Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
No evidence? I am sceptical about this claim.
|
I'm not making a claim, a group on here is. The claim is that Covid causes long term lung damage. And no, anecdotes of "a friend of a friend says they're winded a lot now" is not evidence.
I feel like I'm posting this a lot on here lately but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
[/I]
Yeah, there is a very good reason why fighting and hitting have not yet been eliminated outright from NHL hockey. The players have decided that these changes are not wanted. But if a large enough group of the same players are scared enough about the unknown long-term repercussions of contracting COVID-19, then I have no doubt that they will vote down the proposed tournament. It may appear irrational, but I think in the collective mindset of players the difference between the pandemic and head hits is that they can exercise some control over one, and not the other.
|
It sounds like the players did indeed vote on the matter and they do indeed want to play.
Not that I agree on that method. Alberta policy has been prudent in the containment of Covid and they have allowed training camp to occur and have mentioned potentially allowing Edmonton as a neutral site (even though that doesn't look like it will happen). If they think there is an acceptable amount of risk in allowing the NHL to continue it's season, why do you think the players should be able to over rule? The Government deemed grocery stores an essential service and kept employees in them working despite their risk. Do you think NHL players are more important than grocery store employees?
And yes, I realize NHL isn't essential. But things are reopening and we're discussing it as a non-essential business, just like restaurants and retail. People are congregating more as things reopen, just because the NHL is congregation in the public eye doesn't mean it should be held to a different standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
[/I]
All of this is irrelevant straw-manning to make a point that no one is arguing. The biggest difference between all of these random societal dangers and the state of the ongoing pandemic is that unlike COVID-19 the risk factors for the above laundry list are well known, well documented, and it-and-large understood to he acceptable.
|
I'm making a comparison, not a straw man. As GGG has pointed out much more succinctly than I will, we decide and live with an acceptable level of risk. An NHL player is far more likely to die from an accident or suicide than Covid but we've accepted that risk. Just because Covid is novel doesn't mean it deserves preferential treatment. The risk to these athletes is incredibly low. The risk of spread from the athletes to their families and potentially someone high risk.. probably not that low. But that's a risk we're taking with other things reopening as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
[/I]
When it comes to responding to a highly infectious, highly contagious viral infection about which we presently know very little, I don't think reasonable precautionary measures should be dismissed as "ridiculous fear mongering."
|
Well we have a pretty good idea of it's close relatives. I don't know anything about virology or immunology but it seems to me that the symptoms and evolution of coronaviruses is somewhat similar - the danger came because of it's novelty and the entire world had zero protection against it, not because it has horrifying manifestations in the body. The fact that the group that encounters adverse outcomes is extremely predictable (age >60, immunocompromised, obese, comorbidities, existing lung issues) backs that ups.