma (I think I've heard that Pesce has asthma) which places them in a risk group. 

I am a bit on the speculative part of the curve here because it is so hard to keep up with all of the latest on this thing. It is changing so fast. My expectation is that permanent lung damage happens only if the patient moves into that severe form of the disease where the inflammatory response starts reeking havoc on the lungs. This is exceedingly rare in the age group and health category of most NHL players. 

 

This is a good point though in that the NHL would have to confirm this understanding and at the very least relay this risk to the players and everyone involved, whatever it is felt to be. My understanding is that risk would be in the ball park of the death risk because it is that same process that kills people and if people in the young age group were getting it their death rates would be substantially higher than they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

rem, I counter that with small pox and for the most part, polio? I submit, that the efficacy of a vaccine is related to several factors, not the least of which combines the financial support as well as the dedication of the researchers involved with it, as well as the compliance of the general public (us) to submit to compliance. Lacking 100% compliance or the lack of "sexiness" of a disease (I submit how close it is to home) to generate funds (SARS and MERS), than vaccines are ineffective?

 

The truth of the matter is that vaccines don't make money, antidotes do (i.e. antivirals in this case), 

True. My point was not that no vaccine will arrive, just that it might be much longer than thought, or even never arrive. I read that only about 18% of vaccine candidates end up approved. While I completely agree with the point about the money, that also implies that vaccines are made, and that over 4/5 of them don't work well enough or have too many side effects to be approved. It's just not a given that there will be a vaccine, let alone one that gets here before the thing mostly has run it's course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bonivan said:

Rem, when you say that players are in good age range are you referring to very low probability for them to end in ICU or to have COVID in any light form without for example reduction in lung function? In such physically demanding sport if your lungs do not work on 100% you might have to call it a career. And then there might be guys with asthma (I think I've heard that Pesce has asthma) which places them in a risk group. 

This is a good point Bonivan, and one I've mentioned on several occasions. I'll restate as many may have forgotten my point, BUT one of the disquieting aspects of this particular disease, and make no mistake, there are many, but I keep wondering about the "recovery period" and "convalescent period". For those who would like to blow this illness off as "just like the flu", I'll point out that to my knowledge, we do not see lung damage associated with influenza? Death, yes, but post-recovery problems, no. SARS-COV-2 on the other hand, with its well published "ground glass appearance" of lower lobes in the infected lungs, likely will "heal" with scarring and fibrosis in those areas.

 

Now, one thing that is well known in the case of long tern cigarette smokers, is the sad truth that although STOPPING SMOKING will certainly LEVEL OUT DAMAGE, your lungs will never completely heal, because unlike some organs (liver specifically), your lungs do not regenerate!! 

 

So, this is where my concern is with this disease, and problem at this point, like with so many things about COVID-19, its just too soon to tell about what recovery will look likeLung cripples with pulmonary fibrosis, only time will tell?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, beboplar said:

When the head of the CDC states that there will be a second, potentially more devastating wave of the corona virus in the fall/winter in tandem with the flu season, the case for shutting down sports and other non essential activities is made.  Think of all of the critics talking about how health officials warned about the current break out 3 months ahead of time and their wisdom was wisked away and ignored.  If you have any respect for the seriousness of this situation and to the athletes themselves, you will just allow this to play out and do without sports for 2020.  It's over when the fat lady sings, and folks, she is screaming.

It's all speculation. The headline of that article said "more devastating" but his actual words were "more complicated", and "if" rather than there WILL be a second wave. Of course if we have Covid around during flu season, it will be more complicated. But as mentioned below we had flu around when this first hit us in Jan-Feb. 

 

All I can say is that the definitive declarations of the experts have been wrong again and again. There is no proof that this will die off due to weather, let alone re-emerge in the fall. One thing I also know is that the top science and medical bureaucrats always point out the worst case scenarios, in part lest they be accused of under preparing. But no one really knows what it might look like when flu season hits again. IMO that could be a factor in starting up a new season next year, but not a playoff run in the summer. 

 

There was flu around when this thing first hit us here in the US. At the beginning the protocol was to test first for flu, and only for Covid if flu was negative. Then flu petered out and Covid testing ramped up and it switched from testing flu first to not testing flu at all. 

 

Flu is only a factor really for people who get flu and covid at the same time. This was a thing people were looking into until flu went away and now we don't hear anything about it. Next fall there will be so much testing available that both might be put on the same rapid test. Flu A, Flu B, Covid. All on one strip. 

 

As much as there is real, logical, scientific concern and very novel real and bad things that Covid does uniquely there is just as much stoking of fear. While we must be prudent, we also can't and IMO won't be ruled by fear either. 

 

Also, unless the Covid virus mutates substantially and in a bad way (often the mutations lessen the pathology), then a big chunk of the population will likely be immune to covid next fall. Another thing, we'll probably see unprecedented numbers get their flu shot this year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, remkin said:

I am a bit on the speculative part of the curve here because it is so hard to keep up with all of the latest on this thing. It is changing so fast. My expectation is that permanent lung damage happens only if the patient moves into that severe form of the disease where the inflammatory response starts reeking havoc on the lungs. This is exceedingly rare in the age group and health category of most NHL players. 

 

This is a good point though in that the NHL would have to confirm this understanding and at the very least relay this risk to the players and everyone involved, whatever it is felt to be. My understanding is that risk would be in the ball park of the death risk because it is that same process that kills people and if people in the young age group were getting it their death rates would be substantially higher. 

rem, we are all on that "speculative part of the curve", if some would just not be so dogmatic about it?? But you were posting apparently as I was, and I can see your point here, but stress that we just do not know? Certainly there are aspects, IT WOULD APPEAR, about this disease that are very confounding, such as the GI elements, the strokes in younger age patients, the apparent coagulopathies etc, so at this point, we honestly just do not know? Lung damage, and which patients will be affected, who knows. 

 

The other thing I'd point out, in young, trained athletes, who similar to youth in general, feel invincible, how does one truly get across the "risk" involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KJUNKANE said:

rem, we are all on that "speculative part of the curve", if some would just not be so dogmatic about it?? But you were posting apparently as I was, and I can see your point here, but stress that we just do not know? Certainly there are aspects, IT WOULD APPEAR, about this disease that are very confounding, such as the GI elements, the strokes in younger age patients, the apparent coagulopathies etc, so at this point, we honestly just do not know? Lung damage, and which patients will be affected, who knows. 

 

The other thing I'd point out, in young, trained athletes, who similar to youth in general, feel invincible, how does one truly get across the "risk" involved?

I agree with the first paragraph. Except, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the strokes are still in people over 40 for the most part. (Of the 5 in the now sensationalized case series reports in a rapid communication the the NEJM, only one was under 40. She was 33. But 33 year old women have had strokes before Covid. If she is not covid related (it's possible none of them were), then it's still an over 40 risk, and it's tiny. 

 

One of the problems that gets really frustrating with this, is the case report and case series sized things that pop up. A doctor in the stroke case noted 5 patients, aged 33-49 who had strokes and tested positive for Covid, and that was more than he usually saw in that time period. The patients had few or no symptoms of covid. This was in NYC. Stokes are up around the city. 

 

When one finds an association it also depends on the incidence of the thing being associated with. Since this was in NYC where up to 35% of all Covid tests were positive, and it is estimated that with asymptomatic patients that 20% of the people in NYC have had covid. That's 1.6 million people. So we can begin to associate just about anything with a thing that 20% of the population has.

 

I'm not saying that Covid was not involved. We know it can lead to increased clotting. But that has been in sick patients. These patients were not sick (before the stoke). And it's 5 patients. Five. 

 

Even the author says, "these are small numbers and further data is needed". Well of course it is. In any other age in medical history, an association in 5 patients (with a thing seen in 1.6 million patients in the same city) would never get published. But now it goes into a "rapid communication" in the NEJM. It's important to note though that the purpose of this "rapid comminication" is more for doctors to watch for it, and to generate bigger studies. Not to determine much of anything. Heck the hydroxychloroquine study had 26 patients and was criticized for being too small (which it was). 

 

I suspect that Covid does increase stroke, but probably mostly (if not exclusively) in sick patients, but who really knows? I do know this. If a substantial number of young, healthy people were having strokes, it would not just be coming out now, and their death rates would not be close to zero. 

 

Another thing. Unless you pull the rapid communication (I suspect since I can't find it on the NEJM Covid page), one can't even get a fair idea of what the author was saying because true to my annoyance with our current state of journalism, studies lead with "Strokes in young, asymptomatic Covid-19 patients on the rise" (no. Even the author says that him seeing 5 strokes is not proof of that, and it also suggests that this is some new thing that wasn't happening before, an even bigger stretch). Or:  "Young and middle-aged people, barely sick with covid-19, are dying of strokes." Technically true, although there is no even mention of the potential lack of causality, and they don't even mention the patient's ages. Not young enough for a sensationalized story probably. 

 

The NEJM provides all of their Covid articles free. There are a ton of them. I couldn't find that one. But another one looked at 58 consecutive sick as crap patients and determined that 2 had strokes. These were the full on ARDS like patients, who are the ones by far most likely to have clotting issues, and only  3% of them had stroke.

 

Who knows? Sometimes I find myself falling back to face validity. If the death rate in Covid positive patients under 34 is under 0.01, then it's hard to believe that some huge risk in stroke has been missed until Dr Oxley wrote his rapid communication about his 5 patients. So we wait? But really waiting for large scale studies will take a year. Then a lot of those will be wrong too, another year. Can't remove all risk. Not going to wait 1-2 years even though that's been out there. Won't happen. IMO.

 

I still go to work and face this thing straight up. My risk is massively higher due to age than an NHL player, let alone directly contacting patients with the virus every shift. These guys are young, have an exceedingly low health risk if turn positive and will be tested constantly, and playing in a pool of confirmed negative people. They're probably as or more likely to pick this up at Costco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between optimistic hope that things will return to normal sooner rather than later, and conflating one's own medical expertise (is it in pandemic epidemiology specifically?) with that optimism, in order to put forward a position that is not supported by the field's top experts is the worst kind of speculation. 

 

I find it more than a little disturbing that someone holding themselves out as an expert simply because they work in the medical field has continually espoused that restarting can be easily done with no ill effects by simply testing everyone before and after games--when in fact (a) there is absolutely no epidemiological evidence of that whatsoever, and (b) no sport has yet stepped forward to say, "Sure! We'll do it!"

 

There's a very sound reason for that: The fear of roundly (and perhaps, if things go wrong, rightly) being seen as having minimal (at best) or no (at worst) regard for the health and safety of the players and personnel necessary to actually make games happen.

 

The mere suggestion of testing all involved before and after games, all by itself, is irresponsible in a climate where those (still) limited resources are needed far more desperately by the general public than by a bunch of millionaires whose lack of activity, from a global economic standpoint, is absolutely meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see how it plays out top. But I'm not holding myself out as an expert on epidemiology. I'm offering an opinion and providing the data for it.  If you think anyone who's making these play or no play, open up the society or not decisions is reading my opinions to make those decisions on here you can feel safe in knowing that they're certainly not. So you can stop being "disturbed". 

 

That said, I am an expert in Emergency Medicine and that's pretty involved in this thing. I've testified in court as a sworn expert, and I am a published scientist. And I can be just as wrong as the Covid experts have been. I've been reading scientific medical literature for 30 years and reading it critically. On this Covid issue I do read many articles and have CME updates that run the gamut for about 2 hours that are given by experts in the field about every 3 days. I base many of my opinions on here on that. 

 

There are experts besides Fauci and the people behind the podium who have all been wrong. And that's not unexpected. This is novel. Things people assumed turn out to be wrong. That's what happens in something this new. If you stuck with Fauci's original declaration, then there would be no social distancing because he said this would be no big deal in the US. It's at least worth noting that The Grand Pubah of Pandemic Epidemiology said that this year. How does he get the nod as some sort of omniscient expert that shan't be disagreed with? Well, if we did that, there would be no lock down, no distancing. Because it is going to be no big deal in the US. If you know anything about real medical science you'd know that the experts are wrong all the time, and that's in things that have been studied for years, not months.

 

There isn't going to be any evidence that players playing is completely safe. Nothing is completely safe. Don't need to be an expert to know that. Plus I'm making the case for them playing and predicting that they will. I'm not clearing them to play. (Though I do clear athletes to play in my professional duties).

 

Since no one is making decisions based on these opinions, it's a bit like us speculating on hockey. Nothing really comes of it. Doesn't stop some of us from acting like the supreme hockey experts of the universe. But in this area I do make life and death decisions with Covid patients in my care. Did it just last night.

 

I thought that some of the few on here might find this perspective interesting, just as I found your woodworking interesting.

 

I have as much standing to opine on this as most. And way more standing than I have to opine on hockey. And even if I don't, people post opinions here all the time without expert standing.

 

It's just an opinion. We'll see what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW saying that you find it "more than a little disturbing" and "the worst kind of speculation" implying my opinions are somehow dangerous is "more than a little disturbing" to me. No need to go to that cheap attack, always upping the emotional ante. But I guess one's modus operandi is one's modus operandi.  Again, this is a message board, not the CDC action plan.

 

I'm offering a take on this from a particular vantage. Not the final truth. Just an opinion.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a break from the Covid talk. Initially I was trying to offer some information from a front line perspective. Never intended this to get into a debate. I've got enough going on at the moment, and this isn't enjoyable. Maybe if something new breaks I'll jump back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I appreciate rem and Kjun's experience/ opinions.  I don't take either as gospel, but I do consider them along with all of the other info I get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, remkin said:

I'm going to take a break from the Covid talk. Initially I was trying to offer some information from a front line perspective. Never intended this to get into a debate. I've got enough going on at the moment, and this isn't enjoyable. Maybe if something new breaks I'll jump back in.

No.....No.....No.   Do not quit posting your opinions because it is obvious to the most casual observer that you are well informed.   I understand that these are your opinions but I also understand that informed opinions hold lots of water in the big world of opinion making.   So God Bless You for the work that you do in the ER.  To have to make life and death decisions on patients (Covid or otherwise) takes on a whole different mindset than having to decide whether to shoot or pass the puck.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, remkin said:

We'll see how it plays out top. But I'm not holding myself out as an expert on epidemiology. I'm offering an opinion and providing the data for it.  If you think anyone who's making these play or no play, open up the society or not decisions is reading my opinions to make those decisions on here you can feel safe in knowing that they're certainly not. So you can stop being "disturbed". 

 

That said, I am an expert in Emergency Medicine and that's pretty involved in this thing. I've testified in court as a sworn expert, and I am a published scientist. And I can be just as wrong as the Covid experts have been. I've been reading scientific medical literature for 30 years and reading it critically. On this Covid issue I do read many articles and have CME updates that run the gamut for about 2 hours that are given by experts in the field about every 3 days. I base many of my opinions on here on that. 

 

There are experts besides Fauci and the people behind the podium who have all been wrong. And that's not unexpected. This is novel. Things people assumed turn out to be wrong. That's what happens in something this new. If you stuck with Fauci's original declaration, then there would be no social distancing because he said this would be no big deal in the US. It's at least worth noting that The Grand Pubah of Pandemic Epidemiology said that this year. How does he get the nod as some sort of omniscient expert that shan't be disagreed with? Well, if we did that, there would be no lock down, no distancing. Because it is going to be no big deal in the US. If you know anything about real medical science you'd know that the experts are wrong all the time, and that's in things that have been studied for years, not months.

 

There isn't going to be any evidence that players playing is completely safe. Nothing is completely safe. Don't need to be an expert to know that. Plus I'm making the case for them playing and predicting that they will. I'm not clearing them to play. (Though I do clear athletes to play in my professional duties).

 

Since no one is making decisions based on these opinions, it's a bit like us speculating on hockey. Nothing really comes of it. Doesn't stop some of us from acting like the supreme hockey experts of the universe. But in this area I do make life and death decisions with Covid patients in my care. Did it just last night.

 

I thought that some of the few on here might find this perspective interesting, just as I found your woodworking interesting.

 

I have as much standing to opine on this as most. And way more standing than I have to opine on hockey. And even if I don't, people post opinions here all the time without expert standing.

 

It's just an opinion. We'll see what happens. 

rem, for one, I've appreciated ALL OF YOUR INSIGHTS from your unique point of view. Saying that, I cannot fathom why anyone would resent what obviously is "a point of view" from a knowledgeable source, but to each his own? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I do appreciate it. I will just add this one more thing. I really think one has to be able to try to think critically aside from the input of a handful of experts, especially on something this novel where information is constantly in flux. If one goes back several posts, I mentioned that a bit over 3 weeks ago our hospital enlisted two separate expert groups to model and to help predict what our situation would look like in one and two months. These were expert epidemiologists from Duke and UNC and the West Coast. They were the experts and we listened to them. I posted it.

 

We are now in the period that they predicted as the about one month prediction. Their predictions included the effects of social distancing. But they did NOT predict that Wayne County would end up being the highest density Covid county in the state per population (thus per amount of hospital resource). So, they were predicting our patient load as if we were a typical county. With that, they predicted that we would have 30 Covid patients on ventilators right now. We have one. They were off by a factor of 30 but really more than that given that all Neuse Correctional Prisoners come to us. 

 

We have to listen to experts. But we have to listen with our own judgment in tact. And also to the right experts. And with room for dissenting opinions. Over the years I've been able to find several experts in my field who's track record on clear scientific thinking has born out far more than most. But even then, no one has a pure lock on the truth. But I've learned over many years in practice to trust those experts more than some others even if those others might have attained a higher office. In fact, this group has proven to be right several times when they were on the scientifically unpopular side of an issue.  Experts can be serially wrong and still climb the political ranks too. So I'd trust the experts I watched for 25 years over the current President of ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians), or the AMA, even if those doctors were in a more public position. 

 

I have to make decisions every day that affect the lives and well being of actual people in my care. I have to apply the best science I can based on weighing the opinions of various experts, as well as my own read of the literature. In my practice, it's what I do. It's how nearly all medicine is practiced.

 

But on here, its just sharing an opinion. No one is going to live or die based on anything any of us write on here. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, I am not a doctor or any kind of scientific expert, but I can tell you that just because some government entity decides businesses can open again, it doesn’t mean the people will necessarily come.

I know I sure won’t subject myself to close quarters with a bunch of other folks until I can feel comfortable that I won’t get seriously ill from doing so – there’s no restaurant meal, concert, or sporting event experience I want badly enough to risk that. I know several folks my age (mid-50s), both with and without risk factors who were scarily, miserably ill with this thing. None required hospitalization but all experienced about a week of moderate illness followed by a day or two of feeling better only to relapse into being much worse, including vomiting, extreme weakness (being too weak to stand at times) and coughing up blood. I do not want to spend 2-3 weeks of my life wondering if I’ll get better or get worse enough to need someone to call 911 for me. On the flip side I’d also very much like to avoid being an asymptomatic carrier that could cause someone else to be in that boat or worse – and it is beginning to sound like there’s no small measure of those folks around too.

Thing is, sports like professional hockey rely on people like me to put our butts in seats – us older folks have the disposable cash to do that. If we aren’t feeling like we are safe doing that, it doesn’t matter who opens what when. The money isn’t going to show up.

I think financially it’s going to take longer and be more complicated than just saying it’s OK that nonessential businesses can open again. We're going to need to see an effective vaccine or treatment, or real numbers showing that the risk is now very small. We're not close to any of that. 

I’m going to wait for more answers and I am sure I am not the only one.

That said, I have very much appreciated reading everyone’s posts in this thread. Between this and the people I work with and serve (I work for a public-health related entity) I have learned way more about this than I ever could have reading news items in lay media. I'm not happy about where we are right now but I do know that will change. 

Edited by romansperson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...