Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
magpiemaniac

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

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, legend-1 said:

@remkin so I have a question with regards to infectious dose. If the body receives a non-infectious dose of the virus what all can that mean for the body? Did the body catch and fend off the virus before you even knew it, creating some antibodies in the process...a sort of crazy mans way of a vaccine or does it mean the virus just failed to take hold and died on it's own? I would imagine it could go either way?

 

Also if your asymptomatic does that mean you didn't receive an infectious dose of the virus?

It gets a bit tricky* as to the meaning of "infectious". Generally people mean that a person who is infected gets symptoms and is sick, and people who are exposed and gain some marker of exposure but who don't get sick are carriers. Carriers are determined by testing people who have had no symptoms and finding evidence of the virus or the antibody. In the case of Covid we have evidence from both. If it were just one, it might be open to "false positive' claims, and rightly so. That is, the antibody test in asymptomatic people might be measuring exposure to a different corona virus or other false positive. However, in Covid, we also have the screening of mass enclosed populations for evidence of the virus itself (ie Neuse Correctional where every person was tested, and over 90% felt to be asymptomatic). So we have direct virus testing and later antibody testing saying the same thing: there are a bunch of asymptomatic people who have had the virus AND made antibodies.

 

*it's tricky because there can be very mild symptoms that a person doesn't even recall.

 

The main explanation is the notion that the asymptomatic patients received a lower dose of virus than others, perhaps contained to the upper respiratory tract (vs lungs) and therefore had few if any symptoms before gaining immunity. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758. In other cases it is thought that some people ramp up their immunity faster, perhaps due to exposure to other coronaviruses. It is also possible that some yet unknown factor  present in many people conveys lower viral replication or spread (they may have less receptors for the virus, or ....something else). Another, even less likely thing would be exposure to a very mild strain. The most accepted explanation is lower dose of viral load quarantined in the upper tract allowing containment while immunity develops. This has been borne out in asymptomatic spread of flu.

 

I have a PA that we work with, whose husband is a guard at Neuse Correctional. These two form a fascinating couplet of data that I've seen first hand. First, he contracted Covid presumably at the prison. He became sick (non hospitalized) with fever, aches, cough, miserable. She cared for him and a few days later she lost all sense of smell. We all can get that with lots of nasal congestion, but she had none. She could fully inhale through her nostrils but smell nothing including pet leavings, food, etc. This is a bizarre symptom pretty specific for Covid. But she never got any sicker than that. Meanwhile he recovered fully, but now 4 weeks later is still testing positive for the virus in PCR viral testing. This is keeping him from going back to work. She never got tested, and because she had no fever or cough, she just kept working in our ED, for at least 8 shifts in a two week period. She and we wore regular surgical masks, and now, is far enough out that we can say it is likely none of us got it from her. (She plans to get the antibody test in about a week. I'd bet a paycheck on her being positive, but I'll try to remember to put it down if she does or doesn't. If she does it would be an N of 1 that is about as convincing as an N of 1 can be, that relatively asymptomatic cases exist).  

 

These two address the Theodore Roosevelt thing in that her husband fully recovered but is still testing positive 4 weeks later. And she shows that the relatively "asymptomatic" may just have had very mild symptoms and assumed they never had it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 11:23 AM, remkin said:

It gets a bit tricky* as to the meaning of "infectious". Generally people mean that a person who is infected gets symptoms and is sick, and people who are exposed and gain some marker of exposure but who don't get sick are carriers. Carriers are determined by testing people who have had no symptoms and finding evidence of the virus or the antibody. In the case of Covid we have evidence from both. If it were just one, it might be open to "false positive' claims, and rightly so. That is, the antibody test in asymptomatic people might be measuring exposure to a different corona virus or other false positive. However, in Covid, we also have the screening of mass enclosed populations for evidence of the virus itself (ie Neuse Correctional where every person was tested, and over 90% felt to be asymptomatic). So we have direct virus testing and later antibody testing saying the same thing: there are a bunch of asymptomatic people who have had the virus AND made antibodies.

 

*it's tricky because there can be very mild symptoms that a person doesn't even recall.

 

The main explanation is the notion that the asymptomatic patients received a lower dose of virus than others, perhaps contained to the upper respiratory tract (vs lungs) and therefore had few if any symptoms before gaining immunity. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758. In other cases it is thought that some people ramp up their immunity faster, perhaps due to exposure to other coronaviruses. It is also possible that some yet unknown factor  present in many people conveys lower viral replication or spread (they may have less receptors for the virus, or ....something else). Another, even less likely thing would be exposure to a very mild strain. The most accepted explanation is lower dose of viral load quarantined in the upper tract allowing containment while immunity develops. This has been borne out in asymptomatic spread of flu.

 

I have a PA that we work with, whose husband is a guard at Neuse Correctional. These two form a fascinating couplet of data that I've seen first hand. First, he contracted Covid presumably at the prison. He became sick (non hospitalized) with fever, aches, cough, miserable. She cared for him and a few days later she lost all sense of smell. We all can get that with lots of nasal congestion, but she had none. She could fully inhale through her nostrils but smell nothing including pet leavings, food, etc. This is a bizarre symptom pretty specific for Covid. But she never got any sicker than that. Meanwhile he recovered fully, but now 4 weeks later is still testing positive for the virus in PCR viral testing. This is keeping him from going back to work. She never got tested, and because she had no fever or cough, she just kept working in our ED, for at least 8 shifts in a two week period. She and we wore regular surgical masks, and now, is far enough out that we can say it is likely none of us got it from her. (She plans to get the antibody test in about a week. I'd bet a paycheck on her being positive, but I'll try to remember to put it down if she does or doesn't. If she does it would be an N of 1 that is about as convincing as an N of 1 can be, that relatively asymptomatic cases exist).  

 

These two address the Theodore Roosevelt thing in that her husband fully recovered but is still testing positive 4 weeks later. And she shows that the relatively "asymptomatic" may just have had very mild symptoms and assumed they never had it. 

 

Honestly my beat advice is to stay away from Corona beers since it carries the virus.  Natural Lite is better for you for 2 primary reasons:

 

- it's natural. 

- it's lite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Say it isnt so.  Government agencies bungling data.

 

Well, the heads of the CDC and FDA have never run as big an agency in the past....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cc said:

Say it isnt so.  Government agencies bungling data.

There's a difference between bungling and purposeful suppression, cc, and you know it. But if pretending it's an innocent mistake makes you feel better, have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cc said:

Why do you have to go there.  Just be nice for once. OMG

For the same reason you tried to change the message of the article I posted: I didn't like that you did so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've just had the two highest days of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the state, an upward trend that started right at phase 1.  The good news about acquired immunity in primates was very welcome, however.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cc said:

Picking a couple days and a single stat won’t cut it.

Because you are the supreme arbiter of what does and doesn't "cut it." Whatevs. Funny how your alternative facts are just fine to post and crow about, but when folks post stuff you don't agree with, it's suddenly "political."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reporting is all over the place. We don’t know what we don’t know about this situation and its heavily politicized.  
 

do we actually get it a 2nd time or just carry it after building the immunities?  Reports are all over the place.

 

is / was the shutdown effective? Reports and medical opinions are all over the place.

 

are doctors reporting covid on any respiratory issue for funding purposes? Reporting is out there.

 

we really know very little about this.  We do know that mass hysteria is easy to induce and everything that can be used for gain will be politicized.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

Reputable sources are relative today.

No, they are not, and they never have been, today or at any other time. That is a lazy dodge which too many people have bought into, but just because Kellyanne Conway believes in "alternative facts" doesn't make them any more real than Santa Claus or unicorns.

 

There is a basic set of ethics and a host of best practices for vetting, corroborating, and reporting information. Serious journalists adhere to them. Water carriers and flaks for particular points of view (like Conway, or, on the other side, David Alexrod) do not.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

No, they are not, and they never have been, today or at any other time. That is a lazy dodge which too many people have bought into, but just because Kellyanne Conway believes in "alternative facts" doesn't make them any more real than Santa Claus or unicorns.

 

There is a basic set of ethics and a host of best practices for vetting, corroborating, and reporting information. Serious journalists adhere to them. Water carriers and flaks for particular points of view (like Conway, or, on the other side, David Alexrod) do not.  

I can’t laugh at this hard enough 

 

this is the equivalent of saying politicians follow their oaths because they have one.

Edited by gocanes0506
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I don't know any more than anyone else on this site.

 

2) Hockey is a fan based sport.  The energy the crowd generates at the rink MAKES the game special.  This is the main reason hockey has never caught on as a TV sport;  not the "it's too hard t follow the puck on the screen" argument.

 

3) Playing in empty arenas the players would not bring the same energy and enthusiasm.

 

4) The 2019/2020 season is over.  "Who says so?"  The VOICE OF REASON.  Not only would playing again endanger the lives of the players, arena workers, officials, staff, etc., but the games would not have much meaning to the absent fans.

 

5) Focus should be on the 2020/2021 season and how to make that safe and how to get life at the facilities back to normal.  I don't even believe a normal 2020/2021 season can and should be expected.  Just because some states are "reopening" to various degrees does not insure any safety whatsoever.  Gov't officials bend to the wills of their electorate.  That does not mean as restaurants reopen you will see me, my family, or my friends frequenting them.  I do NOT believe NEXT season will be normal from start to finish.

 

6) I don't know any more than anyone else on this site.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 8:54 AM, cc said:

Covid Update for 5/20 and 5/21.  Source NCDHHS and NYtimes. As of 1:50 PM 5/21

 

Take from it what you will-  .

 

Testing was way up for these 2 days.

~ 10-12% increase in hospitalizations over the last 3 days compared to the week prior.

    Deaths per day is dropping steadily(NYtimes data)

 

5/20                   New Cases 422     Tests 13503(new record)      % positive 3.1

5/21                   New Cases 738     Tests 9661                            % positive 13.1

 

2 day total                               1160          23164                                             5.0%

 

Total for entire recording duration (4/20-5/21)

                                              20860         290645                                            7.2%

Except this.

 

Edit to add: Wasn't it you cc who protested, in response to a similar citation by someone else, just a few ticks upthread, that "Picking a single stat and a couple of days won't cut it"? Why yes... yes it was.

 

But wait, as they say on the late-night TV commercials, there's more: Your puffed-up vow not to wear a mask is self-centered and dangerous. 

 

I'm sure that sounds "mean" to someone who has repeatedly asked me to "be nice" on these boards. Yet I'm not the one putting others at risk by going without a mask. You are.

 

You have claimed on these boards to be "a scientist," yet based on your determination to resist wearing a mask, this much is clear: You are a scientist who either doesn't understand--or worse, doesn't care--how masks work: They protect not only you, but others. That's why doctors wear them in ORs: to protect the patient whose open wound--of the doctor's creation--they will be standing over as they ask for surgical tools, and possibly sneeze or cough, emitting aerosolized saliva and nasal droplets... which, without a mask, would enter the wound.

 

Is it really the hassle you have so vociferously and insistently claimed it to be to don protection for the sake of others, cc, in case you are asymptomatic and happen to sneeze or cough or talk with someone nearby? 

 

You say "be nice," and you are right: everyone should be. When there's a pandemic on, wearing a mask in public is the most basic way of doing so.

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for many it is difficult to stay away from the political side of the pandemic but please try or at least keep the conversation on the COVID impact on sports and hockey.

 

At this point we know most persons political point of view.

 

We can and will close this tread if we can't at least be civil to each other. I don't care who you are, which side of the coin you represent or what you do for a living. The one fact is what we don't know about this virus still outweighs what we do know. So lets stick to hockey and let the political views be voiced elsewhere.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will never agree that it is good for the game and especially the players to play under the conditions that they will have to play under.   I would hope that all the players were surveyed to get an idea if this is really going to be worth the effort that it will take to keep everyone safe.   I just don't see it.  Don't get me wrong because if this really does happen I will be watching most games.  But me.....I really don't care if they finish the season or there is a cup winner this year or not.    I would rather the league spend their efforts on starting the 2020/2021 season even if it means starting without fans for a month or two until we see what really is going to happen to this virus once the flu season gets here.   These are really scary times and no sport is worth putting peoples lives a risk.   If one player tests positive all hell is going to break loose. 

 

And on a Root Admin note  - don't close the thread because a couple of folks are political or throwing barbs at each other.   So what?   We are all grown ups here.   I don't know about the rest of y'all but I am pretty thicked skin and kind of enjoy the bantering.  It kind of keeps the blood moving (ha) !!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to just add one distinction. This thread is about a major societal issue. That some political views will seep in here, as opposed to hockey threads, is not unreasonable. What is not acceptable is blatantly partisan attacks. They are purely inflammatory. Attacking a particular politician or political party overtly and without respect. Generally, in hockey threads we try to keep nearly all politics out. Here it is hard to do. But that means we rely on our posters to know where that line is. There have now been two general requests by moderators to avoid partisan political attacks. If one can't avoid it, then warnings will have to follow. If one can't tolerate this thread without crossing that line, the answer may be for you to avoid this thread, and avoid risking a warning rather than us shutting the thread down for people who can hold back on partisan attacks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 10:14 AM, gocanes0506 said:

The reporting is all over the place. We don’t know what we don’t know about this situation and its heavily politicized.  
 

do we actually get it a 2nd time or just carry it after building the immunities?  Reports are all over the place.

 

is / was the shutdown effective? Reports and medical opinions are all over the place.

 

are doctors reporting covid on any respiratory issue for funding purposes? Reporting is out there.

 

we really know very little about this.  We do know that mass hysteria is easy to induce and everything that can be used for gain will be politicized.  

If it kills you the first time, it really doesn’t matter. I don’t want to spin the wheel and see if I’m in the 5-7 percent that doesn’t get to find out if I develop immunity post infection.

 

Also, the possibly permanent damage a lot of “survivors” are seeing doesn’t look appealing either. YMMV

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NHLPA agrees to having playoffs, the only possible explanation is to generate revenue, Not a desire to crown a Stanley Cup champion. Escrow on this year’s salaries will be huge if the season is just stopped. Presumably revenue brought in will also affect the salary cap for next season. Right now, the earliest they could start would probably be well into July. Meaning games would be played into September. Then there would be a whole can of worms over when to start next season and whether to reduce the number of games to be played next season. Right now, if what I read on the internet is correct, 17% of players are at home in countries abroad and are not able to enter the USA or Canada. I think the U.S./Canada border is still closed as well. I just don’t see how they are going to get this done and honestly, I don’t see the point.,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won’t add to the discourse by admitting I’m a Libertarian living off welfare in government housing and my vote is for sale to the highest bidder.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would suspect the NHLPA is onboard with playing because of money.  It has to come from somewhere.  And the owners aren't just going to give it out.

 

Most of the young men are probably willing to accept some of the risk, just as they do knowing a blade could cut a carotid, or they could uncover a heart rhythm anomaly.   The blade risk is real and serious, resulting in a few life changing retirements.  And I still think Cam wasn't the same after his blade cut, even though it didn't threaten his life.

 

I'm more curious about the older support staff and coaches, and their risk tolerance.

 

One final thing about this.  We obviously all see the risk differently.  I'm doing my best to avoid this thing like crazy.  But as I mentioned on the other thread, I went down east last week to help out on some worthy hurricane recovery projects.  The general attitude down there among people of all socio-economic classes was completely different than in Raleigh.  Masks were rare, rules were flaunted, and I felt uneasy a few times.  This is probably because the counties we worked in have reported numbers under 100.  But who knows what the silent count is?  I was somewhat shocked by the overall difference in attitude. 

 

OBXer, what vibe are you getting from where you live?

 

The point being I'm sure the players are not 100% on board.  Their opinions will vary too, and if they do decide to play, it should be enlightening to see what comes of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wxray1 said:

One final thing about this.  We obviously all see the risk differently...

 

And that view of risk changes over time in response to real or imagined changes in the threat.  After 9/11 some in the media and many people said there would never be mass gatherings again, no Super Bowl could ever be held, people wouldn’t fly, people would not want to go in tall buildings.  Years later, looking at air traffic numbers and mass gathering gate receipts, etc., it was like 9/11 never happened!  What changed?  A lot had to do with the perception that the risk was less or the realization that the risk of any one mass gathering being attacked and result in death or injury was always small.  Also changed was there was at least the appearance of safety, TSA seizing your bottle of water or shaving gel, of course, makes nothing safer, but adds to an illusion of safety, that the risk is less.  The same with metal detectors and screenings at PNC Arena.  If someone intended to do premeditated harm to PNC Arena attendees, would those security measures prevent it?  Doubtful, but the appearance of those checkpoints gives an illusion of reducing risk and making folks feel comfortable, normal.

 

Likewise we’ll see mask wearing by service providers and encouragement for others to wear them, temperature checkpoints at entrances to businesses and workplaces, random testing, sanitizers everywhere, where to stand markings on the floor, etc.  Some of these measures will be of dubious ability to actually prevent someone from getting the virus, anymore than taking your shaving cream will prevent the airplane from being blown up, but it will make many folks feel safer, reducing their perception of risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that support staff will wear at least N95 masks. It's very hard to yell to the ice with one, but the coaches should be able to wear one and communicate to the players on the bench in an empty stadium. We have had shortages of these masks at our hospital until recently. (In what is really one of the biggest fails of this entire thing. Not having enough N95's for health care provider to be able to wear one into every room is a travesty. The stock was allowed to draw down in a major fail).  But in this case our providers in our ED wear surgical masks and eyewear and gloves into every single room of every patient. We wear N95 masks into high risk rooms, but frankly you never know for sure who has it. So far, knock on wood, no provider out of around 25 has contracted Covid from a patient in our ED. And we see patients with Covid every day, and pretty much every shift. 

 

These guys will have been tested up and down, and quarantined for 2 weeks. The coaches also. The players will still, undoubtedly wear masks in any sort of loose, socially distant gatherings. As soon as Sweden declares heard immunity I'd book a trip there. Stockholm is a beautiful city, and Sweden will be one of the safest places to be. The NHL version of this thing will be also one of the safest places you can be. These guys will be far safer than the average citizen, even those in the lockdown going to Costco and Harris Teeter etc. The real risk here is almost entirely public relations. One guy gets it, and does fine and the critics will jump out in social media. NHL might look bad. 

 

The players chose to do this. They had the power to shut it down. The majority are rich enough to vote no and take the financial hit. They looked at the risks (minute) and decided to play. Money? Sure. People do a lot of much riskier things for money though. But also they want to play. They are hockey players. They play hockey. It's what they do.  

 

I can't wait for some hockey. Those who oppose can protest vote with their eyeballs and not watch. Is anyone going to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW I do agree that risk is perceived differently by different people. Partly because it should be. That's the whole point in this case and many other aspects of decision making in this thing. In all of the confusion about what the reality is, one thing that has been there from the start and proven out over time is that the risk is massively different for different people in different settings. A plurality of all deaths occurred in nursing homes, and similar settings. In those settings not only are the patients at massively higher risk if they catch Covid, but many of them are unable to watch out for their own safety. They don't get masks in many cases and even if they do, many of them don't keep them on. And they're almost never N95 masks. They can't protect themselves. And they were trapped in the opposite of a proven covid-negative population (like the NHL will be).

 

On the other side, the mortality of covid in pediatrics is so vanishingly small that it is a non factor. The risk of a child dying of flu is monumentally higher than them dying of Covid, even though flu is not a major risk for most kids either.

 

All of the factors that lower risk are in play in this NHL scenario:

 

Players and personnel will be proven disease free and continue that in quarantine. PPE will be used. Players are almost all in a very low risk age and health grouping. Coaches and other personnel with PPE would be at low risk even if there was covid in the players, but even lower since there will be almost none but they'll still wear PPE.

 

This is not having free style wrestling among untested patients in a nursing home with other resident crowd around the ring. It's like, the opposite of that.

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...