What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Coronavirus

robertearle said:
"Is forcing women to wear tops unconstitutional?"

No. That's the point.

"What is the constructional right that relates to face coverings?"

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not unconstitutional because we have decided that wearing shoes in a public store or restaurant, etc. is in the interest of public safety and public health. You don't have to go into the store, but if you do, you gotta wear shoes.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.

The right to not "wear tops" would be an individual freedom of expression - aka. "freedom of speech" - in what clothes we wear, or choose to not wear. But - like ALL Constitutional rights - that freedom of expression can be limited when it collides with what we'll call 'public modesty' or 'public decorum', etc.; courts have decided that we can't walk around with our boobs out or our junk out on display. (And obviously, there are situations - strip clubs, etc., - where the restriction does not apply, where 'speech' of that kind is allowed.) Now, you can disagree with that decision and that restriction. But that's the way it goes; disagreeing does not equate to a right to ignore the restriction or defy the restriction.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.
Click to expand...

I am in total agreement with you. I raised the constitutional question because I keep hearing people talk about how being forced to wear masks violates some right and I wanted to hear your reasoning against that argument as I’ve had trouble articulating it myself. Excellent!
 
So does anyone think we’re going to get a season at this point? Driving me a little nuts that kids sports is continuing right now, putting a lot of other things and lives at risk. Local high school football player just tested positive for the virus and they shut practice down for two weeks. Anyone know what the various women’s college leagues have said so far?

Hope you are all staying well. These are not easy times.
 
Rumor - I heard over the weekend - A slew of Ivy League players are taking a year off since the Ivies do not allow grad school students to play. That should tell everyone what the real deal is.

As far as youth sports - I think they should continue in a smaller group model. The kids do need to do something besides video games.

​​​​​​
 
My sister thought she had it. She went to the Dr, the test came back negative. The Dr. said she still could have it, the test is only 75% accurate, so she is to quarantine 10 days, which apparently has replaced the 14 day time period. My parents got tested today, they saw her 6 days before she started feeling bad. I have not seen her or my parents in over 10 days, I should be ok.
 
Timothy A said:
My sister thought she had it. She went to the Dr, the test came back negative. The Dr. said she still could have it, the test is only 75% accurate, so she is to quarantine 10 days, which apparently has replaced the 14 day time period. My parents got tested today, they saw her 6 days before she started feeling bad. I have not seen her or my parents in over 10 days, I should be ok.
Click to expand...

(As best I understand it)

"14 days" is the time period from a potential expose to the time when one can be confident that exposure has not resulted in infection. Your sister's "ten days" might be because by the time she had seen the doctor, she was already four days into her "14 day" period. Your parents' "14 day" clock would start at the point they were with your sister. So if they saw her six days she maybe developed symptoms and now some number of days have passed (assuming they didn't see here at all again since), they are well into their particular "14 day" period.

You "14 days" would start when you last saw either your sister or your parents. So you have four more days (?) to go, and should be isolating for that time.

Had your sister tested positive, the "rules" for when someone is "cleared" of being contagious are different, and have to do with how long since they had a fever, or had gotten a subsequent 'negative' result of test for active virus, etc.
 
Reddington said:
Rumor - I heard over the weekend - A slew of Ivy League players are taking a year off since the Ivies do not allow grad school students to play. That should tell everyone what the real deal is.

As far as youth sports - I think they should continue in a smaller group model. The kids do need to do something besides video games.

​​​​​​
Click to expand...

I’ve heard that one Ivy League team told athletes if anyone decided to defer the school year then she gives up her spot on the team.
 
That coach should reassess as should all coaches - the smart play is to save the year for all athletes that aren't going pro. Getting a year of work in in a job you can't stand and ground you for the rest of your life. You might come back to school and sports with an appreciative outlook and the earnestness to strive even more.
 
robertearle said:
(As best I understand it)

"14 days" is the time period from a potential expose to the time when one can be confident that exposure has not resulted in infection. Your sister's "ten days" might be because by the time she had seen the doctor, she was already four days into her "14 day" period. Your parents' "14 day" clock would start at the point they were with your sister. So if they saw her six days she maybe developed symptoms and now some number of days have passed (assuming they didn't see here at all again since), they are well into their particular "14 day" period.

You "14 days" would start when you last saw either your sister or your parents. So you have four more days (?) to go, and should be isolating for that time.

Had your sister tested positive, the "rules" for when someone is "cleared" of being contagious are different, and have to do with how long since they had a fever, or had gotten a subsequent 'negative' result of test for active virus, etc.
Click to expand...

Her test came back negative. I still can't believe the test is only 75% accurate per her Dr.
 
Timothy A said:
Her test came back negative. I still can't believe the test is only 75% accurate per her Dr.
Click to expand...

New virus, new test, less than perfect.

The inaccuracy comes from the timing of when the test sample is taken - too soon and there isn't 'enough' virus to be sure you got some on the swab, too late and the virus may have 'moved' from the sinus down into the lungs, or elsewhere; and from the actual administration of the swab - getting it way in to the 'right' part of the sinus cavity is difficult. If the sample has virus RNA on it, the lab will find it. That is, the chemistry of test itself is not the problem.

There are other test mechanisms being developed that are easier to administer (and faster results) but with even lower overall accuracy. Over the last couple weeks, I've seen news stories about simple saliva tests having been developed at U of Illinois and at Arizona State.

Test speed and inaccuracy are certainly problems, but they're hardly the only problems we all have right now.
 
robertearle said:
New virus, new test, less than perfect.

The inaccuracy comes from the timing of when the test sample is taken - too soon and there isn't 'enough' virus to be sure you got some on the swab, too late and the virus may have 'moved' from the sinus down into the lungs, or elsewhere; and from the actual administration of the swab - getting it way in to the 'right' part of the sinus cavity is difficult. If the sample has virus RNA on it, the lab will find it. That is, the chemistry of test itself is not the problem.

There are other test mechanisms being developed that are easier to administer (and faster results) but with even lower overall accuracy. Over the last couple weeks, I've seen news stories about simple saliva tests having been developed at U of Illinois and at Arizona State.

Test speed and inaccuracy are certainly problems, but they're hardly the only problems we all have right now.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are da MAN! What great insight. I' m glad you are on my team. Smileyface.
 
My wife had her annual cardiologist visit last week and they chatted quite a while after. The doctor confirmed that they are seeing lung damage with all covid cases, which we knew, but she also shared that they are seeing quite a few people with heart damage as well. She also told my wife to schedule any routine work to be completed before October. They are expecting a big surge of cases once the weather starts to get chilly enough to drive folks indoors, and once the kids go back to school. Looks like my wife and I are going to be sheltering in place well into next year.

Too bad the governor didn't mandate frequent showers and the use of deodorant rather than mandating masks. That way, we might have achieved social distancing naturally among those who refuse to follow any mandate. Stay safe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top