Quinlan2020

4 minutes ago, HockeyDad23 said:

Maybe our government should target the hundreds of thousands of deaths at the shitty and run down nursing homes and leave restaurant owners and kids hockey alone.  70% of the deaths in PA are at long term care facilities. Sometimes it seems a dumb guy spouts off "masks during hockey" and everyone is like yeah great idea. Let's do it. That will slow the spread even more. 

I hear what you are saying, but those infections didn't originate in those nursing homes. The more community spread that we have, the more it will get into those places unless we can have everyone that goes in there tested every day. So far we don't have that kind of testing in place unless you are a pro athlete or work at the White House.

17 minutes ago, sarampage said:

Baierl has been allowing full rosters with 5v5 and two spectators per player for games.  I was at two games this past weekend and with those numbers, the arena was empty...plenty of room to spread out.

I was at RMU recently and it was kinda the same except only one parent was allowed. There were a couple exceptions of poor behavior. Two dads were standing by the glass talking in close proximity and violating the social distancing signs. I also saw a couple mask violations by adults in the lobby. Most of the people were doing great and sticking to the rules, but I fear that these few outliers will give pause to rink officials when considering how many people to allow inside.

20 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

We can never know, can we? (I know that you think you do know, but honestly we just don't. My level of blind faith in masking is not as high as yours, and my science is less about confirmation bias than yours, too. Just because you believe something to be true, even based upon whatever evidence you can cite, doesn't make it so, because in this case there is only one trial, and the data is inherently inconclusive.)

For the record, I read his post not as implying that nursing home deaths were less significant, but that they are a special case, and not the population at large. Not less valuable, but less useful for evaluation of the effects on a population at large.

I am not claiming to know the number of lives saved. I really don't know. I don't know a lot about public health or epidemiology. I also don't know enough to claim that the decisions to implement safety measures/restrictions for Covid-19 mitigation are motivated by the desire to oppress the public and take away our rights. Some seem sure of that. It does make sense that the more community spread that there is, the higher the risk of it getting into nursing homes. Those ~300 deaths that were mentioned did not originate in the nursing home. They likely started from someone that contracted the disease and may have not even known they had it. That source may not have even showed up in the case count as they were never tested. They just passed it on and it was never traced to any place or activity. I'm not exactly sure what to do about that. Nobody really is. The people making decisions don't know but they are tasked with trying. The simple solution is to do nothing as some seem to suggest. Is it that simple?

7 hours ago, whatever said:

Read today Allegheny county has had 354 deaths.  66 of those were outside of nursing homes.  1.2 million people in the county and 66 deaths outside of nursing homes but countless livelihoods destroyed because of a governor acting completely on his whim along with an un`elected health secretary.   It didn't need to be this way.   This devastation is a state issue. All states are not equal.  Pa is being screwed by a true dictator. 

Were any lives outside of nursing homes saved due to restrictions? I won't ask the same question pertaining to nursing homes since your post seems to imply that those lives are not as valuable.

4 hours ago, Lifelongbender said:

This is an entirely reasonable response. I have to say that typically the federal government - and government in general, at least in our system - is supposed to make most decisions based on cost/benefit analysis. By that measure it is hard to see how the shutdowns were justified, They are only justified by the argument that saving a relatively small number of lives is worth the cost to the economy. This is a discussion more suited to a political forum than to this one.

It is obvious that the death rate has decreased. It's even obvious that they know a bit more about treatment now - for instance, the stuff they learned about ventilators - but it is by no means obvious that any advance in medical science is behind the downward trend in infection rates, because they haven't made any changes in their recommendations for what the average citizen should do, and in fact citizens are doing less of it as well.

I know - you'll point to charts showing that trends are locally upwards. I have seen them. But our current rates are nothing like the rates in the spring, right?

Regarding masks, my own doctor told me at my last physical that he isn't sure that they are effective, and he made a point of saying that the science is intensely debated, but that on balance he couldn't see how they hurt, so he recommended wearing one in public places like restaurants, stores, and the like. That made sense to me, and in any case it's required by law and specifically was not ruled unconstitutional, so I do so willingly if a bit unhappily. As I have said, if the cost for our kids to play the great game of hockey is us wearing masks to the arenas, that is a very small cost.

My only real concern with your post is in the second sentence. There are going to be situations where others feel an infringement upon your rights is justified for their own reasons, and you do not. If we start giving the government the latitude to infringe upon rights wholesale, they are no longer rights in any real sense of that word. I am concerned about the reasoning that leads to a statement like "in these extreme times it makes sense to bend the rules".

Having said all of that, I have to start setting up lines and game plans for full roster games. Let's go play some hockey!

I just dispute the part about the science behind masks being intensely debated. It seems that any science-related person debating it is a member of a small minority. I hear your concern about that slippery slope involving our rights. It is a valid concern as you look around the world and see how fragile democracy can be. To me, it's one of those candidates for risk-reward reward analysis. I know that we'll never agree on the risk/reward ratio, but that's where I'm coming from. It seems like things such as the Defense Production Act and the registering for the selective service are an infringement as well. We never seem to question those. I think these restrictions do seem pretty arbitrary, but I don't find myself qualified to come up with a good plan. People were put in positions to make these decisions and I try to respect them. I understand the dissent, but it doesn't seem like a total hardship to put up with these rules a little bit longer. I think the kids will be fine whether we play 5 on 5 or whatever. I hope the restrictions change soon but I will tolerate summer hockey in the fall by convincing myself that it just may be for the greater good.

39 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

Sigh. We have no way of knowing what would have happened under any set of restrictions that differ materially from the ones they imposed. @Quinlan2020, your sentence "The fools that deem them unconstitutional do not acknowledge that" has a MAJOR flaw in it given your intended argument - whether the restrictions enacted were constitutional is not determined by whether they were effective. You seem to have that distinction entirely confused. Even if you were right about the effectiveness of the measures taken, it is still quite possible that they are unconstitutional.

We all understand your point of view, and as I have said before, I do not doubt your sincerity. However, you are either a doctor or a hypocrite, since you are giving a whole lot of medical opinion up there, having accused others of overstepping when they gave their own opinions. 

And, for what it's worth, it is not obvious at all that "medical advances" have made COVID more tolerable. It may be that masking has caused improvements in some areas (but I strongly doubt it), but there hasn't been any at-large improvement due to medical science, given that we are all doing exactly the same thing they told us to do in March. This after telling us for a while not to wear the masks, by the way.

Look, can we stop having this stupid, unwinnable, entirely non-factual argument, and talk about the hockey? You responded to "Open the economy!" with "The measures put in place were justified". That wasn't a response to what the man actually said. Let it go, dude.

Your point about unconstitutional & effectiveness is recognized. This has been an incredibly unique crisis where I am going to give some slack any decision that is in the interest of saving lives. This has been a war that the federal government hasn't been too interested in fighting, so the states had to do what they could to fill the void. It's hard to believe that we were willing to send our young people off to die in foreign wars but we can't accept any inconveniences to fight this one on our own land.

It is obvious that the death rate has decreased a lot from where it was back in April. My own doctor just recently told me how this last 6 months they have gained more knowledge relating to treatment techniques and that they are having better outcomes. Mask wearing has definitely increased since March. It's up to about 60%. That's still not good enough, but it's better than it was. Being told not to wear masks was a mistake, but that's pretty far in the past now.

People keep forgetting that I am on the same side and want hockey/sports to resume in full as quickly as possible. I just think the quickest path to that is a bit different.

24 minutes ago, PeterThePuck said:

Wolf will get shut down can appeal all he wants.

Trump put in all these Federal Judges in over 300 conservatives.

Its over for these Democratic Governors they all will be played.

Open the economy!

The closures in the Spring were justified. It saved us from having more catastrophic results. We all saw what happened in Bergamo, Italy & Madrid, Spain. The fools that deem them unconstitutional do not acknowledge that. That being said, It is not practical to go back to such measures. It's obvious that the medical advances have made Covid-19 more tolerable and more people are masking now. The economy is already open despite what some say. Yes, there still restrictions, but they are much more relaxed now and enforcement hasn't been very aggressive. A lot of people want them all to go away like someone turning a switch. The phased approach is much more practical, so that the effects can be seen before progressing to the next step. We just started opening schools/colleges, indoor dining and high school sports are kicking into full swing. There are even some fans allowed at events now. I anticipate more restrictions being lifted if things don't go sour. Have a little patience. I think will get to the place we all want to be a lot quicker if we just do things methodically.

23 minutes ago, nemesis8679 said:

The "no spectators" thing is bullshit. Most of these rinks could have 100 people in them and still be 12 foot apart. 

It is bullshit for most of us. There would be those that can't help themselves and violate ant social distancing measures. They would be the ones to ruin it for everyone else. Those people are the ones that the restrictions are in place for.

4 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

I totally understand why you wrote this, and there's even a part of me that agrees. I have told my players and their parents that if wearing a mask is the price we have to pay to play hockey, then they have to wear them, because it's not a steep price.

But it is also true that we are where we are because the Governor, for better or for worse, and with intentions either noble or otherwise, overstepped his bounds with the restrictions he imposed. Even if it is true that the measures he took were appropriate, they were extremely burdensome and unpopular, and at least one federal judge has found them to be unconstitutional. Had he taken less arbitrary steps that could be defended with some sort of analytical rigor (as opposed to just selecting 25 for all indoor sports regardless of court/rink/field size and facility size) he would have had a much less difficult time enforcing them, and defending them.

I don't think there would be 545 posts (as of this moment) in this thread if the number allowed at indoor sporting events had been as low as 50.

I get what you are saying and even though a lot of us don't agree on what should be done about all this, it seems logical to agree that this is too complicated for one to claim that they could do so much better in solving these problems. A lot of these government decisions do seem arbitrary on the surface. I would like to think that (right or wrong) a lot of thought and science went into them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be constantly revisited and scrutinized. Hopefully, they are constantly looking to adapt based on the new data.

1 minute ago, HockeyDad23 said:

@Quinlan2020 Then if that is the case the color code system was stupid. Like I said with setting goals. Society needs a goal to meet. If you give it to Americans they try. But we are still neanderthals and need simplicity. The green phase, anyone in their right mind would assume they are safe and free. You don't think anyone would go to the Gov website and read?  And here we are since June, in Green, easing in to normalcy. You blame society. I blame leadership.

The color phased reopening was misguided. Too many interpreted it as green means go, period. Society & leadership are both to blame.

1 minute ago, Lifelongbender said:

Perhaps. We can never know, because we have no frame of reference for the inverse outcome.

If the restrictions had lasted only long enough to get in front of hospital capacity, it's worth noting, they would never have been tested in court at all.

But the "green phase" was an attempt to ease back into normalcy. People perceived it as an opportunity to go and have all the fun they want as if the virus was gone. That is why we are where we are.

1 minute ago, Danner27 said:

Everyone is forgetting these mandates were put in place so the hospital capacity would not get overloaded. 

And hospital capacity did not get overloaded so, perhaps, they worked.

1 hour ago, Lifelongbender said:

He was appointed by Donald Trump. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. 

@Quinlan2020, I do not doubt your sincerity with respect to COVID-related restrictions. But as @aaaahockeysaid just above me, it's all political. The issues raised by the decision made by this judge are interesting because they relate not to the science of the issue, necessarily, but to the limits on executive power encoded in the Constitutions of both our Commonwealth and the nation. Ignoring these limits is inherently political, too. The biggest issue in politics in the US is our inherent inability to have rational conversations because we can't even talk about the actual issues.

Many governors have imposed similar restrictions & closures. Some just waited until the cases & deaths were high enough so they could say it was more justified. There is no way to know for sure when the right time is to impose such restrictions, but by saying they are unlawful, you are basically accusing every governor of a crime. 

You might want to mention who appointed this judge. We can then all decide if this is purely political. I have heard many on here cry politics when it comes other decisions. What about this? Or is the political part one-sided?

20 hours ago, Pucktime said:

This here except not an Indian meme.  Was a meme of a black kid crying and it said f$#k fathers day.  Stupid ass white holiday.   It was sent to a group text that included black parents.  

Thanks. I found that meme. It's incredibly offensive, as I figured, since it's one thing to get fired but being banned from the entire premises is quite a step further.

I would love to see the meme before making judgement, but I met him at a coaching clinic and was not impressed with his personality. I was trying to be nice to him by complimenting the way his team played during the games that I witnessed. He seemed to think that he was above talking to me, being the big-time varsity coach that he was.

It's good. It's just a little harder to distinguish the bold text. I prefer the light background better, but it may just be a matter of adjusting my eyes.

10 hours ago, nemesis8679 said:

Not weird at all. The vote of a congressman, senator, state rep, whatever is supposed to represent the will of the majority of constituents of that politician. 

For example: if there's a vote on abolishing daylight savings time... The majority of my constituents want to abolish it. I personally love it and want to keep it as is. My duty as a representative is to vote to abolish it, as my obligation is to the people I represent, not to my individual self. 

This is why it's important to contact your government representatives and make your will known. About anything important. 

When you vote, of course you keep in mind who will most likely hold the same personal opinion as you do. But in the end if these representatives are doing their job correctly, ultimately it shouldn't matter what party they are. If they don't put personal feelings aside and they vote against the interests of the people they're obligated to, how the next election goes for them works itself out. That's why it's important to vote- if the overwhelming majority voted instead of writing it off as "it doesn't matter", the country would be a lot different than what it is right now. 

It's also important that you vote, as they look at what areas have big turnout and which ones have low turnout. This oftentimes- rightfully or wrongly- determines who gets their roads paved, who gets their streetlights fixed, etc. But that's another topic. 

My point is that improvement from the disaster that is America right now will only happen  when people forget about focusing on someone kneeling for an anthem, or wasting their time focusing on whatever circus act the president committed today, and put that thought and energy into learning more about politics and civics than most politicians do, and using that to their advantage. 

That is not the way it was designed to work but it is the way most politicians often operate. They are suppose to be smart enough to gather more information than the common citizen so they can make a decision that will most benefit their constituents.  It does not always translate to what the constituents want the decision to be. I, personally, wish that my taxes would go down. Maybe they should. Most would want that to happen. I'm not qualified to weigh the benefits of that vs the negative effects it may have. Elected officials are supposed to be leaders as opposed to followers.

3 hours ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

He's currently banned from entering YMCA property for his actions so he couldn't coach this season anyway.

While the action may have been petty (from what I have heard), as pointed out by others in this chain, the laundry list of offenses has been stacking up over the years.  Was suspended for SafeSport violations a few years back as well.

It's one thing to be fired as coach but, I seriously doubt it was petty if he is banned from YMCA property.

13 minutes ago, nemesis8679 said:

It's not "arm twisting". It a representative democracy, and politicians should vote what the constituents want, not what they may personally want. Glad to see it maybe actually panning out that way. 

Wow. That's a weird take. Shouldn't they vote based on what they feel is the right thing to do? Vote based what the constituents want if you're only interest is getting reelected. Unfortunately, I think that they mostly do just that.

I assume that the part about "allowed inside some athletic facilities", he was thinking of fields/stadiums rather than indoor venues. Is is possible that he was being honest about the full teams on benches part? He may not be aware of the logistics of setting up a hockey game. That seems more encouraging than him just giving a straight up "I don't care" response. The restaurant restrictions were eased a little today. Perhaps the indoor gathering limit is next. It sounds like he acknowledges the inconsistencies and may revisit things. I have said that having the same limits on large & small facilities does not make sense. My whole complaint is with people that simplify, minimize & politicize the whole pandemic. Those are the people that are keeping us stuck in this purgatory. Easing restrictions would look a lot less scary if it was apparent that most people would adhere to common sense social distancing measures.

58 minutes ago, miked said:

you do, you just won't admit it because it's "BS"

So it sounds like you already know all the answers. And republican politicians know everything about how to handle everything related to the pandemic and democrats know nothing? It's that simple. No middle ground. It's crazy that so many people are looking for solutions for a problem that is so easily solved. Maybe it's not a problem at all. Maybe we just need to convince everyone that there is no problem. That will benefit more than hockey. The economy will just take off. Just tell everyone not to be afraid. 

Spewing partisan BS is commonplace now when it comes to any on-line discussion. So many on here are so partisan that they can't imagine you would want the same outcome as them unless you bash Wolf and hate all democrats. We also have a lot of self-proclaimed medical doctors on here that insist they know for sure what activities are safe during a pandemic. None of us know that. This is all a big experiment. I am hopeful that hockey can be played without causing any problems. I think it's worth trying, but who really knows how it will work out? I think those that would like to see restrictions lifted should state their case. Petitions or whatever can't hurt. Maybe it will happen. This all is just not as simple as the assumption that our government is trying to destroy our lives. 

16 minutes ago, miked said:

great, thanks!! it makes perfect sense that the health officials would have a chart like this so they could provide appropriate directives for public safety, it is the kind of logical action that one should expect. So since we are not currently experiencing any outbreak/spike in cases, why are activities with such low numbers being restricted in absolutely nonsensical ways? How does this chart explain the Governor's directive that a 17,000 sq ft building should have the same capacity as a 200 sq ft building? or even more brilliant, if you shrink the size of the ice surface by creating an imaginary barrier 6 feet wide, you can now put 50 people in the same space?

How come Ohio has indoor restrictions based on the size of the space? How come they have been open since the end of May and we just got 90 more days "in the hole"?

The argument isn't about the "realness" of the virus, it's about the arbitrariness of the restrictions in our state and the seeming lack of desire to even consider making restrictions that have some type of basis in logic. it goes so far beyond what form, if any, youth hockey takes this year. the fact that we need to petition grown adults who think of themselves as leaders to tell them square footage should be taken into account is a down right embarrassment. 

I don't know the answer to any of your questions, but I am just pointing out that no petition will matter if they don't like what they see on this chart.

35 minutes ago, miked said:

so what is this saying, 22 people out of the 1.2 million in Allegheny county that tested positive played a sport in that week?

or is it 22 people out of the 3.5 million in Western PA?

are these youth sports? or anyone that got tested? if i play ping pong with my neighbor, then test positive, did I play a sport?

what if a grocery worker, got up Saturday, played a sport, went to a party then a bar, then on Sunday went to church, would they be on there 5 times?

 

you clearly think this chart means something, so do explain? because what i see is a bunch of numbers that say there is no reason for a lockdown. 

Yes. What I think it means is that this is what our local health officials are monitoring. So if there is an outbreak/spike in cases, the items with the highest numbers on this chart is what they will look to impose restrictions on.