Hockey East 2020-2021

[Jeb2020]

And the reality is, despite your and many others' protestations on the Right about how "often" the "experts" have changed their recommendations or, the modelers have been "off" in some of their predictions since Covid really got going in February, this IS a NOVEL VIRUS... I know you know what that means Chuck. It's a brand new virus that even the top scientists and doctors in the world who have dealt with these types of things their entire professional careers, are still wrapping their heads and hands around. Meaning... yes, even these legitimate, world renowned experts are going to be "off" occasionally. Recommendations change because the knowledge around and about the virus does. It's pretty basic common sense actually. But again, you already know this. But for you and Jeb and J.D. and others, this is no longer about actual science or facts. It's about the reality that you chose to tie your political horse to the hitching post known as Donald J. Trump.

And Jeb... first, regarding the asymptomatic referee who infected up to 400 others...I'm curious, have you spoken with that referee or those in the medical community in that area who performed his/her test? Or those who did the actual contact tracing? Because unless you have, I'm sorry but, I'm going to take the word of a reporter from one of the most respected papers in the world who likely actually spoke to someone in the Maine Department of Health, versus you.

Next, you're right Jeb...lockdowns/stay at home orders don't "eliminate" the virus. You know what's funny about that statement? Literally no one advocating more conservative approaches claims that they do "eliminate" the virus. What those strategies (along with significant "buy in" to masking and social distancing) do accomplish, is to reduce overall infections, which in turn reduces hospitalizations, which in turn reduces unnecessary (and preventable) deaths.

Paragraph #1. Maybe you should pump the breaks when you get some real time info then if it always has to be retracted or adjusted because it is a Novel Virus? Just a thought. Because if all along there have been inconsistent messaging, info, modeling, ect. then most likely it will continue to happen. Flat out awful modeling (Neil Fergusson, Emprial College, ect., MN Modeling), measures taken with major consequences, ect. And the awful modeling that took place had nothing to do with it being a Novel virus, it had to do with egregious inputs to create the exact outputs that they wanted to to create hysteria. That is precisely what created the environment to implement these horrendous measures that have so many consequences that will last for many years to come.

We’ve tested half of the entire state of Minnesota. We’ve tracked over 300,000 infected people.

Throw out the covid models… we have the real data.

Survival rate outside long term care = 99.90%
Under age 60 = 99.98%
Survival rate overall = 99.71%



Paragraph #2 -
And Jeb... first, regarding the asymptomatic referee who infected up to 400 others
I'm sorry but, I'm going to take the word of a reporter from one of the most respected papers in the world who likely actually spoke to someone in the Maine Department of Health, versus you.

Man you are one hysterical fanatic. Did you read your article even? 400 people were not infected by the asymptomatic referee. The article from one of the most respected papers in the world states "An Ice Hockey referee that tested positive for Covid-19 has potentially exposed some 400 people to the virus after officiating 8 recreational games in two days in Maine & New Hampshire."

What word of the reporter are you taking exactly? This is hardly a big deal at all. If one of these 400 people was very sick, in the hospital, ect. the reporter would be all over it like a fly on sh*t. The most they can come up with is exposure to someone who was asymptomatic which means based on the data we have now about the testing, there is a 90% chance this ref didn't have an active infection.

On a side note there you go with that silly language again trying to always over validate your claims, if you had good points to make you wouldn't need to constantly talk about your experts, and world renowned papers, "and almost all the experts agree," ect.


Paragraph #3 -
What those strategies (along with significant "buy in" to masking and social distancing) do accomplish, is to reduce overall infections, which in turn reduces hospitalizations, which in turn reduces unnecessary (and preventable) deaths.

No actually those strategies don't work at all, certainly not in any significant sense. 9 months into this we know that the curves in all regions end up following the exact same trajectory of time and peak once it hits, regardless of measures taken or not taken.

You are more than free to take what you feel are the necessary precautions against what you feel is your risk, by all means.

[Jeb2020]

I have called Trump a moron, didn't vote for him, said I believe in science, posted a scientific study...yet I am a Trump supporter who doesn't believe in science. Try reading something before you blindly lump everyone together as being the same poster. I am not the same person as Chuck and Jeb. Remove your head from your *** (or Kepler's).

I am in the same boat, never voted for Trump. And since March have not blended politics/virus because frankly a virus has nothing to do with politics. I have looked at mountains of data and analyzed it and asked questions when I seen inconsistencies and irregularities. Yet Net P., can't go a post without going a political route. He tries to create a scenario where he disqualifies someone that challenges a viewpoint he holds based on politics (that were ironically never even brought up by said person).

Anyone who asks a question, might be skeptical about something, ect. is labeled a "Trumper." It is simply language used to try and discredit someone and end the conversation.

Net P., is all in on Covid 19, it is all or nothing, there is not "public health" there is only C19. It irks him (there is definitely a psychology to it) that others don't have the same risk assessment to this entire charade like he does.

[Split-N]

I too have assiduously avoided getting caught up in the political slimefest that has taken over this hockey forum but I finally reached a breaking point when Mr. (or Ms?) NetP somehow found it necessary to chastise me for "seconding" a post by jjmc85 that made a "motion" to move all the political talk over to the Ivy League thread, where it properly belongs given that the Ivies are past masters at telling the rest of us how to live. Both the "motion" and my "second" were made tongue-in-cheek but even attempts at wry humor are enough to spark another smug surge of sanctimony from other quarters.

I've also become bored at the condescending lecturing we regularly get about possible long-term COVID effects like myocarditis, lung scarring, etc. but never mention that the same long-term risks come with viral diseases generally, including some strains of seasonal flu and even childhood diseases, like measles. Since certain experts like to give us CDC URLs, here are a couple more:

Measles Complications | CDC
Flu Symptoms & Complications | CDC

I do give NetP and others credit for making me realize that certain BC posters may [potentially] have some qualities of possibly redeeming social importance. And that's saying a lot.

Finally, I did not vote for DJT in 2016 and I did not vote for DJT in 2020. And like Mr. J.D. I have called him a moron. So no, you can't brand me as a Trumpoid or right wing reactionary.

But to get back to basics, three games were played in Hockey East this weekend. Another today (Sunday). So when do we get back to talking hockey instead of hurling insults back and forth?

[Chuck Murray]

I am in the same boat, never voted for Trump. And since March have not blended politics/virus because frankly a virus has nothing to do with politics. I have looked at mountains of data and analyzed it and asked questions when I seen inconsistencies and irregularities. Yet Net P., can't go a post without going a political route. He tries to create a scenario where he disqualifies someone that challenges a viewpoint he holds based on politics (that were ironically never even brought up by said person).

Anyone who asks a question, might be skeptical about something, ect. is labeled a "Trumper." It is simply language used to try and discredit someone and end the conversation.

Net P., is all in on Covid 19, it is all or nothing, there is not "public health" there is only C19. It irks him (there is definitely a psychology to it) that others don't have the same risk assessment to this entire charade like he does.

This pretty much nails it. It's a clear "tell" when folks ignore the data and jump on a narrative which avoids the data, especially when the data does not support the panic-driven narrative.

To try to bring it around to a hockey-related context ... data is what you see with teams and W-L-T standings, goals for and goals against, home vs. road record, etc. or with players' stats on goals, assists, plus/minus, GAA and save percentages, etc. Most I'm sure would agree that while the stats (data) don't tell everything, they are indeed factual, and while we can always have fun debating what teams should be better (or worse) than they are performing, or what players are exceeding potential vs. underperforming potential, the final measuring stick always comes down to wins and losses, or succeeding or "busting" as a player.

There are many folks out and around the hockey world who are designated "experts" in terms of locating and assessing talent for potential success at the next level(s). They are called scouts (pro) or recruiters. It's not an easy job, and even the most successful pro scouts are probably wrong about 50% of the time. There are a huge amount of variables involved (most of them subjective - not data-driven). The rules are different for scouts vs. recruiters - recruiters can theoretically go after all the top talent they can fit onto a roster, while a scout and their organization is usually limited by constraints of draft picks and salary cap issues recruiters don't have. It's probably not an exaggeration to call what they do sort of a "science".

In the end, if we're being honest about any of this, the data that is complied after-the-fact is more reliable than speculation by so-called "experts", and is the measuring stick by which the success or failure of these "experts" at their "science" are judged. You can talk a great game, but if the results don't follow, then what value did your speculation have? In the words of noted data scientist Bill Parcells ... "You are what your record (stats/data) says you are."

Don Cherry is a former NHL head coach, and has been a highly entertaining (per the data - ratings) and very provocative commentator for almost 40 years now. Anyone who knows hockey, knows who Don Cherry is. At one point, Cherry was voted by fellow Canadians as the 7th greatest Canadian of all time. He was a minor league hockey player for twenty (20) years before moving into coaching. He's been in the game for 70 years, at all levels, and has opinions about everything.

You don't have to like him to admit he has "expert" level knowledge of hockey. No judge would ever exclude his testimony as an "expert" based on his history/CV. But I don't think any NHL owner is going to be hiring him as GM anytime soon, nor would any GM's hire him as a head coach. He's never done a GM gig before, and his personality ultimately resulted in a meteoric head coaching career. The data showed that despite "talking a great game", he wasn't worth the aggravation.

There are also a few so-called COVID-19 "experts" who've been just as spectacularly wrong (as was commentator Cherry in the past) with their opinions over the course of 2020, with some even offering many far-afield opinions well beyond the edge of their so-called "expertise", just as Cherry has been known to do. So just because some "expert" connects with a certain segment of public (political) support, doesn't mean their opinions and forecasts should not be questioned. We'll see if they'll be borne out by the data. To date, the COVID-19 "experts" are faring no better than an average hockey scout, and they've been just as clownish and buffoonish as Cherry has been in the past when volunteering opinions beyond their expertise.

Maybe I've seen "expertise for hire" too often and it's made me cynical, but it is what it is.

Folks who've read my posts know that I like to speculate and prognosticate outcomes for teams, players and seasons. It's fun for me, and sometimes it generates discussion on here. I've been spectacularly wrong sometimes, and some times I've been right. We've had animated discussions about the importance (or lack thereof IMO) of SOG's. Let's just say, given the current scenario, I see "cases" as a comparable to SOG's. Both have a wide range of quality/severity, but whereas between 8%-10% of SOG's result in a goal, substantially less than 1% of "cases" for folks under 70 result in death. We can have a frank discussion of quality of life for the unfortunate COVID victims in LTC settings, but no one seems to want to go there.

Unlike the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago, COVID is not robbing us of our children, nor of our healthy young adults. The data is abundantly clear on that. But some would persist to have us believe that it is, and that folks who have found themselves in LTC settings where COVID has (as predicted) done most of its damage, were just there for a week-long vacation stay to "recharge their batteries". That's disingenuous at best, and malicious propaganda at worst.

Food for thought. JMHO.

[Chuck Murray]

I do give NetP and others credit for making me realize that certain BC posters may actually have some [potentially] redeeming qualities of social importance. And that's saying a lot.

Just like habitual lefty Jane Fonda praised COVID-19 as being "God's gift to the Left" ... we have this phenomenon where BC fans have become more likeable simply for being outside the well-trodden path of the lemmings that otherwise dot academia.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows", the old adage goes. I think this situation is a good example.

The benefits of a Jesuit education are paying off. Father Monan is up there smiling today. :-)

[Drew S.]

This pretty much nails it. It's a clear "tell" when folks ignore the data and jump on a narrative which avoids the data, especially when the data does not support the panic-driven narrative.

To try to bring it around to a hockey-related context ... data is what you see with teams and W-L-T standings, goals for and goals against, home vs. road record, etc. or with players' stats on goals, assists, plus/minus, GAA and save percentages, etc. Most I'm sure would agree that while the stats (data) don't tell everything, they are indeed factual, and while we can always have fun debating what teams should be better (or worse) than they are performing, or what players are exceeding potential vs. underperforming potential, the final measuring stick always comes down to wins and losses, or succeeding or "busting" as a player.

There are many folks out and around the hockey world who are designated "experts" in terms of locating and assessing talent for potential success at the next level(s). They are called scouts (pro) or recruiters. It's not an easy job, and even the most successful pro scouts are probably wrong about 50% of the time. There are a huge amount of variables involved (most of them subjective - not data-driven). The rules are different for scouts vs. recruiters - recruiters can theoretically go after all the top talent they can fit onto a roster, while a scout and their organization is usually limited by constraints of draft picks and salary cap issues recruiters don't have. It's probably not an exaggeration to call what they do sort of a "science".

In the end, if we're being honest about any of this, the data that is complied after-the-fact is more reliable than speculation by so-called "experts", and is the measuring stick by which the success or failure of these "experts" at their "science" are judged. You can talk a great game, but if the results don't follow, then what value did your speculation have? In the words of noted data scientist Bill Parcells ... "You are what your record (stats/data) says you are."

Don Cherry is a former NHL head coach, and has been a highly entertaining (per the data - ratings) and very provocative commentator for almost 40 years now. Anyone who knows hockey, knows who Don Cherry is. At one point, Cherry was voted by fellow Canadians as the 7th greatest Canadian of all time. He was a minor league hockey player for twenty (20) years before moving into coaching. He's been in the game for 70 years, at all levels, and has opinions about everything.

You don't have to like him to admit he has "expert" level knowledge of hockey. No judge would ever exclude his testimony as an "expert" based on his history/CV. But I don't think any NHL owner is going to be hiring him as GM anytime soon, nor would any GM's hire him as a head coach. He's never done a GM gig before, and his personality ultimately resulted in a meteoric head coaching career. The data showed that despite "talking a great game", he wasn't worth the aggravation.

There are also a few so-called COVID-19 "experts" who've been just as spectacularly wrong (as was commentator Cherry in the past) with their opinions over the course of 2020, with some even offering many far-afield opinions well beyond the edge of their so-called "expertise", just as Cherry has been known to do. So just because some "expert" connects with a certain segment of public (political) support, doesn't mean their opinions and forecasts should not be questioned. We'll see if they'll be borne out by the data. To date, the COVID-19 "experts" are faring no better than an average hockey scout, and they've been just as clownish and buffoonish as Cherry has been in the past when volunteering opinions beyond their expertise.

Maybe I've seen "expertise for hire" too often and it's made me cynical, but it is what it is.

Folks who've read my posts know that I like to speculate and prognosticate outcomes for teams, players and seasons. It's fun for me, and sometimes it generates discussion on here. I've been spectacularly wrong sometimes, and some times I've been right. We've had animated discussions about the importance (or lack thereof IMO) of SOG's. Let's just say, given the current scenario, I see "cases" as a comparable to SOG's. Both have a wide range of quality/severity, but whereas between 8%-10% of SOG's result in a goal, substantially less than 1% of "cases" for folks under 70 result in death. We can have a frank discussion of quality of life for the unfortunate COVID victims in LTC settings, but no one seems to want to go there.

Unlike the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago, COVID is not robbing us of our children, nor of our healthy young adults. The data is abundantly clear on that. But some would persist to have us believe that it is, and that folks who have found themselves in LTC settings where COVID has (as predicted) done most of its damage, were just there for a week-long vacation stay to "recharge their batteries". That's disingenuous at best, and malicious propaganda at worst.

Food for thought. JMHO.

Excess deaths for 25-45 are up more than any other age group, FYI. We really have no clue what the long term consequences are either. Why gamble your health for nothing?

I’d be curious what exactly you think the experts were wrong about? Their message has been very consistent. If you don’t think it has perhaps that’s a reflection on where you are getting your information.

[Snively65]

But to get back to basics, three games were played in Hockey East this weekend. Another today (Sunday). So when do we get back to talking hockey instead of hurling insults back and forth?

I watched the game on NESN last night and thought that the Iggles were awesome. :-)

[Patman]

Excess deaths for 25-45 are up more than any other age group, FYI. We really have no clue what the long term consequences are either. Why gamble your health for nothing?

I’d be curious what exactly you think the experts were wrong about? Their message has been very consistent. If you don’t think it has perhaps that’s a reflection on where you are getting your information.

are excess deaths due to the virus or to suicide?

[Split-N]

I watched the game on NESN last night and thought that the Iggles were awesome. :-)

Wondering if the real story is the awesomeness of the beagles or the awfulness of the fryers. [Full disclosure, I'm the product of a Dominican education but no connection to PC]

[Chuck Murray]

are excess deaths due to the virus or to suicide?

It's definitely not due to a huge increase of COVID deaths in that age group. If it was, the usual suspects would be spouting that data non-stop. The fact that MSM paints this all vaguely with a broad brush, without drilling down, tells you everything.

I think we all know it's due to pressures caused by lockdowns on businesses and their employees, most of whom are not accustomed to life without their business and/or their job(s). Take away the foundation of what you do to earn a living, and suddenly a lot of folks are under a lot of stress, which can manifest itself in a lot of unhealthy behaviors - substance abuse at the top of that list, be it drugs, alcohol or whatever - and avoiding medical treatments that might otherwise catch a lot of other things - any of which can in turn lead to death from an undiagnosed condition that worsens when untreated. Throw in suicide OR homicide - and let's not forget, homicide rates are through the roof this year, with lots of it from the so-called "peaceful protesters" in big cities - and this all seems pretty common-sensical to me.

If Drew has the data on the excess deaths in the 25-45 age group indicating otherwise, he should share it - not just throw it out there and leave it hanging. If you're OK getting your news from the easy places, who seem to lack the basic intellectual curiosity that used to be a hallmark of legitimate journalism, then don't blame me or others who decide to dig into the data and seek clarity in that vacuum created by the laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity of those who drive the narratives.

They are counting on you to be lazy. By not questioning them, you let them off the hook.

You want to live your life uninformed, be my guest. Just don't force it on me, OK?

[BCeagle]

It would help if the Mitch and his GOP enablers allow covid relief bills to pass to help out. I have no idea what they're thinking but then again I do and it's a shame they get no push back or get re-elected despite hurting their own constituents too.

[Drew S.]

It's definitely not due to a huge increase of COVID deaths in that age group. If it was, the usual suspects would be spouting that data non-stop. The fact that MSM paints this all vaguely with a broad brush, without drilling down, tells you everything.

I think we all know it's due to pressures caused by lockdowns on businesses and their employees, most of whom are not accustomed to life without their business and/or their job(s). Take away the foundation of what you do to earn a living, and suddenly a lot of folks are under a lot of stress, which can manifest itself in a lot of unhealthy behaviors - substance abuse at the top of that list, be it drugs, alcohol or whatever - and avoiding medical treatments that might otherwise catch a lot of other things - any of which can in turn lead to death from an undiagnosed condition that worsens when untreated. Throw in suicide OR homicide - and let's not forget, homicide rates are through the roof this year, with lots of it from the so-called "peaceful protesters" in big cities - and this all seems pretty common-sensical to me.

If Drew has the data on the excess deaths in the 25-45 age group indicating otherwise, he should share it - not just throw it out there and leave it hanging. If you're OK getting your news from the easy places, who seem to lack the basic intellectual curiosity that used to be a hallmark of legitimate journalism, then don't blame me or others who decide to dig into the data and seek clarity in that vacuum created by the laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity of those who drive the narratives.

They are counting on you to be lazy. By not questioning them, you let them off the hook.

You want to live your life uninformed, be my guest. Just don't force it on me, OK?

Ask and you shall receive:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

https://www.boston.com/news/coronavi...virus-pandemic

Suicide among young folks has been increasing significantly for the last 15 years.

[Jeb2020]

Ask and you shall receive:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

https://www.boston.com/news/coronavi...virus-pandemic

Suicide among young folks has been increasing significantly for the last 15 years.

Good thing there are people with integrity keeping a very close eye on the data and how it is presented.

Officially, the CDC shows 335K excess deaths in 2020. But, something is very wrong with their baseline expected deaths. For some reason, they "expected" mortality to decline this year - after steadily increasing annually for the past decade:



If the CDC had simply extended their average expected deaths trend into 2020, excess deaths would be reduced by 114K. In other words, about 1/3 of CDC reported excess mortality is due entirely to an artificially low baseline:



To paint this in the best possible light, I believe the CDC may have reduced expected 2020 deaths because of the extraordinarily mild Winter deaths observed in 2019. However, past trends indicate that low mortality years tend to be followed by high mortality years.

This is a well-documented phenomenon known as "mortality displacement". Given the low number of deaths observed in 2019, the CDC should have expected more deaths year, not fewer. Accounting for mortality displacement, "true" excess mortality this year is around 155K:



Looking by week, it is clear that the majority of the gap between a reasonable forecast and that reported by the CDC lands at the beginning of 2020. The CDC seems to have "expected" the complete lack of a flu season in early 2020...


also keep in mind that this needs to be population adjusted. the CDC has an bizarre habit of not doing this as though having 5% more people of 7% more old people would not affect the number. the tools and graphs they publish on expected deaths are junk science at best.

[Chuck Murray]

Thank you Jeb.

Drew, I appreciate the response, but you aren't providing data that goes to the specific question: How many infected people ("cases") are dying of COVID at a certain age (say, under 40)?

In Minnesota, Jeb has provided that figure: 33 folks out of 170,000 cases (99.98% survival rate)
In New Hampshire. I've provided the data: One (1) person out of 11,000 cases (99.99% survival)

Those figures don't exactly jump significantly until you get to much older age groups. You have to get to at least 65 and up before survival rates tick down under 99%, and you have to get to at least 80 and up before survival rates drop below 90%.

What does it look like in Maine? Massachusetts? Vermont? New York? RI/CT? Any other state??

Keep in mind ... survival rates apply only to those who contract COVID. A large majority of folks still haven't contracted it, so your chances of surviving in the real world as a random citizen is even higher than the 99.99+% figures outlined above.

None of this warrants the extreme reactions, nor the "precautions" being taken (or in worst-case scenarios, imposed on us). Should there be some level of concern and awareness? Absolutely. Have the measures put in place previously (and again in some instances now) demonstrably accomplished anything? Other than delaying the impact ... apparently not really.

The discussion some of us were having 8-9 months ago was "Would the "cure" be worse than the disease it was intended to cure?" I have my opinion, you may have yours, and they are not likely the same. But PLEASE keep in mind that, for every person like me (and possibly you?) who may be lucky enough to be able to continue to work full-speed or close at home while this all plays out ... there are just as many other folks who have their own small businesses and/or work in the private sector who cannot do their work (and cannot feed their family) given the level of restrictions being placed upon them. Not understanding the difference, or worse yet castigating those unlucky folks as "selfish", is something I'm seeing far too often for my liking. JMHO.

[Jeb2020]

Here is some data based on Hospital Admissions in November 2016-2019 3 year average and comparing that to Covid-2020.

Really find it hard to believe any of this data presents life needing to be brought to a halt like it has in 2020 and all the consequences that have followed.

But you can sure stir up a lot of hysteria if you report deaths day after day with no context and test in masse asymptomatic people and call it a "case."