The OHL has to play games with contact the fact this is even a thought is sad. I understand you can't play in a bubble like the NHL did but there is a solution to this. the Majority of Ontario's covid cases aren't from Bars or restaurant's its been shown to Doug Ford that the majority of covid cases are in Ontario schools so what the Ontario government should say is players in the OHL don't attend their school in order to distance from others in the building but the players should be doing online classes and all buses used by OHL clubs have Wifi on them so the student athlete's can work on assignment. In regards to the American teams crossing the boarder, the 14 day Quarantine is NOT enforced because i Know a private pilot who flies all over the world and doesn't quarantine at all once he has return to Canada and for those who are unaware Toronto FC of the MLS has been playing their "home" games in Hartford but have flown back to Toronto on multiple occasions and have been in the country at most for 3 days before flying back to the US. My point to all of this is if an MLS team can cross the Canada US boarder without the 14 day requirement then the OHL,NHL, MLB, and NBA should all be allowed to do the same for their respective leagues

you're all losers on Ek's internet message board.

Hard no.

With all the Social Justice pandering by the NHL and a mainstream sports media platforms. Now eliminating body checking in hockey because of Covid 19. There are so much more important things in the world than Hockey. I am a life long hockey fan and I'm realizing I simply dont care anymore. Let's hope President Donald Trump can upend the establishment, social media bias and win a 2 term in office.

Like porn with the clothes on, and closed zippers.
- Landsbergfan

Bullseye!

I an the biggest loser on Ek's internet message board.
- black_francis

Nice to know

You’re dum.
- bruceflyers

STUPID IDEA!

You’re dum.
- bruceflyers

Really Bruce? These poor kids --by not playing--will be risking their future earning potential and future spot in NHL. Sometimes the cure is worse than the illness. It wont harm these kids one bit to be exposed by playing. Many already are in school, at Church or in stores if they go. At some point we have to get back to living life.

Really Bruce? These poor kids --by not playing--will be risking their future earning potential and future spot in NHL. Sometimes the cure is worse than the illness. It wont harm these kids one bit to be exposed by playing. Many already are in school, at Church or in stores if they go. At some point we have to get back to living life.
- Amanion

I am 100% behind this LOGIC. Bruce can stay home, stay safe, and stay quiet.

Fear mongering like this is the problem.

99.997% survial rate for kids aged 0-19 years old.

99.998% survival rate for people 20-49 years old

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2...p/planning-scenarios.html

Time to stop hiding in our houses for protection like it's a mother's womb.

People need grow up.
- Tumbleweed

Just in case there is anyone sane here who is actually interested in greater detail and is puzzled by the above figures (the rest are politely encouraged to ignore this post), I would like to provide some context to the figures cited above.


1. The mortality rate is a highly controversial figure, loaded with enormous political repercussions. If you read the bottom of the cited link poster above provides, you will see lots of disclaimers about the uncertainty of the estimate.

2. The current administration ruled in July that hospitals needed to report Covid data to the Department of Human Services, which would "streamline" the process and then provide figures for the CDC. This is the first time such a step has been taken. The repercussions of this have been unclear regarding Covid stats.

3. The estimates above were obtained (see link and explanation on the webpage at bottom with the † symbol) based on the case fatality ratios of this paper, published in May journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003189&type=printable for 6 different places in Europe and extrapolating them to the US. Note that there are plenty of other papers with very different case fatality ratios that would have give different figures.

4. Further, it is well known that that in the US, the disease has affected a much greater fraction of the non-elderly. After the initial surge in Italy/Belgium etc, death rates in the US have been far worse than comparable countries.
www.cdc.gov/library/covid...october2020/1023_FIG3.png
Thus how far those European death estimates are applicable to the US is a fair question.


5. That paper excluded those over age 80, which would sharply change the overall % of dying. Even with that, note that the mortality rate is 5.4% for those age over 70 (and less than eighty). That's very high. Even if the mortality rate is low for hockey players in the OHL, the same link the poster above provides shows that even asymptomatic people have 75% of the infectiousness of infected people and well, hockey players have parents and grandparents.

6. as of October 28, there were 9.28 million cases in the US and 212,000 deaths. This yields a mortality estimate of 2.2% overall. If you just look at the past 2 months of September-October, (since much better treatment protocols have emerged), the # of confirmed deaths as a fraction of the confirmed cases is still around that fraction (you can see for yourself by going here: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus, and setting the window to September-October, and deselecting all countries except the US on the left).


7. The # of people who have suffered long term damage and lasting issues is almost as high as the # of deaths.
https://www.cdc.gov/libra...e-Update_Final_Public.pdf

8. People often look at figures like 99.95% survival rates and misinterpret what these numbers actually mean. That means you will die 5 out of 1000 times if you get infected. Well, the chances of catching HIV (not even dying, just catching HIV, which is largely a manageable disease nowadays) is 2 out of 1000 for a man having unprotected intercourse with an infected woman. If a woman was HIV+, and you knew it, would you be comfortable with taking that chance?

And are you aware of the permanent damage done to the cardiovascular systems of the survivors?

You are really really dum.

It’s hockey for teenagers...grow the fck up!
- bruceflyers

Yes, let's destroy the futures of our young children so we can protect (statistically speaking) the morbidly obese elderly folks, who have multiple co-morbidities related to morbid obesity. That group statistically makes up nearly all of the people who have died from Covid and it's certainly a fantastic idea to destroy the futures of the young, to protect those who refused to take care of themselves.

And in case you didn't know, it's not just the OHL, it's the CHL that is affected. You know..the system that produces nearly 50% of NHL players drafted? You claim to be a NHL fan but want to destroy the system that generates half of their players? And if you're furious about the prospect of the CHL playing, you must be in a perpetual rage that European leagues are currently playing, so I'm guessing you want a NHL with players exclusively from Russia?

Just in case there is anyone sane here who is actually interested in greater detail and is puzzled by the above figures (the rest are politely encouraged to ignore this post), I would like to provide some context to the figures cited above.


1. The mortality rate is a highly controversial figure, loaded with enormous political repercussions. If you read the bottom of the cited link poster above provides, you will see lots of disclaimers about the uncertainty of the estimate.

2. The current administration ruled in July that hospitals needed to report Covid data to the Department of Human Services, which would "streamline" the process and then provide figures for the CDC. This is the first time such a step has been taken. The repercussions of this have been unclear regarding Covid stats.

3. The estimates above were obtained (see link and explanation on the webpage at bottom with the † symbol) based on the case fatality ratios of this paper, published in May journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003189&type=printable for 6 different places in Europe and extrapolating them to the US. Note that there are plenty of other papers with very different case fatality ratios that would have give different figures.

4. Further, it is well known that that in the US, the disease has affected a much greater fraction of the non-elderly. After the initial surge in Italy/Belgium etc, death rates in the US have been far worse than comparable countries.
www.cdc.gov/library/covid...october2020/1023_FIG3.png
Thus how far those European death estimates are applicable to the US is a fair question.


5. That paper excluded those over age 80, which would sharply change the overall % of dying. Even with that, note that the mortality rate is 5.4% for those age over 70 (and less than eighty). That's very high. Even if the mortality rate is low for hockey players in the OHL, the same link the poster above provides shows that even asymptomatic people have 75% of the infectiousness of infected people and well, hockey players have parents and grandparents.

6. as of October 28, there were 9.28 million cases in the US and 212,000 deaths. This yields a mortality estimate of 2.2% overall. If you just look at the past 2 months of September-October, (since much better treatment protocols have emerged), the # of confirmed deaths as a fraction of the confirmed cases is still around that fraction (you can see for yourself by going here: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus, and setting the window to September-October, and deselecting all countries except the US on the left).


7. The # of people who have suffered long term damage and lasting issues is almost as high as the # of deaths.
https://www.cdc.gov/libra...e-Update_Final_Public.pdf

8. People often look at figures like 99.95% survival rates and misinterpret what these numbers actually mean. That means you will die 5 out of 1000 times if you get infected. Well, the chances of catching HIV (not even dying, just catching HIV, which is largely a manageable disease nowadays) is 2 out of 1000 for a man having unprotected intercourse with an infected woman. If a woman was HIV+, and you knew it, would you be comfortable with taking that chance?
- PT21

1. You are confusing mortality rate with estimated Infection Fatality rate. Fear mongers use the former. Grown ups use that latter knowing it is an estimate.

2. Yawn.

3. Case fatality ratios are garbage. Here is more up to date info.

https://onlinelibrary.wil...oi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13423

4. Thank you for the chart from June on Europe. Now do October.

5. Yes. That is the point. People over 70 are high risk. Specifically, people over 80 with 2 or more commodities.

Focus of resources/money/time should be on protecting these people. The general population is not at risk.

People can make their own judgement calls based on their risk factors and tolerance. No need for you to tell them how to best protect their parents/grandparents.

6. Agreed. Therapeutics are working. No need to prevent people from living their lives.

7. You posted a link showing the economic cost of COVID will be $16 trillion!!!

On loses from COVID PLUS things that were caused because of the lockdown; not because of COVID directly! They are showing you the the loss of life, mental health issues and lost economic output from lockdowns!!!!


This is quite possibly the most egregious waste of money in the history of humanity; spending 10's of millions per life saved; but actually causing more excess deaths than COVID alone!!!

8. Who is using 99.95%? You are just making up numbers.

Survival rate in kids is 99.997%. That means 3 out 100,000 kids who get this die.

And again, kids at high risk can be identified and protected.

Do you know what actually has a higher fatality rate in kids?

The flu.

Also, measles. Which is can be very deadly if you are under 2.

But I am sure you already considered the risk of a measles outbreak in babies and toddlers because of falling vaccination rates in your comprehensive public health plan.

1. You are confusing mortality rate with estimated Infection Fatality rate. Fear mongers use the former. Grown ups use that latter knowing it is an estimate.

2. Yawn.

3. Case fatality ratios are garbage. Here is more up to date info.

https://onlinelibrary.wil...oi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13423

4. Thank you for the chart from June on Europe. Now do October.

5. Yes. That is the point. People over 70 are high risk. Specifically, people over 80 with 2 or more commodities.

Focus of resources/money/time should be on protecting these people. The general population is not at risk.

People can make their own judgement calls based on their risk factors and tolerance. No need for you to tell them how to best protect their parents/grandparents.

6. Agreed. Therapeutics are working. No need to prevent people from living their lives.

7. You posted a link showing the economic cost of COVID will be $16 trillion!!!

On loses from COVID PLUS things that were caused because of the lockdown; not because of COVID directly! They are showing you the the loss of life, mental health issues and lost economic output from lockdowns!!!!


This is quite possibly the most egregious waste of money in the history of humanity; spending 10's of millions per life saved; but actually causing more excess deaths than COVID alone!!!

8. Who is using 99.95%? You are just making up numbers.

Survival rate in kids is 99.997%. That means 3 out 100,000 kids who get this die.

And again, kids at high risk can be identified and protected.

Do you know what actually has a higher fatality rate in kids?

The flu.

Also, measles. Which is can be very deadly if you are under 2.

But I am sure you already considered the risk of a measles outbreak in babies and toddlers because of falling vaccination rates in your comprehensive public health plan.
- Tumbleweed

I am an health economist who works on Covid research at an university (so, a Covid social epidemiologist/data scientist). In other words, I believe I am a grown up. I generally try to nip in when I see dangerous misinformation.

Since this link is a couple of days old, and my primary purpose is served, I will dip after addressing your points since you took time to address mine.

Your point 1-3 above:

I did err in providing the link above though, which indeed provides the CFR. The larger point was, the estimates of the infected but unconfirmed vary widely, and depends on which source you use. Many will provide higher mortality estimates than the one you linked to.(Just do a Google Scholar search for articles that refer to the PLOS article that is the basis of the CDC studies/estimates).

Also note that while the denominator gets enlarged because of the inclusion of estimated but unconfirmed infections, the numerator stays at confirmed Covid deaths. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that there are a lot of Covid deaths which were never clinically diagnosed. This shows up in estimates of excess mortality that are correlated with the pandemic. There was a comprehensive JAMA article that dealt with it in the last couple of months. You can easily find it if you care.

Your point 4.

The chart I provided is for data on all countries . Its from June, not for June. Its current through data including September 12. It was published in JAMA in early/mid October.


Your point 5.

Just because people suffer from co-morbidities does not mean they should be excluded from the data generating mortality rates, nor that we should abandon them as collateral damage for economic pursuits. Its a well known flaw of that paper in providing estimates of the fatality ratio.

The general population is indeed at risk. We may disagree about the nature of the risk and what we can do to mitigate it, but those figures you provided do not support your conclusion from them. You are entitled to your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

Your point 8:

You did. It is in the link to the CDC site you provided, from where you culled the stats for the earlier generations.

Your points at the end:

There is some small evidence that people are not engaging in preventative or maintenance medical care. But there is even smaller evidence that these things are leading to significantly adverse health outcomes of the kind you suggest.

More generally: of course democratic societies should engage in a detailed cost-benefit calculation of economic losses and health benefits. But I do not believe you have come close to justifying your case or your outrage at the steps we have taken. Economic losses can be recovered, lives lost cannot. It seems to be a strongly held opinion rather than a carefully thought out one.

Cheers.