Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:07 pm

6AAGuy wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:50 pm
SECoach wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:21 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:01 pm


If your observations are correct (which I don’t dispute), then flu numbers would be spiking, wouldn’t they?
Again, I don't believe we have an accurate estimate on the number of asymptomatic Covid-19 folks. If an accurate number is available for that, it could surely shoot down my theories. Per your study mentioned above, influenza may be 50%. Could the Covid % be much higher? I believe people with symptoms are doing at least a reasonable job of staying away from others. To me the difference comes from asymptomatic spread. JG makes a great point as well. At least at this moment I'm very comfortable thinking I don't have the flu. I have no symptoms AND I was vaccinated a couple months ago. I literally have no idea if I am Covid positive. For that reason, I choose to act as if I am. Good talk.
The important pint is that you’re making that choice. Good for you. Carry on.
Do you fault others who choose to behave differently if they have no symptoms, feel fine and want to try and live as normal a life as possible.
Here you go, SEC coach. Asymptomatic spread is not impactful:

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/13385 ... 91425?s=21

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:22 am

Well looks like that MN hockey info was wrong. Won’t be starting till Jan 4th. Found this on Twitter this morning from Blois Olson.

1. A moderate loosening of family gathering guidance;
2. Gyms can open at 25 percent;
3. Restaurants and bars are closed for another 3 weeks INDOORS;
4. Sports resume practices January 4th.

HockeyStorm
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by HockeyStorm » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:14 am

Is that both youth and high school resuming January 4?

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by jg2112 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:16 am

Usthockey13 wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:22 am
Well looks like that MN hockey info was wrong. Won’t be starting till Jan 4th. Found this on Twitter this morning from Blois Olson.

1. A moderate loosening of family gathering guidance;
2. Gyms can open at 25 percent;
3. Restaurants and bars are closed for another 3 weeks INDOORS;
4. Sports resume practices January 4th.
If this is correct, this looks like the right approach. Kids can get outside on the ponds if they "need" to skate over the holidays. What can't happen is:

Kids start practicing December 21, and hang out with friends again, and potentially catch the virus (no symptoms).
Kids visit extended families over Christmas (it's going to happen, why act otherwise).
Kids spread the virus to family members.
Mid-to-late January we have a surge of infections and hospital visits again.

We're so close to the vaccine, and kids understand what's going on (better than parents it seems).

This is the responsible approach to the youth sports issue. Hopefully the adults can deal with it.

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am

HockeyStorm wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:14 am
Is that both youth and high school resuming January 4?
I would assume so. I guess we will find out today.

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:34 am

Tom Hauser posted that all youth/HS sports will start Jan 4th practice only and no date for games. I hope MSHSL can work and get their model 2 in place.

HockeyStorm
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by HockeyStorm » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:37 am

Per a HS coach indoor games can resume January 11, and with the immediate opening of outdoor rinks could there be games played outdoors sooner as long as within capacity guidelines?

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:57 am

HockeyStorm wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:37 am
Sounds like indoor games can resume January 11, and with the immediate opening of outdoor rinks I think there could be games played outdoors sooner as long as within capacity guidelines.
Where did you hear this? and I hope its true

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by goldy313 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:29 am

The MSHSL requires two weeks of practice before games can be played.....at least that was the stance this fall when football resumed.

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:42 am

goldy313 wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:29 am
The MSHSL requires two weeks of practice before games can be played.....at least that was the stance this fall when football resumed.
Yea the MSHSL model 2 says start 1/4 with 2 weeks for practice then games to start 1/18.. I hope that hold true

WestMetro
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by WestMetro » Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:48 pm

Usthockey13 wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:34 am
Tom Hauser posted that all youth/HS sports will start Jan 4th practice only and no date for games. I hope MSHSL can work and get their model 2 in place.
Disappointing . Up until 7 pm Tuesday night , I was thinking rinks would open Friday for practice

Here is one persons photo and questions. Makes a good point. Is target Christmas shopping safer than kids at the rink?

https://twitter.com/sirpierreson/status ... 91680?s=10

Usthockey13
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Usthockey13 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:16 pm

To Walz yes that is safer. You can have 100 people in a gym now but we can have 20-30 kids on an ice sheet..

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by goldy313 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:51 pm

No adult sports for 30 more days but Junior hockey is fine.....12 feet of space in gyms with masks, the CDC says 6 feet.......no swimming, in a chlorinated pool...Science!

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:23 am

6AAGuy wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:07 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:50 pm
SECoach wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:21 pm


Again, I don't believe we have an accurate estimate on the number of asymptomatic Covid-19 folks. If an accurate number is available for that, it could surely shoot down my theories. Per your study mentioned above, influenza may be 50%. Could the Covid % be much higher? I believe people with symptoms are doing at least a reasonable job of staying away from others. To me the difference comes from asymptomatic spread. JG makes a great point as well. At least at this moment I'm very comfortable thinking I don't have the flu. I have no symptoms AND I was vaccinated a couple months ago. I literally have no idea if I am Covid positive. For that reason, I choose to act as if I am. Good talk.
The important pint is that you’re making that choice. Good for you. Carry on.
Do you fault others who choose to behave differently if they have no symptoms, feel fine and want to try and live as normal a life as possible.
Here you go, SEC coach. Asymptomatic spread is not impactful:

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/13385 ... 91425?s=21
And another article speaking to the fact that no one is reporting on the 10M person study showing ZERO cases of asymptomatic spread: https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomat ... ssion=true

Time to open. Let them play.

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by east hockey » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:34 pm

6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:23 am
6AAGuy wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:07 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:50 pm


The important pint is that you’re making that choice. Good for you. Carry on.
Do you fault others who choose to behave differently if they have no symptoms, feel fine and want to try and live as normal a life as possible.
Here you go, SEC coach. Asymptomatic spread is not impactful:

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/13385 ... 91425?s=21
And another article speaking to the fact that no one is reporting on the 10M person study showing ZERO cases of asymptomatic spread: https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomat ... ssion=true

Time to open. Let them play.
About aier.org:

"AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific"

You'll forgive me if I characterize your source as B.S.

Lee
Message Board arsonist since 2005
Egomaniac since 2006

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:03 pm

east hockey wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:34 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:23 am
6AAGuy wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:07 pm

Here you go, SEC coach. Asymptomatic spread is not impactful:

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/13385 ... 91425?s=21
And another article speaking to the fact that no one is reporting on the 10M person study showing ZERO cases of asymptomatic spread: https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomat ... ssion=true

Time to open. Let them play.
About aier.org:

"AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific"

You'll forgive me if I characterize your source as B.S.

Lee
Over 50,000 medical doctors and practitioners who signed the Great Barrington decree would disagree with you (and Fauci—whom you may recall also called masks unnecessary then recanted). Not everything your great doctor professes is gospel.

Anyway, this isn’t about Great Barrington, it’s about asymptomatic spread, which seems to have a lot of data suggesting it’s not happening, including the biggest study yet—making the science there unsettled at best.

Hard to base a lockdown on that notion is my point.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Wise Old Man » Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:05 pm

6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:03 pm
east hockey wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:34 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:23 am


And another article speaking to the fact that no one is reporting on the 10M person study showing ZERO cases of asymptomatic spread: https://www.aier.org/article/asymptomat ... ssion=true

Time to open. Let them play.
About aier.org:

"AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony
Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific"

You'll forgive me if I characterize your source as B.S.

Lee
Over 50,000 medical doctors and practitioners who signed the Great Barrington decree would disagree with you (and Fauci—whom you may recall also called masks unnecessary then recanted). Not everything your great doctor professes is gospel.

Anyway, this isn’t about Great Barrington, it’s about asymptomatic spread, which seems to have a lot of data suggesting it’s not happening, including the biggest study yet—making the science there unsettled at best.

Hard to base a lockdown on that notion is my point.
First, thanks to Lee for responding first. Was just coming to post something similar in response to 6AA's post. Also. it hasn't been signed by "over 50,000 doctors". This is from the first Google search I did, albeit from mid October when it was first released by Newsweek...

The Great Barrington Declaration, which is named after the town in Massachusetts that it was signed in, currently has signatures from 10,233 medical and public health scientists, 27,860 medical practitioners.

So, only 10,233 actual "doctors" supposedly signed it. I put doctors in quotes and used supposedly based on this piece from PlolitiFact...

"Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists"...

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
A trio of scientists drafted the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which says that people without underlying medical conditions should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal, while the vulnerable should remain protected.

The document was swiftly denounced by top health officials and thousands of researchers and scientists around the world, who called the approach unethical and nearly impossible.

See the sources for this fact-check (this was a link to the sources, doesn't working after I transferred it)

"BREAKING NEWS," one post on Facebook reads. "The world renowned experts in their fields, after a 4 day conference regarding COVID-19, declare that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO LIVING NORMALLY, PRACTICING SIMPLE HYGIENE & STAYING HOME WHEN SICK (NO FACE MASKS OR SOCIAL DISTANCING) and only protect the most vulnerable populations with more protective measures!"

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Huh, the post was flagged by Facebook. Isn't that interesting? It goes on to say...

The social media post doesn’t provide the full picture. It’s accurate that three scientists authored a letter that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world.

"The document was drawn up following a meeting hosted by the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research. Named the "Great Barrington Declaration" after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Dr. Johnny Bananas." The signatures were later made private."

"The plan was put together by three scientists from prestigious universities: Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. But none in the group have published any peer-reviewed studies about the coronavirus, and some have advocated for herd immunity over lockdowns for months, telling policymakers that the virus isn’t that deadly."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the declaration "ridiculous" and "total nonsense" in an interview with ABC News: "If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious disease they will tell you that that is risky, and you will wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think we just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense."

"Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference on Oct. 12.

Matt Hancock, the UK’s health secretary, attacked the document in Parliament on Oct. 13, saying that many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, and called it a flawed goal without a vaccine. Hancock also took issue with the paper’s idea of separating the elderly and vulnerable. "That is simply not possible," Hancok said. "As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable — not when so many people live in intergenerational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long COVID. ...If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate."

Thousands of other experts have also spoken out against the declaration. A counter-memo, first published in the Lancet medical journal and signed by a group of 80 researchers, called the idea "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." More than 6,400 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have since signed the memo.

So, let's put this one to bed for the final time and let's stop using "studies" by pseudo-scientists and "medical practitioners" who have little to no actual expertise in the area they are commenting on. Does this make whatever study 6AA referenced regarding asymptomatic spreaders backed by The Barrington Declaration

Next, from the actual conclusion of the linked study on asymptomatic spread...

Conclusions:
"The findings of this study suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even where community transmission is reduced. Prevention strategies, such as increased mask-wearing at home, improved ventilation, voluntary isolation at external facilities, and targeted antiviral prophylaxis, should be further explored."

If you do even a cursory review of the study, it's obvious that there are so many variables they have trouble accounting for that even it's authors acknowledge that, although the low asymptomatic spread rate established is of interest, even they aren't sold on the outcomes. I've got a great idea. Let's stop getting our "news" off of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Or, if we insist on doing so, let's at least spend 10 minutes researching what you find with simple Google searches to get a least a cursory idea as to whether or not said "article" or "study" has at least some merit.

Finally, let's hope the new strain in Britain that is 70% more transmissible and, has forced both Britain to do a hard lockdown of London and the rest of southeast England, along with the other European countries across the channel to temporarily enact travel bans on anyone coming in from England, doesn't cause issues here. Considering the incredibly rapid rise in cases in California, I won't be surprised if this new strain is found to be a part of why that's occurring. Especially since the strain was first identified in September.

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:00 am

Wise Old Man wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:05 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:03 pm
east hockey wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:34 pm


About aier.org:

"AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony
Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific"

You'll forgive me if I characterize your source as B.S.

Lee
Over 50,000 medical doctors and practitioners who signed the Great Barrington decree would disagree with you (and Fauci—whom you may recall also called masks unnecessary then recanted). Not everything your great doctor professes is gospel.

Anyway, this isn’t about Great Barrington, it’s about asymptomatic spread, which seems to have a lot of data suggesting it’s not happening, including the biggest study yet—making the science there unsettled at best.

Hard to base a lockdown on that notion is my point.
First, thanks to Lee for responding first. Was just coming to post something similar in response to 6AA's post. Also. it hasn't been signed by "over 50,000 doctors". This is from the first Google search I did, albeit from mid October when it was first released by Newsweek...

The Great Barrington Declaration, which is named after the town in Massachusetts that it was signed in, currently has signatures from 10,233 medical and public health scientists, 27,860 medical practitioners.

So, only 10,233 actual "doctors" supposedly signed it. I put doctors in quotes and used supposedly based on this piece from PlolitiFact...

"Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists"...

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
A trio of scientists drafted the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which says that people without underlying medical conditions should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal, while the vulnerable should remain protected.

The document was swiftly denounced by top health officials and thousands of researchers and scientists around the world, who called the approach unethical and nearly impossible.

See the sources for this fact-check (this was a link to the sources, doesn't working after I transferred it)

"BREAKING NEWS," one post on Facebook reads. "The world renowned experts in their fields, after a 4 day conference regarding COVID-19, declare that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO LIVING NORMALLY, PRACTICING SIMPLE HYGIENE & STAYING HOME WHEN SICK (NO FACE MASKS OR SOCIAL DISTANCING) and only protect the most vulnerable populations with more protective measures!"

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Huh, the post was flagged by Facebook. Isn't that interesting? It goes on to say...

The social media post doesn’t provide the full picture. It’s accurate that three scientists authored a letter that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world.

"The document was drawn up following a meeting hosted by the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research. Named the "Great Barrington Declaration" after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Dr. Johnny Bananas." The signatures were later made private."

"The plan was put together by three scientists from prestigious universities: Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. But none in the group have published any peer-reviewed studies about the coronavirus, and some have advocated for herd immunity over lockdowns for months, telling policymakers that the virus isn’t that deadly."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the declaration "ridiculous" and "total nonsense" in an interview with ABC News: "If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious disease they will tell you that that is risky, and you will wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think we just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense."

"Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference on Oct. 12.

Matt Hancock, the UK’s health secretary, attacked the document in Parliament on Oct. 13, saying that many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, and called it a flawed goal without a vaccine. Hancock also took issue with the paper’s idea of separating the elderly and vulnerable. "That is simply not possible," Hancok said. "As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable — not when so many people live in intergenerational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long COVID. ...If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate."

Thousands of other experts have also spoken out against the declaration. A counter-memo, first published in the Lancet medical journal and signed by a group of 80 researchers, called the idea "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." More than 6,400 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have since signed the memo.

So, let's put this one to bed for the final time and let's stop using "studies" by pseudo-scientists and "medical practitioners" who have little to no actual expertise in the area they are commenting on. Does this make whatever study 6AA referenced regarding asymptomatic spreaders backed by The Barrington Declaration

Next, from the actual conclusion of the linked study on asymptomatic spread...

Conclusions:
"The findings of this study suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even where community transmission is reduced. Prevention strategies, such as increased mask-wearing at home, improved ventilation, voluntary isolation at external facilities, and targeted antiviral prophylaxis, should be further explored."

If you do even a cursory review of the study, it's obvious that there are so many variables they have trouble accounting for that even it's authors acknowledge that, although the low asymptomatic spread rate established is of interest, even they aren't sold on the outcomes. I've got a great idea. Let's stop getting our "news" off of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Or, if we insist on doing so, let's at least spend 10 minutes researching what you find with simple Google searches to get a least a cursory idea as to whether or not said "article" or "study" has at least some merit.

Finally, let's hope the new strain in Britain that is 70% more transmissible and, has forced both Britain to do a hard lockdown of London and the rest of southeast England, along with the other European countries across the channel to temporarily enact travel bans on anyone coming in from England, doesn't cause issues here. Considering the incredibly rapid rise in cases in California, I won't be surprised if this new strain is found to be a part of why that's occurring. Especially since the strain was first identified in September.
No, sorry Old Man. As long as there are thousands of Docs on both sides of this you don’t get to call which side wins. Patriiculy when there are lives suffering and not being accounted for because they aren’t dying of COVID.
I dont know you, but it doesn’t appear you see the toll this is taking kids. The anguish on their faces as they try to deal and reflect on what is happening to them and why they can’t go to school, practice their art, or see their friends.
Your diatribes suggest you have a lot of time on your hands and a strong opinion, some experience and perhaps wisdom (it falls on anyone who ages, like me) but little expertise.
I don’t think you, or any of us here (unless you’re God Himself) is qualified to dismiss scholarly articles that thousands of professionals in the field disagree on.
The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and does not set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives.

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by SECoach » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:15 pm

6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:00 am
Wise Old Man wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:05 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:03 pm


Over 50,000 medical doctors and practitioners who signed the Great Barrington decree would disagree with you (and Fauci—whom you may recall also called masks unnecessary then recanted). Not everything your great doctor professes is gospel.

Anyway, this isn’t about Great Barrington, it’s about asymptomatic spread, which seems to have a lot of data suggesting it’s not happening, including the biggest study yet—making the science there unsettled at best.

Hard to base a lockdown on that notion is my point.
First, thanks to Lee for responding first. Was just coming to post something similar in response to 6AA's post. Also. it hasn't been signed by "over 50,000 doctors". This is from the first Google search I did, albeit from mid October when it was first released by Newsweek...

The Great Barrington Declaration, which is named after the town in Massachusetts that it was signed in, currently has signatures from 10,233 medical and public health scientists, 27,860 medical practitioners.

So, only 10,233 actual "doctors" supposedly signed it. I put doctors in quotes and used supposedly based on this piece from PlolitiFact...

"Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists"...

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
A trio of scientists drafted the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which says that people without underlying medical conditions should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal, while the vulnerable should remain protected.

The document was swiftly denounced by top health officials and thousands of researchers and scientists around the world, who called the approach unethical and nearly impossible.

See the sources for this fact-check (this was a link to the sources, doesn't working after I transferred it)

"BREAKING NEWS," one post on Facebook reads. "The world renowned experts in their fields, after a 4 day conference regarding COVID-19, declare that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO LIVING NORMALLY, PRACTICING SIMPLE HYGIENE & STAYING HOME WHEN SICK (NO FACE MASKS OR SOCIAL DISTANCING) and only protect the most vulnerable populations with more protective measures!"

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Huh, the post was flagged by Facebook. Isn't that interesting? It goes on to say...

The social media post doesn’t provide the full picture. It’s accurate that three scientists authored a letter that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world.

"The document was drawn up following a meeting hosted by the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research. Named the "Great Barrington Declaration" after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Dr. Johnny Bananas." The signatures were later made private."

"The plan was put together by three scientists from prestigious universities: Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. But none in the group have published any peer-reviewed studies about the coronavirus, and some have advocated for herd immunity over lockdowns for months, telling policymakers that the virus isn’t that deadly."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the declaration "ridiculous" and "total nonsense" in an interview with ABC News: "If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious disease they will tell you that that is risky, and you will wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think we just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense."

"Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference on Oct. 12.

Matt Hancock, the UK’s health secretary, attacked the document in Parliament on Oct. 13, saying that many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, and called it a flawed goal without a vaccine. Hancock also took issue with the paper’s idea of separating the elderly and vulnerable. "That is simply not possible," Hancok said. "As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable — not when so many people live in intergenerational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long COVID. ...If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate."

Thousands of other experts have also spoken out against the declaration. A counter-memo, first published in the Lancet medical journal and signed by a group of 80 researchers, called the idea "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." More than 6,400 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have since signed the memo.

So, let's put this one to bed for the final time and let's stop using "studies" by pseudo-scientists and "medical practitioners" who have little to no actual expertise in the area they are commenting on. Does this make whatever study 6AA referenced regarding asymptomatic spreaders backed by The Barrington Declaration

Next, from the actual conclusion of the linked study on asymptomatic spread...

Conclusions:
"The findings of this study suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even where community transmission is reduced. Prevention strategies, such as increased mask-wearing at home, improved ventilation, voluntary isolation at external facilities, and targeted antiviral prophylaxis, should be further explored."

If you do even a cursory review of the study, it's obvious that there are so many variables they have trouble accounting for that even it's authors acknowledge that, although the low asymptomatic spread rate established is of interest, even they aren't sold on the outcomes. I've got a great idea. Let's stop getting our "news" off of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Or, if we insist on doing so, let's at least spend 10 minutes researching what you find with simple Google searches to get a least a cursory idea as to whether or not said "article" or "study" has at least some merit.

Finally, let's hope the new strain in Britain that is 70% more transmissible and, has forced both Britain to do a hard lockdown of London and the rest of southeast England, along with the other European countries across the channel to temporarily enact travel bans on anyone coming in from England, doesn't cause issues here. Considering the incredibly rapid rise in cases in California, I won't be surprised if this new strain is found to be a part of why that's occurring. Especially since the strain was first identified in September.
No, sorry Old Man. As long as there are thousands of Docs on both sides of this you don’t get to call which side wins. Patriiculy when there are lives suffering and not being accounted for because they aren’t dying of COVID.
I dont know you, but it doesn’t appear you see the toll this is taking kids. The anguish on their faces as they try to deal and reflect on what is happening to them and why they can’t go to school, practice their art, or see their friends.
Your diatribes suggest you have a lot of time on your hands and a strong opinion, some experience and perhaps wisdom (it falls on anyone who ages, like me) but little expertise.
I don’t think you, or any of us here (unless you’re God Himself) is qualified to dismiss scholarly articles that thousands of professionals in the field disagree on.
The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and does not set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives.
6AAGuy,

I understand and can appreciate your position on lockdowns, etc. I've erased one word, and added one word from the last sentence of your last post to possibly illustrate how some others might see it. I acknowledge that you do not see it this way. (I left your words of destroy business and end lives in an effort to not turn this into a month long dialogue)

"The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and therefore does set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives."

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:40 pm

SECoach wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:15 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:00 am
Wise Old Man wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:05 pm


First, thanks to Lee for responding first. Was just coming to post something similar in response to 6AA's post. Also. it hasn't been signed by "over 50,000 doctors". This is from the first Google search I did, albeit from mid October when it was first released by Newsweek...

The Great Barrington Declaration, which is named after the town in Massachusetts that it was signed in, currently has signatures from 10,233 medical and public health scientists, 27,860 medical practitioners.

So, only 10,233 actual "doctors" supposedly signed it. I put doctors in quotes and used supposedly based on this piece from PlolitiFact...

"Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists"...

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
A trio of scientists drafted the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which says that people without underlying medical conditions should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal, while the vulnerable should remain protected.

The document was swiftly denounced by top health officials and thousands of researchers and scientists around the world, who called the approach unethical and nearly impossible.

See the sources for this fact-check (this was a link to the sources, doesn't working after I transferred it)

"BREAKING NEWS," one post on Facebook reads. "The world renowned experts in their fields, after a 4 day conference regarding COVID-19, declare that WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO LIVING NORMALLY, PRACTICING SIMPLE HYGIENE & STAYING HOME WHEN SICK (NO FACE MASKS OR SOCIAL DISTANCING) and only protect the most vulnerable populations with more protective measures!"

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Huh, the post was flagged by Facebook. Isn't that interesting? It goes on to say...

The social media post doesn’t provide the full picture. It’s accurate that three scientists authored a letter that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world.

"The document was drawn up following a meeting hosted by the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research. Named the "Great Barrington Declaration" after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Dr. Johnny Bananas." The signatures were later made private."

"The plan was put together by three scientists from prestigious universities: Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. But none in the group have published any peer-reviewed studies about the coronavirus, and some have advocated for herd immunity over lockdowns for months, telling policymakers that the virus isn’t that deadly."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the declaration "ridiculous" and "total nonsense" in an interview with ABC News: "If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious disease they will tell you that that is risky, and you will wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and deaths. So I think we just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense."

"Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a news conference on Oct. 12.

Matt Hancock, the UK’s health secretary, attacked the document in Parliament on Oct. 13, saying that many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, and called it a flawed goal without a vaccine. Hancock also took issue with the paper’s idea of separating the elderly and vulnerable. "That is simply not possible," Hancok said. "As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable — not when so many people live in intergenerational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long COVID. ...If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate."

Thousands of other experts have also spoken out against the declaration. A counter-memo, first published in the Lancet medical journal and signed by a group of 80 researchers, called the idea "a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence." More than 6,400 scientists, researchers and healthcare professionals have since signed the memo.

So, let's put this one to bed for the final time and let's stop using "studies" by pseudo-scientists and "medical practitioners" who have little to no actual expertise in the area they are commenting on. Does this make whatever study 6AA referenced regarding asymptomatic spreaders backed by The Barrington Declaration

Next, from the actual conclusion of the linked study on asymptomatic spread...

Conclusions:
"The findings of this study suggest that households are and will continue to be important venues for transmission, even where community transmission is reduced. Prevention strategies, such as increased mask-wearing at home, improved ventilation, voluntary isolation at external facilities, and targeted antiviral prophylaxis, should be further explored."

If you do even a cursory review of the study, it's obvious that there are so many variables they have trouble accounting for that even it's authors acknowledge that, although the low asymptomatic spread rate established is of interest, even they aren't sold on the outcomes. I've got a great idea. Let's stop getting our "news" off of our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Or, if we insist on doing so, let's at least spend 10 minutes researching what you find with simple Google searches to get a least a cursory idea as to whether or not said "article" or "study" has at least some merit.

Finally, let's hope the new strain in Britain that is 70% more transmissible and, has forced both Britain to do a hard lockdown of London and the rest of southeast England, along with the other European countries across the channel to temporarily enact travel bans on anyone coming in from England, doesn't cause issues here. Considering the incredibly rapid rise in cases in California, I won't be surprised if this new strain is found to be a part of why that's occurring. Especially since the strain was first identified in September.
No, sorry Old Man. As long as there are thousands of Docs on both sides of this you don’t get to call which side wins. Patriiculy when there are lives suffering and not being accounted for because they aren’t dying of COVID.
I dont know you, but it doesn’t appear you see the toll this is taking kids. The anguish on their faces as they try to deal and reflect on what is happening to them and why they can’t go to school, practice their art, or see their friends.
Your diatribes suggest you have a lot of time on your hands and a strong opinion, some experience and perhaps wisdom (it falls on anyone who ages, like me) but little expertise.
I don’t think you, or any of us here (unless you’re God Himself) is qualified to dismiss scholarly articles that thousands of professionals in the field disagree on.
The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and does not set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives.
6AAGuy,

I understand and can appreciate your position on lockdowns, etc. I've erased one word, and added one word from the last sentence of your last post to possibly illustrate how some others might see it. I acknowledge that you do not see it this way. (I left your words of destroy business and end lives in an effort to not turn this into a month long dialogue)

"The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and therefore does set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives."
It's a good exercise, coach. And we fundamentally disagree on where we land on the cost/benefit side of this. I cannot agree with these lockdowns on a virus with basically a 99% survival rate.
I'd be all for opening, boosting our ICU capacity (why didn't we do that in MN, we actually lost hospitals). Import health care workers in from non-spiking states and pay them 3-4x wages, etc, etc, etc. .

Wise Old Man
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by Wise Old Man » Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:58 pm

6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:40 pm
SECoach wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:15 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:00 am


No, sorry Old Man. As long as there are thousands of Docs on both sides of this you don’t get to call which side wins. Patriiculy when there are lives suffering and not being accounted for because they aren’t dying of COVID.
I dont know you, but it doesn’t appear you see the toll this is taking kids. The anguish on their faces as they try to deal and reflect on what is happening to them and why they can’t go to school, practice their art, or see their friends.
Your diatribes suggest you have a lot of time on your hands and a strong opinion, some experience and perhaps wisdom (it falls on anyone who ages, like me) but little expertise.
I don’t think you, or any of us here (unless you’re God Himself) is qualified to dismiss scholarly articles that thousands of professionals in the field disagree on.
The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and does not set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives.
6AAGuy,

I understand and can appreciate your position on lockdowns, etc. I've erased one word, and added one word from the last sentence of your last post to possibly illustrate how some others might see it. I acknowledge that you do not see it this way. (I left your words of destroy business and end lives in an effort to not turn this into a month long dialogue)

"The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and therefore does set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives."
It's a good exercise, coach. And we fundamentally disagree on where we land on the cost/benefit side of this. I cannot agree with these lockdowns on a virus with basically a 99% survival rate.
I'd be all for opening, boosting our ICU capacity (why didn't we do that in MN, we actually lost hospitals). Import health care workers in from non-spiking states and pay them 3-4x wages, etc, etc, etc. .

6AA... Here’s why I believe I do get to decide “which side wins” in regards to doctors providing their opinions based on the various science (or lack thereof). I’ve done a cursory review of the list of doctors from the Barrington Projects group (as you guessed, I do have some time on my hands :D) and I did not see a single one with any expertise in virology, epidemiology, infectious disease or any other specialty in relation to this or other types of these kinds of viruses and how they spread. Not all doctors are equal.

Meaning, when Fauci, Osterholm, the top UK and WHO docs all say the Barrington Project’s initial herd immunity document is balderdash, along with specifically stating the doctors/scientists writing it/signing on to it have little to zero expertise, then I’m going to go with them. Sorry, them’s is the rules...😉 Does that mean their position on asymptomatic spread is completely flawed? Not necessarily. But, they now have a previous track record for posting flawed science so, I will wait for other, more respected sources to make the same argument.

Next, I will state again that I have three kids, two of which play hockey and are home schooling and have been ever since last March. I’m lucky, both of those at home doing online schooling are very self-motivated and have earned As and Bs (and one C) the entire time. We have literally not had a single issue over homework. Are my wife and I part of the lucky few? Based on my conversations with others, it seems as though we are. Regardless, I’m an independent contractor and, because I and my eldest child has and I have underlying health conditions, I haven’t been able to work since last March. So trust me, I actually do understand the difficulty people are dealing with, both economically and psychologically. You and others keep making the same point about lethality as if that’s the only negative outcome to becoming infected. There are two very recent articles about “long Covid”/possible long-term effects of being infected. Even if asymptomatic. I will provide those later today and, if you really care as much about the health of your family and your neighbors’ families as much as I suspect you do, then you’ll actually read these two pieces in full. If you do, I will be pretty surprised if you can come back on here and say you aren’t at least a little more concerned about you or a family member becoming infected.

To close, I’ve made the decision that the health of my 80 plus year old dad who has recently fought cancer, along with health of my neighbor and his late-70s parents IS worth that economic and psychological challenge we’re all dealing with in some form or another. And you know what? All of the economic issues could have almost completely been avoided if our government — you know, the government of the wealthiest nation in the world — actually valued its citizens more than its corporations. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case, as evidenced by the meager level of actual cash to its most vulnerable citizens it was willing to spend when they finalized the deal last night.

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:16 pm

Wise Old Man wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:58 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:40 pm
SECoach wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:15 pm


6AAGuy,

I understand and can appreciate your position on lockdowns, etc. I've erased one word, and added one word from the last sentence of your last post to possibly illustrate how some others might see it. I acknowledge that you do not see it this way. (I left your words of destroy business and end lives in an effort to not turn this into a month long dialogue)

"The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and therefore does set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives."
It's a good exercise, coach. And we fundamentally disagree on where we land on the cost/benefit side of this. I cannot agree with these lockdowns on a virus with basically a 99% survival rate.
I'd be all for opening, boosting our ICU capacity (why didn't we do that in MN, we actually lost hospitals). Import health care workers in from non-spiking states and pay them 3-4x wages, etc, etc, etc. .

6AA... Here’s why I believe I do get to decide “which side wins” in regards to doctors providing their opinions based on the various science (or lack thereof). I’ve done a cursory review of the list of doctors from the Barrington Projects group (as you guessed, I do have some time on my hands :D) and I did not see a single one with any expertise in virology, epidemiology, infectious disease or any other specialty in relation to this or other types of these kinds of viruses and how they spread. Not all doctors are equal.

Meaning, when Fauci, Osterholm, the top UK and WHO docs all say the Barrington Project’s initial herd immunity document is balderdash, along with specifically stating the doctors/scientists writing it/signing on to it have little to zero expertise, then I’m going to go with them. Sorry, them’s is the rules...😉 Does that mean their position on asymptomatic spread is completely flawed? Not necessarily. But, they now have a previous track record for posting flawed science so, I will wait for other, more respected sources to make the same argument.

Next, I will state again that I have three kids, two of which play hockey and are home schooling and have been ever since last March. I’m lucky, both of those at home doing online schooling are very self-motivated and have earned As and Bs (and one C) the entire time. We have literally not had a single issue over homework. Are my wife and I part of the lucky few? Based on my conversations with others, it seems as though we are. Regardless, I’m an independent contractor and, because I and my eldest child has and I have underlying health conditions, I haven’t been able to work since last March. So trust me, I actually do understand the difficulty people are dealing with, both economically and psychologically. You and others keep making the same point about lethality as if that’s the only negative outcome to becoming infected. There are two very recent articles about “long Covid”/possible long-term effects of being infected. Even if asymptomatic. I will provide those later today and, if you really care as much about the health of your family and your neighbors’ families as much as I suspect you do, then you’ll actually read these two pieces in full. If you do, I will be pretty surprised if you can come back on here and say you aren’t at least a little more concerned about you or a family member becoming infected.

To close, I’ve made the decision that the health of my 80 plus year old dad who has recently fought cancer, along with health of my neighbor and his late-70s parents IS worth that economic and psychological challenge we’re all dealing with in some form or another. And you know what? All of the economic issues could have almost completely been avoided if our government — you know, the government of the wealthiest nation in the world — actually valued its citizens more than its corporations. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case, as evidenced by the meager level of actual cash to its most vulnerable citizens it was willing to spend when they finalized the deal last night.
Funny thing is i know a number of 80 year olds that feel just the opposite: that they don't want young people's lives shut down (and the suicides, child abuse, emotional damage and economic destruction that comes with it) . This group deems these lock downs, frankly, unamerican and not worth the damage to our country, our kids, our values. They'd take the risk having already lived very long and fruitful lives in liberty and freedom. I'm not 80, but i feel the same way. And I'm going to then as well.

smhockey77
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:56 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by smhockey77 » Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:46 pm

No, sorry Old Man. As long as there are thousands of Docs on both sides of this you don’t get to call which side wins. Patriiculy when there are lives suffering and not being accounted for because they aren’t dying of COVID.
I dont know you, but it doesn’t appear you see the toll this is taking kids. The anguish on their faces as they try to deal and reflect on what is happening to them and why they can’t go to school, practice their art, or see their friends.
Your diatribes suggest you have a lot of time on your hands and a strong opinion, some experience and perhaps wisdom (it falls on anyone who ages, like me) but little expertise.
I don’t think you, or any of us here (unless you’re God Himself) is qualified to dismiss scholarly articles that thousands of professionals in the field disagree on.
The science on asymptomatic spread is contrasted, and does not set a basis in which to lockdown a state, destroy businesses, and end lives.
[/quote]

Well Said 6AA

6AAGuy
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:06 am

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by 6AAGuy » Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:03 pm

:)
6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:16 pm
Wise Old Man wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:58 pm
6AAGuy wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:40 pm


It's a good exercise, coach. And we fundamentally disagree on where we land on the cost/benefit side of this. I cannot agree with these lockdowns on a virus with basically a 99% survival rate.
I'd be all for opening, boosting our ICU capacity (why didn't we do that in MN, we actually lost hospitals). Import health care workers in from non-spiking states and pay them 3-4x wages, etc, etc, etc. .

6AA... Here’s why I believe I do get to decide “which side wins” in regards to doctors providing their opinions based on the various science (or lack thereof). I’ve done a cursory review of the list of doctors from the Barrington Projects group (as you guessed, I do have some time on my hands :D) and I did not see a single one with any expertise in virology, epidemiology, infectious disease or any other specialty in relation to this or other types of these kinds of viruses and how they spread. Not all doctors are equal.

Meaning, when Fauci, Osterholm, the top UK and WHO docs all say the Barrington Project’s initial herd immunity document is balderdash, along with specifically stating the doctors/scientists writing it/signing on to it have little to zero expertise, then I’m going to go with them. Sorry, them’s is the rules...😉 Does that mean their position on asymptomatic spread is completely flawed? Not necessarily. But, they now have a previous track record for posting flawed science so, I will wait for other, more respected sources to make the same argument.

Next, I will state again that I have three kids, two of which play hockey and are home schooling and have been ever since last March. I’m lucky, both of those at home doing online schooling are very self-motivated and have earned As and Bs (and one C) the entire time. We have literally not had a single issue over homework. Are my wife and I part of the lucky few? Based on my conversations with others, it seems as though we are. Regardless, I’m an independent contractor and, because I and my eldest child has and I have underlying health conditions, I haven’t been able to work since last March. So trust me, I actually do understand the difficulty people are dealing with, both economically and psychologically. You and others keep making the same point about lethality as if that’s the only negative outcome to becoming infected. There are two very recent articles about “long Covid”/possible long-term effects of being infected. Even if asymptomatic. I will provide those later today and, if you really care as much about the health of your family and your neighbors’ families as much as I suspect you do, then you’ll actually read these two pieces in full. If you do, I will be pretty surprised if you can come back on here and say you aren’t at least a little more concerned about you or a family member becoming infected.

To close, I’ve made the decision that the health of my 80 plus year old dad who has recently fought cancer, along with health of my neighbor and his late-70s parents IS worth that economic and psychological challenge we’re all dealing with in some form or another. And you know what? All of the economic issues could have almost completely been avoided if our government — you know, the government of the wealthiest nation in the world — actually valued its citizens more than its corporations. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case, as evidenced by the meager level of actual cash to its most vulnerable citizens it was willing to spend when they finalized the deal last night.
Funny thing is i know a number of 80 year olds that feel just the opposite: that they don't want young people's lives shut down (and the suicides, child abuse, emotional damage and economic destruction that comes with it) . This group deems these lock downs, frankly, unamerican and not worth the damage to our country, our kids, our values. They'd take the risk having already lived very long and fruitful lives in liberty and freedom. I'm not 80, but i feel the same way. And I'm going to then as well.
Adding this to my response to WOMan: if you took thirty seconds to look at who authored and co-signed the Great Barrington Declaration, you’d see it’s the heaviest of heavies in eoidimiology, microbiology, infectious disease and the practice of medicine directly related to this pandemic. Check the link below for authors/co-signers. You simply can’t dismiss this because Fauci and whoever else disagrees. These issues are far too important.
Here’s the link of authors/co-signers: https://gbdeclaration.org/

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Re: Early Christmas Present: Boys State Hockey Tournament (Meeting Dec 3rd)

Post by east hockey » Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:20 pm

This, like too many other threads before it, has turned into a "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" pile of excrement where nobody's mind is being changed. We're done here.

Lee
Message Board arsonist since 2005
Egomaniac since 2006

Locked