Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

[blueblood]

You just rattled off names of ELITE level, professional athletes. Your analogy of lumping in H.S. hockey players and them is terrible.

[jg2112]

You just rattled off names of ELITE level, professional athletes. Your analogy of lumping in H.S. hockey players and them is terrible.

They were all in high school when they were homeschooled. A number of players playing HS hockey this winter will end up in the NHL or NWHL. How many are currently in the US Hockey youth national teams? Quite a few, I dare say.

The issue is the same - the students can learn via video screen if necessary, and they can still play sports.

[Hunters1993]

I have always taught kids school is more important than athletics. You guys are teaching your kids that it’s to dangerous to learn but go ahead and play sports.
Great priorities!
Great teaching!
Is that what you guys really think?

[Hunters1993]

Depends. When school is cancelled due to weather do they have extra acticities?

If your kid stays home from school do you let them participate


If it’s not safe to be in a classroom with others why is it safe to have teams together?

So when schools all go hybrid or online by Christmas do extra activities continue? What message are we sending to your kids? School is important but the sports are vital?

What is the difference if they have NHL or NAHL possibilities. If there is no in person school there shouldn’t be athletics. This is not a new idea. Get priorities straight there hockey dads. Quite trying to relive your youth through your kid and be THE ADULT!

[Wise Old Man]

Not set in stone but what I have been told is:
2 games per week maximum approximately 10 -11 weeks so near normal #.
Limitation on fans; with social distancing, masks etc...
yet to be determined is play-offs depending on second wave, reduction in numbers will dictate how far things go, in all likelihood no Xcel, but some venue with restrictions again in numbers of attending.

Be patient is what I was told. MSHSL has not made a decision and are not closed mind but waiting to see what turns.
No comments from me as I am being patient.
This is the process we are using in District 16 for youth hockey.
Start slow and add as time goes by and conditions allow it.

Elliott....thanks for sharing. Heard the high school coaches approached Minnesota Hockey to come up with a plan to do a bridge season for the high school kids. Heard you guys met on Aug 10 and that MH is now thinking about a U-19 level run by the youth associations.

THAT IS NEITHER CONFIRMED NOR DENIED.

Well....that's what another director has told me, so....

[Wise Old Man]

HOLY S**T, PEOPLE ARE DYING AND YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR LITTLE PRECIOUS NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY HOCKEY?

"hadenuf"... I am confident that you and I share similar feelings regarding this topic. However, may I suggest that allowing our emotions to get the best of us not only doesn't allow for healthy, legitimate debate, it weakens the point you're trying to make. Not only that, I don't think the moderators will look kindly on your choice of harsh language. That being the case, if you aren't aware, they've already locked up three previous threads where we have allowed the back and forth to get either too personal or, too political. Obviously, you weren't being political but, the all caps and S-bomb obviously indicates you're extremely frustrated. Just trying to offer some friendly advice.

[Wise Old Man]

So what would private schools do if MH takes over and creates a U-19 level...would the privates form their own team or would kids go back to their associations that they came from? How would it affect eligibility if you go back to association?

My understanding is that there would be significant communication between the individual high schools and their respective youth associations. Including the privates. I can assure you, the people in leadership positions on the youth boards know which kids are involved in the high school program. The difference is, since these are Minnesota Hockey registered teams and players, the youth associations would be responsible for running the tryouts and selecting the teams. And, from what I understand, the high schools have already explained to the coaches that the current MSHSL contact rules would still apply. Meaning, if a coach (or assistant) is currently on staff with the high school, they would not be allowed to coach or be involved in the tryouts or teams selections. Unless of course they chose to resign from their coaching position with the schools.

This is a possible one-time situation and would have zero effect on eligibility at either youth or H.S. levels. I know that there have already been Zoom meetings with various sections at A and AA levels separately with representatives from MH to go over how this plan might work. This program would also obviously include the girls teams as well. But again, this would only happen if the MSHSL chooses not to play at all. Which, based on Elliott's info doesn't seem likely.

Finally, I was the one that mentioned the coach that might possibly having issues with his greater parent group. I haven't heard any other information from what I provided in my original comments on the situation. At some point, and, if I feel it's appropriate, I would pass on new information. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this coach has had to deal with this in the last 4 or 5 years...

[6AAGuy]

hunter and hadenuf: triggered.

Simma' down na.

Lots of data coming in from summer STP sessions and many programs skated through the summer with very few--if any--COVID cases. Simply put--not only are people not 'dying' at the hockey rink, the number of high school age kids 'dying' of COVID in MN is zero. Many have not gotten sick despite several weeks of skating and moving in close proximity of each other. The vast, vast majority of the kids who have contracted COVID come away with the sniffles, then get better. The data is pretty clear on that. (Refer to slide 20 in the most recent MN update: ZERO MN deaths from COVID for k-12 kids in MN)
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases ... ekly35.pdf

Should we make sure and protect their grandparents, older people who succumb to COVID at much higher rates? Definitely.

Should we cancel everything the kids do to "STOP PEOPLE FROM DYING" (I borrowed some caps from you, hunter). No.

If we were to do that, let's then cancel their driving, their street crossing; let's keep them in the house so they don't catch the flu or a bad cold. All of those activity--and far more--carry SOME (no matter how minimal) risk of death.

The MN data is clear on this.

[HockeyStorm]

Thanks 6AAGuy for getting a little common sense back in the discussion in lieu of the fear mongering from a few others. While our way of life has been altered for the time being, the sky is NOT falling.

[blueblood]

Get the popcorn ready.....

[Wise Old Man]

Get the popcorn ready.....

Well, I’m obviously going to disagree with “6AA” and “HockeyStorm”. Not sure my response will be “popcorn” worthy but, that’s for the rest of you to judge. First, a little info. I’ve already stated this not too far back but, it’s obvious that some aren’t going back very far and reading older posts that provide the necessary context to what some might be saying in the most recent few posts.

The BIG10’s medical advisory board is saying that approximately 15% of their athletes that have contracted Covid have developed myocarditis. Which, if not treated properly — 6 months of literally never allowing your heart rate to get above a certain level — could become a permanent disability or, worst case, kill you as it did the basketball player in Serbia I believe. 27 years old and had just recovered from Covid. Oh, and before I ask the question, a number of these athletes coming down with Covid are asymptomatic. Hopefully, 6AA and HockeyStorm know what that word means in relation to Covid.

To use your own point of argument, IF...you knew that EVERY time your son or daughter left the house, there was 15% chance they could come home with a life altering disease or, even worse, die, would you let them out of the house? Especially if you knew that within 6 months, there would be a vaccine that would likely reduce their chance of the same issues down to almost zero?

You can say that summer hockey hasn’t had any significant Covid issues but, I’ve already provided examples of a couple events that already have — Ashland, WI and Fargo. I just spoke with someone I know in Fargo who says the outbreak in Fargo associated with tournament has blossomed into a significant outbreak in that community. I’m not saying it was a significant number of actual players who got infected but, if you believe what the the experts from the BIG10 medical advisory board is saying, there’s a darn good chance some of those kids might have developed myocarditis...or....possibly some type of permanent lung scarring which is occurring in asymptomatic people as well. For the billionth time, you can’t in any legitimate way, measure the risk playing within the context of this virus based solely on deaths or even hospitalizations.

To Hunters...if you decide to respond to these guys, please....take a deep breath first.

[WestMetro]

Wise

Haven’t caught up on this thread for a while

But didn’t you and I make world peace a few pages ago?

[Hunters1993]

1,100 more cases in Minnesota
1,400 more in Iowa.

Glad you guys are enjoying your kids hockey dads. Let me guess a bunch of those tourneys were two weeks ago. The surge from the Gatherings takes a couple weeks to show up.

Still say Hockey hub for players and own school with a parent or coach as teacher and let the rest of us keep high risk kids out of schools. Come on hockey dads if you want your kid to play step up and teach the little Gretzky.

[MWS coach]

<r>Okay, I'll bite! <E>:lol:</E> <br/>
<br/>
First on the topic of why I think it is okay to have my son play hockey. For about two months when this all started, we as a family stayed home as was recommended. Kids didn't go to friends and friends weren't allowed to come over. I am fortunate to be able to work from home so I did. My wife didn't have that option, as such she continued to serve lunches from the school so those that chose to drive thru the school to pick up free lunches. I left the house a few times during those couple of months only to go to the grocery store and when I went I filled up the cart to limit trips. On those trips, I wore a mask (long before mandated), but if by chance it could help prevent me from contracting the virus, or if I was infected, spreading it to others worth wearing one. I didn't wear one because I read something somewhere, but simply thought, wearing a mask may or may not help but if it does happen to help good. If it doesn't help, I wasn't that big of a deal to wear one. <br/>
<br/>
As restrictions started to ease, we eased our restrictions in line with the recommendations. Yes, allowed kids to visit friends and allowed friends to come over(minimally). When the rinks opened back up, yes our kids started to skate again training within the restrictions as allowed. When games/scrimmages started to be allowed, yes they participated in those. When restaurants started to open back up (patio only) we did go out to one once. When indoor dining was also an option, we also dined indoors. Now the frequency in which we choose to do this has been much less then pre-covid and typically we choose outdoor dining. <br/>
<br/>
Now here we are today and yes, kids are training, playing in games, attending Jr Camps, playing in tournaments. Back to normal hockey, well not really as there are restrictions at each and every rink from number of spectators (if any), not using locker rooms, to getting temperature checked, to getting dressed in the parking lot, to no handshake at the end of the game. So yes game is being played, but I really wouldn't call it 100% normal.<br/>
<br/>
As long as rinks are open and MDH allows games to be played, I don't see an issue with allowing my kids to play. I don't think that makes me a crazy hockey dad trying to relive the dreams of my youth and certainly doesn't mean I think hockey is more important then education. We have basically followed guidelines as mandated, thus playing hockey as permitted goes right in line with following guideline when they did nothing. Does it create potential additional risk of contracting virus. YES, but that risk is increased every time we walk out of the house and anytime we are exposed to others. Now if you think everything should be shut down, okay, I respect your opinion on that, but that is not the case now and I don't agree with saying only youth sports are what causes additional risks.<br/>
<br/>
As far as a separate school for hockey players, I would be fine with that if that is the ONLY activity causing additional risks to student who choose to attend school (all have option of choosing online only). True story, a couple of weeks ago was waiting for game to start and allowed to go into rink at NW Suburban rink. Where I was parked, I was watching skateboarders at the skate park. There was about 25 "kids" at the park of which I would guess about 15-20 being high school age. There were three boys off to the side standing under a tree. They were smoking a joint and passing it between them. I watch one of the kids coughing as he exhaled and cover his mouth with his hand. A few minutes later they were on the ramps "boarding" or whatever it is called, the kid I watched cough into his hand puts his hands behind him on a railing on the back of the ramp. I watched him, he never sanitized. I tell this story as I would suspect this kid could easily spread the virus to those he was around and anyone who touched that railing. High school kid doing risky activity that just may infect any kid in his class. High School kids are going to do all kinds of things that will potentially spread the virus among classmates, not just athletics. At least with athletics we know they are under supervision and while restrictions may or may not help in stopping the spread, at least there is an attempt to stop the spread, unlike many other activities or conduct. </r>

So here's an analogy I would use:

it is a snowy day (a dusting, not a blizzard) and we are both driving down a one lane highway where the speed limit is 55 and the minimum is 40. You are in front of me going 40 as you don't feel comfortable driving in snow. Okay, good you should only drive as fast as you are comfortable driving given the conditions. I being a little more comfortable driving in snow decide to pass you in a passing zone at a speed of 50. I pass you without incident and continue to drive at 50 to my destination. Are either of us in the wrong? No. Did I create additional risk to you and myself by passing you? Yes, of course, the less risky scenario would have been for me to follow you at 40 as an accident could have been caused by me passing you and I created additional risk by driving 10 MPH faster. I choose to take on some additional risk by passing you which in turn created additional risk for you, however I did nothing wrong, didn't break any laws and simply did a permitted activity. Overly simplified, yes, but in principle the same as choosing to play hockey as long as permitted and it really shouldn't matter who the organization is running it.

Unfortunately, people are going to contract the virus. If you want zero chance of contracting the virus, go on lock down as that is really the only way to prevent it. Do some activities create additional risk of contraction, yes. While one activity may be deemed to high of risk for one, that is not the same for all. I respect each opinion on what your risk tolerance is. It only takes the right (or wrong) person to have an interaction with or touch a surface they infected to catch the virus.

[thefatcat]

So what would private schools do if MH takes over and creates a U-19 level...would the privates form their own team or would kids go back to their associations that they came from? How would it affect eligibility if you go back to association?

My understanding is that there would be significant communication between the individual high schools and their respective youth associations. Including the privates. I can assure you, the people in leadership positions on the youth boards know which kids are involved in the high school program. The difference is, since these are Minnesota Hockey registered teams and players, the youth associations would be responsible for running the tryouts and selecting the teams. And, from what I understand, the high schools have already explained to the coaches that the current MSHSL contact rules would still apply. Meaning, if a coach (or assistant) is currently on staff with the high school, they would not be allowed to coach or be involved in the tryouts or teams selections. Unless of course they chose to resign from their coaching position with the schools.

This is a possible one-time situation and would have zero effect on eligibility at either youth or H.S. levels. I know that there have already been Zoom meetings with various sections at A and AA levels separately with representatives from MH to go over how this plan might work. This program would also obviously include the girls teams as well. But again, this would only happen if the MSHSL chooses not to play at all. Which, based on Elliott's info doesn't seem likely.

Finally, I was the one that mentioned the coach that might possibly having issues with his greater parent group. I haven't heard any other information from what I provided in my original comments on the situation. At some point, and, if I feel it's appropriate, I would pass on new information. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this coach has had to deal with this in the last 4 or 5 years...

Thanks WOM

[WestMetro]

Well stated above / below MWS!

Now if you think everything should be shut down, okay, I respect your opinion on that, but that is not the case now and I don't agree with saying only youth sports are what causes additional risks.<br/>
<br/>
As far as a separate school for hockey players, I would be fine with that if that is the ONLY activity causing additional risks to student who choose to attend school

[Wise Old Man]

Wise

Haven’t caught up on this thread for a while

But didn’t you and I make world peace a few pages ago?

I thought we were tackling the Middle East first... Wait a minute, that's right, Jared told us he's got that one covered.

[Dog]

Wise

Haven’t caught up on this thread for a while

But didn’t you and I make world peace a few pages ago?

I thought we were tackling the Middle East first... Wait a minute, that's right, Jared told us he's got that one covered.

WOM, have your kids gone to hockey camps this summer?
Just curious....(asking for a friend).

Also, you're not skilled at keeping political comments off of this thread. I think most people have had enough or will have enough of political comments in the next few months. Most just want to comment on hockey so stay on topic please.

Thanks.

[Wise Old Man]

<r>Okay, I'll bite! <E>:lol:</E> <br/>
<br/>
First on the topic of why I think it is okay to have my son play hockey. For about two months when this all started, we as a family stayed home as was recommended. Kids didn't go to friends and friends weren't allowed to come over. I am fortunate to be able to work from home so I did. My wife didn't have that option, as such she continued to serve lunches from the school so those that chose to drive thru the school to pick up free lunches. I left the house a few times during those couple of months only to go to the grocery store and when I went I filled up the cart to limit trips. On those trips, I wore a mask (long before mandated), but if by chance it could help prevent me from contracting the virus, or if I was infected, spreading it to others worth wearing one. I didn't wear one because I read something somewhere, but simply thought, wearing a mask may or may not help but if it does happen to help good. If it doesn't help, I wasn't that big of a deal to wear one. <br/>
<br/>
As restrictions started to ease, we eased our restrictions in line with the recommendations. Yes, allowed kids to visit friends and allowed friends to come over(minimally). When the rinks opened back up, yes our kids started to skate again training within the restrictions as allowed. When games/scrimmages started to be allowed, yes they participated in those. When restaurants started to open back up (patio only) we did go out to one once. When indoor dining was also an option, we also dined indoors. Now the frequency in which we choose to do this has been much less then pre-covid and typically we choose outdoor dining. <br/>
<br/>
Now here we are today and yes, kids are training, playing in games, attending Jr Camps, playing in tournaments. Back to normal hockey, well not really as there are restrictions at each and every rink from number of spectators (if any), not using locker rooms, to getting temperature checked, to getting dressed in the parking lot, to no handshake at the end of the game. So yes game is being played, but I really wouldn't call it 100% normal.<br/>
<br/>
As long as rinks are open and MDH allows games to be played, I don't see an issue with allowing my kids to play. I don't think that makes me a crazy hockey dad trying to relive the dreams of my youth and certainly doesn't mean I think hockey is more important then education. We have basically followed guidelines as mandated, thus playing hockey as permitted goes right in line with following guideline when they did nothing. Does it create potential additional risk of contracting virus. YES, but that risk is increased every time we walk out of the house and anytime we are exposed to others. Now if you think everything should be shut down, okay, I respect your opinion on that, but that is not the case now and I don't agree with saying only youth sports are what causes additional risks.<br/>
<br/>
As far as a separate school for hockey players, I would be fine with that if that is the ONLY activity causing additional risks to student who choose to attend school (all have option of choosing online only). True story, a couple of weeks ago was waiting for game to start and allowed to go into rink at NW Suburban rink. Where I was parked, I was watching skateboarders at the skate park. There was about 25 "kids" at the park of which I would guess about 15-20 being high school age. There were three boys off to the side standing under a tree. They were smoking a joint and passing it between them. I watch one of the kids coughing as he exhaled and cover his mouth with his hand. A few minutes later they were on the ramps "boarding" or whatever it is called, the kid I watched cough into his hand puts his hands behind him on a railing on the back of the ramp. I watched him, he never sanitized. I tell this story as I would suspect this kid could easily spread the virus to those he was around and anyone who touched that railing. High school kid doing risky activity that just may infect any kid in his class. High School kids are going to do all kinds of things that will potentially spread the virus among classmates, not just athletics. At least with athletics we know they are under supervision and while restrictions may or may not help in stopping the spread, at least there is an attempt to stop the spread, unlike many other activities or conduct. </r>

So here's an analogy I would use:

it is a snowy day (a dusting, not a blizzard) and we are both driving down a one lane highway where the speed limit is 55 and the minimum is 40. You are in front of me going 40 as you don't feel comfortable driving in snow. Okay, good you should only drive as fast as you are comfortable driving given the conditions. I being a little more comfortable driving in snow decide to pass you in a passing zone at a speed of 50. I pass you without incident and continue to drive at 50 to my destination. Are either of us in the wrong? No. Did I create additional risk to you and myself by passing you? Yes, of course, the less risky scenario would have been for me to follow you at 40 as an accident could have been caused by me passing you and I created additional risk by driving 10 MPH faster. I choose to take on some additional risk by passing you which in turn created additional risk for you, however I did nothing wrong, didn't break any laws and simply did a permitted activity. Overly simplified, yes, but in principle the same as choosing to play hockey as long as permitted and it really shouldn't matter who the organization is running it.

Unfortunately, people are going to contract the virus. If you want zero chance of contracting the virus, go on lock down as that is really the only way to prevent it. Do some activities create additional risk of contraction, yes. While one activity may be deemed to high of risk for one, that is not the same for all. I respect each opinion on what your risk tolerance is. It only takes the right (or wrong) person to have an interaction with or touch a surface they infected to catch the virus.

"MWS"... First, very well stated and reasoned post. Very much appreciated. Based on your description about how you and your family chose to deal with the virus early on -- obviously not being a "denier" of some sort -- you seem to be dealing with the situation in a very deliberate and considered manner. Nor do I think you're a "crazy" hockey dad just because you've allowed your son to play this summer. To be honest, if the rink your player is skating at is following all of the CDC/MDH guidelines, and it's a skills development type camp where there isn't any significant contact between the players, then there was probably very low risk, especially earlier in the summer, right after the rinks re-opened. I even allowed my two players to participate in those types of camps. However, I wasn't comfortable having them play games, especially in any type of tournament situation. Having said that, allow me to address a few of your points.

First, in the last two months I've had conversations with two different individuals at the Minnesota Department of Health in regards to questions I had about some of the rationale for certain policies regarding youth sports and return to play. During both conversations -- two different people but both in the top of the department's food chain -- I asked point blank if they were willing to share their personal opinions about whether they felt there was a significant difference in risk in playing a team sport outside versus inside. Both stated that despite the official position of the department, they believed that the science indicated that team sports played outside were considerably safer than those played indoors. However, they both acknowledged a greater risk for soccer, lacrosse, and football. Especially football due to the number of players with consistent, sustained and direct physical contact on a regular basis.

When I asked what they felt the difference in risk was between the outdoor and indoor sports, both were emphatic that it was significantly higher indoors. I asked both of them if they had kids (one male and one female). One didn't and the other did but they were in their 20's. I asked if they would let their kids play indoor team sports and both strongly indicated they would not, especially considering it had been determined that the virus was infectious in an aerosolized state. I asked why the health department hadn't put much stronger restrictions/precautions on the indoor sports. The younger of the two wouldn't comment but, the older one said that, although they had recommended to Walz that he should probably retain greater restrictions on indoor sports, it was stated that if he didn't open hockey rinks specifically, he was told by his political advisers that it would be a PR nightmare. The reason being was that the perception regarding hockey parents is that they're the "craziest" of all the sports parents and, even though it was understood that it would be a smaller percentage of the overall number of hockey parents that would be complaining -- probably 20-30% max of the total hockey playing population - they would be "complaining" extremely loud. So, Walz decided to open the rinks and gyms with the intent that IF there was a significant outbreak in either a gym or rink, they would immediately restrict activity again.

However, according to the health department person, they told Walz that since the virus hadn't really entered the youth population to any degree yet, it probably wouldn't show itself as an issue until later in the summer and, the "outbreaks" that happened might not seem as bad as many of those kids would be asymptomatic. They also told Walz that if the kids were back in the schools, even part time, to expect much more significant outbreaks in the gyms/rinks by late September or mid-October. This is a big reason why I've taken the stance on this whole topic that I have.

"MWS", in response to your specific comment that every time someone leaves their house or is exposed to others, that there's an increased risk of catching the virus; yes, that statement on its' face is correct. However, the science clearly indicates -- and our own health department agrees with this -- that playing sports indoors comes with a significantly higher risk than doing so outdoors. And, they feel that as we get into the fall and more and more kids are together, those indoor situations will become even more risky. Let me emphasize I respect the way you and your family has approached your player's summer hockey activity. You've obviously conducted yourselves within the guidelines in place.

As for your example of the skateboarders, I agree they were partaking in risky behavior in relation to Covid. However, again, the fact they were outside meant their risk was much less than your son and the others skating that day. Still, you are completely accurate in your point that high school kids in general are simply going to participate in higher risk activity. It's just a fact. As for my opinion on whether we should "shut down" again; well, again I'll link to a New York Times Op-Ed by Michael Osterholm and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/opin ... death.html

"We believe the choice is clear. We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown, state by state, for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day."

"And, the next six months could make what we have experienced so far seem like just a warm-up to a greater catastrophe. With many schools and colleges starting, stores and businesses reopening, and the beginning of the indoor heating season, new case numbers will grow quickly. Why did the United States’ Covid-19 containment response fail, particularly compared with the successful results of so many nations in Asia, Europe and even our neighbor Canada?
Simply, we gave up on our lockdown efforts to control virus transmission well before the virus was under control."

"The United States recorded its lowest seven-day average since March 31 on May 28, when it was 21,000 cases, or 6.4 new cases per 100,000 people per day. This rate was seven to 10 times higher than the rates in countries that successfully contained their new infections. In contrast, the United States reopened too quickly and is now experiencing around 50,000 or more new cases per day. At this level of national cases — 17 new cases per 100,000 people per day — we simply don’t have the public health tools to bring the pandemic under control."

"To successfully drive down our case rate to less than one per 100,000 people per day, we should mandate sheltering in place for everyone but the truly essential workers. By that, we mean people must stay at home and leave only for essential reasons: food shopping and visits to doctors and pharmacies while wearing masks and washing hands frequently. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 39 percent of workers in the United States are in essential categories. The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential. To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible.

If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus"

"We know that a stringent lockdown can have serious health consequences for patients who can’t get access to routine care. But over the past six months, medical professionals have learned how to protect patients and staffs from spreading the coronavirus; therefore we should be able to maintain access to regular medical care during any new lockdown."

"This pandemic is deeply unfair. Millions of low-wage, front-line service workers have lost their jobs or been put in harm’s way, while most higher-wage, white-collar workers have been spared. But it is even more unfair than that; those of us who’ve kept our jobs are actually saving more money because we aren’t going out to restaurants or movies, or on vacations. Unlike in prior recessions, remarkably, the personal savings rate has soared to 20 percent from around 8 percent in January. Because we are saving more, we have the resources to support those who have been laid off. Typically when the government runs deficits, it must rely on foreign investors to buy the debt because Americans aren’t generating enough savings to fund it. But we can finance the added deficits for Covid-19 relief from our own domestic savings. Those savings end up funding investment in the economy. That’s why traditional concerns about racking up too much government debt do not apply in this situation. It is much safer for a country to fund its deficits domestically than from abroad."

So, MWS, do I want to "lock down" again? Not really. But two of the brightest minds in the areas of infectious disease and finance/economics are saying another strict (actually stricter) lock down is our best bet for actually getting the virus under control. Can any of you on this forum claim to have either of these gentleman's expertise in either area? I know I don't. So, I figure it's probably a good idea to listen to them. Obviously, despite there well-reasoned logic, we all know that another lock down isn't happening until January at the earliest. And, there's no guarantee then either. Also, I certainly haven't argued that only youth sports are causing increased risk. Nor do I feel others on here have.

With all due respect MWS, your winter driving "risk" analogy is extremely weak. Why? your decision to pass in that situation only affects you and the other driver. We already know from numerous studies that the majority of actual infection and spread is the result of super-spreader events. They just finished a new study about the bio-gen conference in Boston that occurred very early in March and concluded that that event was responsible for at least 20,000 total infections! And, I will say it AGAIN...YES, we all understand that younger kids are very unlikely to have a "bad" outcome regarding actual symptoms/sickness/death.

However, and as I demonstrated in a recent post, there is new evidence that as many as 15% of the BIG10 athletes who were infected, a number of them asymptomatic, have developed myocarditis. And, that isn't the only significant/serious post-infection malady. There are significant numbers of people who have developed serious lung scarring that, although may not affect younger people in the near future who experience that issue, will likely become a legitimate disability when they reach their 40s and 50s or older.

Since no one has answered my question from my earlier post today, I'll ask it again...

IF...you knew that EVERY time your son or daughter left the house, there was 15% chance they could come home with a life altering disease or, even worse, possibly die of a heart attack, would you let them out of the house? Especially if you knew that within 6 months, there would be a vaccine that would likely reduce their chance of the same issues down to almost zero?

I respectfully await an answer.

[Wise Old Man]

Wise

Haven’t caught up on this thread for a while

But didn’t you and I make world peace a few pages ago?

I thought we were tackling the Middle East first... Wait a minute, that's right, Jared told us he's got that one covered.

WOM, have your kids gone to hockey camps this summer?
Just curious....(asking for a friend).

Also, you're not skilled at keeping political comments off of this thread. I think most people have had enough or will have enough of political comments in the next few months. Most just want to comment on hockey so stay on topic please.

Thanks.

As I just acknowledged in my previous and lengthy post -- I know, shocker right? -- yes, I allowed my two kids to attend an extremely limited in numbers camp where they didn't do any scrimmaging. It was strictly ADM skills stuff. And it was early in the summer.

As for my skills in keeping "political" comments off of the this thread; considering the context around the "Jared" comment, I think it's pretty obvious -- or at least it sure as heck should be -- that it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic and was strictly part of a fun and completely respectful little back and forth between myself and "West". Let's keep things in perspective here. I'm pretty confident that Karl and Lee recognize that for what it was.

[Rails Hockey]

Proctor and Duluth have already decided that they will be full distance learning to start. Hermantown will probably follow suit next week. Esko has decided on Hybrid for now.

Sports are going on as planned, Soccer and Cross Country have been moving forward as if it's a regular season.

Sports can and will go on regardless of what's going on in school.

Hunters, the Hockey Dad's didn't even get to vote yet and that's what the MSHSL has decided. Your Fight might be with the Soccer Dads!

[Hunters1993]

So you want your kids to know that sports are valuable enough to risk health but going to a classroom is not valuable? That’s great! Glad to hear you at least admit that!

[Hunters1993]

<r>Okay, I'll bite! <E>:lol:</E> <br/>
<br/>
First on the topic of why I think it is okay to have my son play hockey. For about two months when this all started, we as a family stayed home as was recommended. Kids didn't go to friends and friends weren't allowed to come over. I am fortunate to be able to work from home so I did. My wife didn't have that option, as such she continued to serve lunches from the school so those that chose to drive thru the school to pick up free lunches. I left the house a few times during those couple of months only to go to the grocery store and when I went I filled up the cart to limit trips. On those trips, I wore a mask (long before mandated), but if by chance it could help prevent me from contracting the virus, or if I was infected, spreading it to others worth wearing one. I didn't wear one because I read something somewhere, but simply thought, wearing a mask may or may not help but if it does happen to help good. If it doesn't help, I wasn't that big of a deal to wear one. <br/>
<br/>
As restrictions started to ease, we eased our restrictions in line with the recommendations. Yes, allowed kids to visit friends and allowed friends to come over(minimally). When the rinks opened back up, yes our kids started to skate again training within the restrictions as allowed. When games/scrimmages started to be allowed, yes they participated in those. When restaurants started to open back up (patio only) we did go out to one once. When indoor dining was also an option, we also dined indoors. Now the frequency in which we choose to do this has been much less then pre-covid and typically we choose outdoor dining. <br/>
<br/>
Now here we are today and yes, kids are training, playing in games, attending Jr Camps, playing in tournaments. Back to normal hockey, well not really as there are restrictions at each and every rink from number of spectators (if any), not using locker rooms, to getting temperature checked, to getting dressed in the parking lot, to no handshake at the end of the game. So yes game is being played, but I really wouldn't call it 100% normal.<br/>
<br/>
As long as rinks are open and MDH allows games to be played, I don't see an issue with allowing my kids to play. I don't think that makes me a crazy hockey dad trying to relive the dreams of my youth and certainly doesn't mean I think hockey is more important then education. We have basically followed guidelines as mandated, thus playing hockey as permitted goes right in line with following guideline when they did nothing. Does it create potential additional risk of contracting virus. YES, but that risk is increased every time we walk out of the house and anytime we are exposed to others. Now if you think everything should be shut down, okay, I respect your opinion on that, but that is not the case now and I don't agree with saying only youth sports are what causes additional risks.<br/>
<br/>
As far as a separate school for hockey players, I would be fine with that if that is the ONLY activity causing additional risks to student who choose to attend school (all have option of choosing online only). True story, a couple of weeks ago was waiting for game to start and allowed to go into rink at NW Suburban rink. Where I was parked, I was watching skateboarders at the skate park. There was about 25 "kids" at the park of which I would guess about 15-20 being high school age. There were three boys off to the side standing under a tree. They were smoking a joint and passing it between them. I watch one of the kids coughing as he exhaled and cover his mouth with his hand. A few minutes later they were on the ramps "boarding" or whatever it is called, the kid I watched cough into his hand puts his hands behind him on a railing on the back of the ramp. I watched him, he never sanitized. I tell this story as I would suspect this kid could easily spread the virus to those he was around and anyone who touched that railing. High school kid doing risky activity that just may infect any kid in his class. High School kids are going to do all kinds of things that will potentially spread the virus among classmates, not just athletics. At least with athletics we know they are under supervision and while restrictions may or may not help in stopping the spread, at least there is an attempt to stop the spread, unlike many other activities or conduct. </r>

So here's an analogy I would use:

it is a snowy day (a dusting, not a blizzard) and we are both driving down a one lane highway where the speed limit is 55 and the minimum is 40. You are in front of me going 40 as you don't feel comfortable driving in snow. Okay, good you should only drive as fast as you are comfortable driving given the conditions. I being a little more comfortable driving in snow decide to pass you in a passing zone at a speed of 50. I pass you without incident and continue to drive at 50 to my destination. Are either of us in the wrong? No. Did I create additional risk to you and myself by passing you? Yes, of course, the less risky scenario would have been for me to follow you at 40 as an accident could have been caused by me passing you and I created additional risk by driving 10 MPH faster. I choose to take on some additional risk by passing you which in turn created additional risk for you, however I did nothing wrong, didn't break any laws and simply did a permitted activity. Overly simplified, yes, but in principle the same as choosing to play hockey as long as permitted and it really shouldn't matter who the organization is running it.

Unfortunately, people are going to contract the virus. If you want zero chance of contracting the virus, go on lock down as that is really the only way to prevent it. Do some activities create additional risk of contraction, yes. While one activity may be deemed to high of risk for one, that is not the same for all. I respect each opinion on what your risk tolerance is. It only takes the right (or wrong) person to have an interaction with or touch a surface they infected to catch the virus.

My question for you. Why do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom, why do you cough into your arm, why put on a seat belt? Why worry about anyone else’s health. It’s not your problem right. You make your choices I’ll make mine. You do those things to protect others from germs in several cases and protect yourself and those in the car with you in the other. But with a pandemic you don’t need to worry about others health?

How about this one. I feel for every family who has ever had to deal with a Mental Health Issue or how about a machinery death. But maybe there just a few here or there in your region? So it’s not a real big deal right? Maybe you don’t even know anyone who has died this way? So not a real problem? That’s how people are treating COVID. I don’t know anyone effected so it’s not a big deal.

[Rails Hockey]

So you want your kids to know that sports are valuable enough to risk health but going to a classroom is not valuable? That’s great! Glad to hear you at least admit that!

I didn’t decide that. The MSHSL did. I want my kids in the Classroom. And I want my kid to play Hockey too. You said all the Hockey Dad’s were silent and wouldn’t answer you. I just did. What do u wanna know?

[Dog]

(WOM quote):
"As for your example of the skateboarders, I agree they were partaking in risky behavior in relation to Covid. However, again, the fact they were outside meant their risk was much less than your son and the others skating that day".

WOM:
So even though the skateboarders were passing a joint from one another ...
Somehow because they were outside, miraculously the virus disappears in the few seconds that it takes one of them to say "ere" to the other....

I've seen a lot about this virus but not that it's killed from the short trip from one skateboarders mouth to another... on a blunt.

I better buy a skateboard!

This stuff gets wackier each day but I'm sure the Duluth city council would agree with your assessment that these skateboarders are much less risky than hockey players and will soon appropriate even more funds to skateboard parks... and free ganja... because the science indicates that the virus can't possibly live on something as wholesome... as a doobie.

As far as you putting your kids in camps this summer, I'm happy for you that you didn't have you in your ear telling yourself that you were forcing your kids into dangerous behavior.
But I would like to take this time to publicly shame you for you making that decision yourself.

And Hunters:
On behalf of many current Hunter fans who cringe at your posts.... lighten up Francis.