Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
magpiemaniac

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

Recommended Posts

On 5/7/2020 at 8:51 PM, remkin said:

Would that be top 4 get byes? Then 24 get down to 12 and form 16 teams with the 4 bye teams? 

 

I guess I like that we're in, so I say use point percentage and take the top 16 teams in the league. Rank them 1-16 by point percentage. 16 plays 1, etc.

We'd be ranked #9 and play Vegas who we are almost identical to in many categories. 

 

Of course they'll want to get more teams in, so this will turn out to be a great year to be close but with no real chance because now, congratulations, you're in.

24 teams conveniently brings in the Rangers and Montreal. The Rangers were coming on late, but Montreal definitely did not earn a shot at this. So instead, how about this. Can the regular season and let all 31 teams in the playoffs. Give the top team by winning percentage a first round bye, and every round is 2 out of 3 until the finals which would be 7 games. No idea how long this would take but less than 2+ months I’d think.
 

In reality, they need to face reality and cancel the season. Too much can go wrong, starting with the health of the players, to be worth coming back now. I’m sure the league is doing it, but their energy needs to be going into figuring out how to start 2020-21 season on time, and what accommodations will be necessary to make hockey work this fall.

Share this post


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

image.thumb.jpeg.474027f100e34f252b1023416ff1af90.jpeg
 

Will the NHL be next?

 

Minor leagues, in all sports, have different operating revenue sources than their major league counter-parts.  The minor leagues depend significantly on gate receipts, so operating without fans is really a non-starter.  The NFL, with its huge TV revenue stream, likely could operate for a long time with no or limited fans.  The NHL, not as much.  Those planning and scenario analysis meetings at league headquarters must be something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a little of Korean baseball this morning.

 

The fake fans behind the plate are ridiculous.  The piped in noise matters.  I think if the NHL does this (and I'm still thinking it will be next season earliest), they need some sort of atmospheric sound in the stadium.

 

Otherwise, the game is the game.  The umps wear facemasks.  So do the baseline coaches.  That's weird.

 

It will be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this is not a surprise.  Should any games, regular season or playoff, occur for 19-20 season, fans won't be in the arena -- in all likelihood. 

 

So, the team has acknowledged that with the following statement to us STMs who have put down the cash.   They do have a disclaimer that in the <unlikely> event games are played with fans, we have first dibs on buying back our games.

 

Quote
Dear wxray1,
 
We hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy during these unprecedented times. Thank you for your continued support of the Carolina Hurricanes – we are anxious to get back on the ice and can’t wait to see you at PNC Arena whenever that is deemed possible.
 
While the remaining eight home games of the 2019-20 regular season have not been officially cancelled, the Hurricanes want to continue to provide flexibility to our Season Ticket Members as we all plan ahead for the 2020-21 season.  Because we are approaching your next scheduled payment on 6/1/20, we will be applying all credit* from un-played games to decrease this payment, and all future payments for the 2020-21 season. Credit amounts include all un-played 2019-20 regular season games and parking, as well as any funds paid toward the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs.
 
... <bunch o details and possible exceptions>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 11:34 AM, wxray1 said:

OK, this is not a surprise.  Should any games, regular season or playoff, occur for 19-20 season, fans won't be in the arena -- in all likelihood. 

 

So, the team has acknowledged that with the following statement to us STMs who have put down the cash.   They do have a disclaimer that in the <unlikely> event games are played with fans, we have first dibs on buying back our games.

 

 

No fans equals no game IMO.   Just open up with reduced seating and social distancing measures.  

Share this post


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

No fans equals no game IMO.   Just open up with reduced seating and social distancing measures.  

Not a recipe for profitability. And based on what we know about Dundon, if it ain't profitable, it ain't happenin'.

Share this post


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

Not a recipe for profitability. And based on what we know about Dundon, if it ain't profitable, it ain't happenin'.

I get that was his philosophy. Good management can change with the circumstances . This is the time for new approaches. Even if temporary .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit mystified myself by the $$$ aspect, and how this could possibly work for hockey -- outside of the Great White North.

 

MLB is having a rocky road negotiating with their players.  It isn't certain MLB will play, what with push back including safety concerns and MONEY.  I heard an interview with one player and he basically said, "We ain't playing unless we get PAID." 

 

Now, you put some MLB up on TV, and the ratings will be sky high.  People are desperate.  Money will come in from TV.  TV is desperate for live action so they can charge their advertisers some bucks.

 

We love the NHL, but NHL won't draw like MLB, NBA or NFL. 

 

So where's the money going to come from?  You think the players are going to play for free?   Nope.  They Will Not.

Share this post


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

I'm still a bit mystified myself by the $$$ aspect, and how this could possibly work for hockey -- outside of the Great White North.

 

MLB is having a rocky road negotiating with their players.  It isn't certain MLB will play, what with push back including safety concerns and MONEY.  I heard an interview with one player and he basically said, "We ain't playing unless we get PAID." 

 

Now, you put some MLB up on TV, and the ratings will be sky high.  People are desperate.  Money will come in from TV.  TV is desperate for live action so they can charge their advertisers some bucks.

 

We love the NHL, but NHL won't draw like MLB, NBA or NFL. 

 

So where's the money going to come from?  You think the players are going to play for free?   Nope.  They Will Not.

It is a different situation than baseball.

 

they have played the majority of games and so, most have gotten a vast majority of their pay.

 

to the players this is about the earnings of the league and maintaining a higher cap ceiling (escrow).  If they play the playoffs, the TV money for the playoffs will bring the league back into the black.  Keeping the cap at where it is now will mean the players will earn what they are supposed to next season. Also, it only slightly affects the earning potential of the upcoming UFAs. In the end they are playing for normalcy for next season.

 

the mlb hasn’t started so, they can’t earn 80-85% of gate revenues. The league expects to lose a billion dollars from a lack of gate revenue and other revenues at this point. The owners want the players to take a slice of the risk by basing their entire salaries on 50% of revenue. Unlike the nhl players, they will not know what they are being paid.  Which is troubling for anyone and I expect baseball to continue to shoot itself in the foot.

Edited by gocanes0506
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gocanes.  I can't keep track of all this.

 

So for the NHL, the real trouble could begin next season if they start December (as rumored), and a second wave has popped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wxray1 said:

nd a second wave has popped up.

It ain’t gunna matter. We can’t go back for another lockdown. Herd immunity or bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 1:16 PM, cc said:

No fans equals no game IMO.   Just open up with reduced seating and social distancing measures.  

I don’t see how they’d logistically figure out reduced seating given they have STHs. How would they determine which fans go and where they sit with social distancing? If they did some sort of blind lottery to determine that could you opt out of the rest of the season without risking your current status/seats? If you have known increased risk factor(s) at the moment I do not see a path that would be *safe enough*.

Edited by caneswincup
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It ain’t gunna matter. We can’t go back for another lockdown. Herd immunity or bust.

There are already cases of reoccurrence, so it’s looking like herd immunity is wishful thinking, especially as it continues to morph into various strains.

 

Aside from my (or any fans health) I find it grossly unfair that we would expect to have players put their health, their family’s health, etc. at risk and to expect them to separately live from their families in the name of entertainment.


I love hockey and I understand there are risks in professional sports but this is not one anybody signed up for when they chose to pursue this career. 

Edited by caneswincup
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden now estimates they'll have herd immunity by June. Maybe the NHL could play games there. The bigger ice would be an interesting twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, caneswincup said:

There are already cases of reoccurrence

Source and confirmation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wxray1 said:

Thanks gocanes.  I can't keep track of all this.

 

So for the NHL, the real trouble could begin next season if they start December (as rumored), and a second wave has popped up.

Yes. Next season will not start without fans.  Smaller market teams cant function without it and big market teams cant pull all the weight with their TV deals and a national deal.
 

NHL needs gate money to make money.  Really everyone needs gate money outside of the NFL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gocanes0506 said:

 

NHL needs gate money to make money.  Really everyone needs gate money outside of the NFL.  

 

The minor leagues could become a real issue in all sports, including the NHL, if this drags on.  That's kind of interesting considering the Canes are having a bit of a tiff with their affiliate at this time.

 

MLB wanted to contract the minors, specifically some of the lower leagues like the Burlington Royals play in.  (Ever been to a game?  Good fun, terrible baseball.)   There were petitions to Congress to save the teams from contraction.  No joke because MLB has a law approved monopoly.  You can't make this up.  Yes, professional baseball is a mandated monopoly. 

 

Anyway, I doubt the Royals will survive as an MLB affiliate.  They may become part of some new independent league, at best.  Besides dumping their rookie affiliates, I suspect MLB may even go deeper and dump low A affiliates.  Mudcats are high A and probably will survive.  Maybe!  Depends on each team.  The Mudcats are now owned by the Brewers so they'll probably survive.  Their previous life owned by an individual like Steve Bryant did would probably put them in jeopardy.

 

Sports will very likely be different on the other side of this, from the lowest of minors, to the highest of majors, to the highest of international sports (Olympics).

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


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

Source and confirmation?

You'll have to investigate yourself for sources you believe but 5 sailors on the carrier docked in Guam who previously tested positive have tested positive again during the re-boarding process.  Could be they were false positives to begin with, could be terrible news...who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A couple of thoughts about the idea of reinfection of people who have had the disease. 

 

First, if we can all get Covid again, after all antibodies have formed, then welcome to the apocalypse. This will never end. Luckily the odds of that are vanishingly small IMO. For one thing, people have gained immunity to every other coronavirus, MERS and SARS etc. For another, there are almost no viruses that we don't get at least a short term immunity to. Yes, flu mutates every year and can get around our immunity (and the vaccine too BTW), but flu still peters out every season, and the covid mutation thing is still being figured out. It's one thing for the virus to mutate, but an effective mutation would have to avoid the immune response to the part of the virus that gives us immunity. As an aside, virus mutations that survive tend to be milder than the one that it came from. Some think this is a survival strategy for the virus, which has no brain, so that's a whole bigger can of worms topic. 

 

But the mutation question is mostly mute (see what I did there?) because if it mattered, none of what I list below would be true. Yet it is all true. 

 

Sometimes in the fleury of 5 minute news blurbs that tout something that takes months to years to study, I find it helpful to take a step back, look at all available data and ask myself what is most likely? Does it make sense that this virus would not respond to our antibodies? No. It makes no sense. I'm not saying there might not be exceptions, but the overwhelming body of information points to at least a short term immunity. Why?

 

1. There have, until now, been no well documented cases of a person with Covid 19 having a full recovery and then getting re infected with illness. This thing has been around since December at least in China, and tested for here since at least March. There have now been 4.7 million confirmed cases worldwide. The newest navy guys are one grouping but there have been many many other groupings: Diamond Princess, Neuse Correctional with over 400 positives, several other prisons, etc, etc, etc. No mention of a repeated case of Covid. 

 

Could a new strain have mutated in the two weeks between negative tests on the Theodore Roosevelt and re infected the sailors. Maybe, but no. 

 

2. If the antibodies are not protective....why doesn't everyone die from the infection? How are they recovering? Devine intervention with 4 million plus miracles? We recover from the vast majority of viral infections. HIV is unique in that it attacks and infects the very immune cells that give us protection. Yet at least 99% of the people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 enough to make antibodies or get sick, have recovered. 

 

3. Although the evidence is still small in sample size, it appears that convelescent serum filled with antibodies from recovered patients can help even the sickest covid patient. I'd love to hear of any data of a moderately sick person getting convalescent serum, but if it can help people on the verge of death, that would be pretty potent. 

 

4. How is the number of new cases going down? Again, if the antibodies are not protective, and everyone who's had the disease is available to get it again, the incidence should just keep going up and up and up. Yet since about April 10th? Down, down, down. And generally down faster in the hardest hit areas, where non immunity should be an even worse problem since such a large proportion of the population can keep passing it around compared to places with few cases (rhymes). And this is new cases in the faces* of massively increased testing simply finding more of the cases already out there.

 

*keeping the rhymes going. Might be a song there.

 

How did Wuhan not just keep recycling this thing and it never going down? They don't have a vaccine or cure. They have antibodies though.

 

5. MERS, SARS and minor Coronaviruses confer at least short term (months to a year) immunity, as do by far most viruses. 

 

I'm just so tired of trying to get scientific data from journalists. I have read two stories on those sailors and, as always, major and obvious questions are left unanswered. How about this one: were those sailors in any way symptomatic either the first time or the second? Maybe answered somewhere, but should I have to search everywhere to find out?

 

I do think that there is importance in one other respect that the stories can't answer: When are those sailors contagious? Does the repeat ability to test positive mean that they are still contagious? Thing is, good luck answering that one if we still can't say that Covid antibodies confer any immunity after 4.7 million chances to show it.

 

So what caused these sailors to test positive again? I don't know. But much more likely a second wave of viral replication than new disease. Possibly in such a highly concentrated covid environment that these sailors were re-infected partly into their case before they had developed antibodies allowing a second wave of viral replication. Or something else that is interesting but largely not transformative to the immunity question. 

 

What I see also, is the same abundance of caution that is oddly present concomitant with all of the 5 minute sensationalized headlines. That is that no one wants to say that a person can't get it twice, and then be proven wrong. So the CDC keeps saying, "we don't know".

 

How about: We don't know how long the immunity lasts, and we don't know that everyone who has antibodies is immune, but we know that there is significant immunity short term. I think it is obvious that "We" have to know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who have had Covid are immune for at least a short period. But I guess we just don't want to say it out loud for some reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...