[News] Auston Matthews tests positive for COVID-19

[blender]

Fair work, pseudoreality.
Still seems more like a hopeful prediction than anything concrete. There is a very real possibility that the vaccine will be redundant by the time it is produced for mass delivery.

[Snuffleupagus]

I have a friend who got covid19, a little cough and a small fever and what he called "crazy dreams" for a few days but he was over it fairly quick, no big deal...or so he thought! Jessie is 42 and very athletic, he loves to do 30-40k bike rides,play flag football and swim laps. He told me the other day that covid19 took his lungs away and gets tired within minutes now.

If I'm a young professional athlete looking to make millions at my sport I do nothing without a vaccine or guarantee.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blender

One thing that seems to be lost in the discussion is the fact that the majority of the people in the planet will be infected with Covid 19 at some point. No question it is beneficial to not have this happening all at the same time, but the goal is not to avoid exposure for the rest of your life..not go in ng to happen.

Also, the 11 players that have tested positive is being treated as if it a shock. There are going to be positive tests. Not sure it is a cause for concern in itself; to me it is exactly what I expected. I don't see it changing anything as far as playing hockey and I expect the NHL feels the same way.

I don’t understand this at all. The only way to avoid everyone getting it at once, is taking reasonable steps to try and avoid getting it at all. I don’t believe it’s lost in the discussion, as it doesn’t change the fact that we have to prolong that period of everyone getting it. Avoiding unnecessary exposure is how you do that.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Here's an article from June 9 with a chart showing timelines for some of the front runners in vaccine development.

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/c...bEyFEvZxBfyTvQ

This is going to be the fasted vaccine every developed. There are over 100 possible candidates. Here's another article where a Canadian expert is sayings its months away, not years.

https://www.theprogress.com/news/can...ot-years-away/

A vaccine is happening, and that is when things are going to go back to normal, including hockey.

The problem I see with believing experts is their skin in the game right now. The business aspect of this is funding and selling their capabilities not just for this vaccine, but for future research. So the question I have when I see them in print media and tv, and knowing the business world, is what is their motivation? I think there's far too much of their skin in this game to be taken as the honest truth (that it's a couple years away from being developed), because they need funding and they really want to push that their firm is on the brink of something special. Who wouldn't want that platform for easy money compared to their normal lobbying for funds? I'm a skeptic in this case I know, but I'm generally very weary of this stuff knowing the way the business world works in talking a big game.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by blender

There is no way there is a 5% death rate.
.5% at worst and that is likely high.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=world+wide+covid-19+cases

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by blender

There is no way there is a 5% death rate.
.5% at worst and that is likely high.

I wish people wouldn't look at the death rate over cases reported, right now 466,893 people have died out of 8,923.078 cases.

On paper this is about a 5% death rate, but, a number of cases/deaths aren't reported (Russia,China for example) to make that % rise, and we can't count the asymptomatic's or people who got over it to bring the % down either.

Basic math and common sense says we'll see between 1-2% or 10-20X worst than the flu

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by fleury

The problem I see with believing experts is their skin in the game right now. The business aspect of this is funding and selling their capabilities not just for this vaccine, but for future research. So the question I have when I see them in print media and tv, and knowing the business world, is what is their motivation? I think there's far too much of their skin in this game to be taken as the honest truth (that it's a couple years away from being developed), because they need funding and they really want to push that their firm is on the brink of something special. Who wouldn't want that platform for easy money compared to their normal lobbying for funds? I'm a skeptic in this case I know, but I'm generally very weary of this stuff knowing the way the business world works in talking a big game.

Oh lord...

That's not how science works, like, at all. Even if there are businesses that are based on science, science itself is still a very transparent process and you can't fake it. Peer review will always take care of that. The evidence is what it is, and independent scientific experts are mostly saying that in this particular case, the likelihood of a viable vaccine candidate is quite high and that it could happen by the end of this year, not even what the initial prediction was, which was next spring at best.

Also, vaccines in general don't make money. They are usually produced at cost as a benefit to society, and I wouldn't expect anything different in this case with so much on the line. But of course those companies will be able to employ more people, so there is some benefit in that way. And yes, their name will be in the news, which is good for business in the long run. However, it's quite cynical of you to assume what you are saying when everyone desperately needs a solution to this problem.

[Monahammer]

There have been some studies over the last few days about how immunity (especially in cases with no symptoms) appears to only be effective for a few months at most. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...dies-67650/amp

Sars and mers antibodies last typically around a year at least. Bad news for vaccines imo as we would have to keep developing new vaccines for mutated strains very quickly.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Oh lord...

That's not how science works, like, at all. Even if there are businesses that are based on science, science itself is still a very transparent process and you can't fake it. Peer review will always take care of that. The evidence is what it is, and independent scientific experts are mostly saying that in this particular case, the likelihood of a viable vaccine candidate is quite high and that it could happen by the end of this year, not even what the initial prediction was, which was next spring at best.

Also, vaccines in general don't make money. They are usually produced at cost as a benefit to society, and I wouldn't expect anything different in this case with so much on the line. But of course those companies will be able to employ more people, so there is some benefit in that way. And yes, their name will be in the news, which is good for business in the long run. However, it's quite cynical of you to assume what you are saying when everyone desperately needs a solution to this problem.

I'm not arguing about the need for a solution. And of course there will be scientific peer reviews, but early on everyone wants funding to research and produce. But to deny there isn't a funding angle isn't right. Everyone needs funding for their activities, and if you came out by saying, "please provide me funding and we'll see what we can come up with", you'll be sure to get next to nothing. But if you say, "we've seen some promising leads, and it may be a few months away before there's a vaccine", peer reviewed or not, you'll be sure to get funding. The peer review comes later, which most will not live up to the standard. That's not a problem. All I'm saying is there's a marketing angle to this to gain funding. There's definitely a human benefit, I'm sure everyone is aware of that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

There have been some studies over the last few days about how immunity (especially in cases with no symptoms) appears to only be effective for a few months at most. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...dies-67650/amp

Sars and mers antibodies last typically around a year at least. Bad news for vaccines imo as we would have to keep developing new vaccines for mutated strains very quickly.

And both of those are also from the corona virus family.

The goal, at least in the U.S., is to have a vaccine ready for use in some fashion by the end of the year, or early next. Doing so would be a scientific feat with few parallels. No vaccine has ever been developed so quickly, never mind manufactured for the world.

That would be great and quite unprecedented. Just for argument sake, lets say they have a vaccine figured out by January 1.

Now, how long will it take to develop and produce billions of doses? 2 months? 3? 6?

So now you've produced all you will need...lets get into the logistics of distribution. Every country will have to give it a stamp of approval from their governments drug agency. This will go quickly in many places but not all. Some will require proper peer reviewed and human tested results. Once that's done, you now have to get the millions/billions of doses into your country, then into your thousands of cities to the pharmacies and clinics etc.

THEN you have to get the vaccine into each and every person who chooses to get one, which will be a monumental task.....and will take weeks if not months.

Being liberal with the timeline, Im guessing at best we are looking at a full year before there is enough vaccine in the general public to allow for mass gatherings again. That's IF all goes well in the initial stages of testing and the scientific community sees the vaccines as being effective and without side effects more detrimental than no vaccine at all. This alone will take months.

So learning to live with it in the meantime is really all that one can expect and that is in every industry and occupation everywhere, including pro sports. Thats why there is so much effort by the NHL to get this season finished, because the next one simply wont happen at all without herd immunity so there can be large gatherings again.

Unless both owners and players are willing to play for HRR that is derived almost exclusively from TV revenue and maybe jersey sales....say goodbye to the sport for a long long time. Thats earning time players AND teams both lose out on. If they choose to do so, great but I wouldnt count on it from either side.

The complications and consequences of not playing are just as real and deep as trying to complete this season. So saying "just cancel it" without going through the monumental efforts they are doing is just way to simplistic.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=world+wide+covid-19+cases

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but if you believe that 5% of the people infected with Covid 19 are dying from it I've got some land you might be interested in.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by fleury

I'm not arguing about the need for a solution. And of course there will be scientific peer reviews, but early on everyone wants funding to research and produce. But to deny there isn't a funding angle isn't right. Everyone needs funding for their activities, and if you came out by saying, "please provide me funding and we'll see what we can come up with", you'll be sure to get next to nothing. But if you say, "we've seen some promising leads, and it may be a few months away before there's a vaccine", peer reviewed or not, you'll be sure to get funding. The peer review comes later, which most will not live up to the standard. That's not a problem. All I'm saying is there's a marketing angle to this to gain funding. There's definitely a human benefit, I'm sure everyone is aware of that.

Okay?

I still don't understand where there is a problem in all of this. Having taken part in a fair share, and helped to write and evaluate a number of grant applications, your take on them is simply not accurate. Yes, when vying for funding it is important to convey a confidence in your own work and expertise, and yes, it is also important to show the feasibility of your own research project and the rigours of your methodology. However, it is also critical to produce results. With how competitive the fields are for academic funding the only projects that are actually granted money are those which make strong cases for the production of results.

So, yes: there is an aspect of "marketing" in the process of academic and scientific research, but not the sort of marketing that you imagine here. There is a tonne of research and writing that needs to take place even just to get to the position of applying for funds, and granting-bodies sure as hell are not just throwing money at every idea. In the end, these competitions are a huge part of what drives progress in the first place. It's very weird from my perspective to see anything nefarious in the process.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Displaced Flames fan]

Watching Chelsea and Aston Villa right now. The EPL has had positive tests. The sky is not falling.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Okay?

I still don't understand where there is a problem in all of this. Having taken part in a fair share, and helped to write and evaluate a number of grant applications, your take on them is simply not accurate. Yes, when vying for funding it is important to convey a confidence in your own work and expertise, and yes, it is also important to show the feasibility of your own research project and the rigours of your methodology. However, it is also critical to produce results. With how competitive the fields are for academic funding the only projects that are actually granted money are those which make strong cases for the production of results.

So, yes: there is an aspect of "marketing" in the process of academic and scientific research, but not the sort of marketing that you imagine here. There is a tonne of research and writing that needs to take place even just to get to the position of applying for funds, and granting-bodies sure as hell are not just throwing money at every idea. In the end, these competitions are a huge part of what drives progress in the first place. It's very weird from my perspective to see anything nefarious in the process.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

You have experience in this, and I have no doubt you have more knowledge of this than probably anyone here. All I'm saying is that by most accounts, doing a vaccine in under 2 years has been unheard of to this point because it requires due process for side effects and effectiveness against the illness. Granted, in this case the enormous amount of resources being thrown at it is unprecedented as well, so there is an aspect of acceleration. Given that developing something of this nature has (to my knowledge) never been done and released this quickly, all I'm saying is there is a marketing angle for vying for funds. I don't think it's nefarious, because that's in some ways implying that it's being misappropriated or something untoward may be going on. But when something hasn't happened previously and now many scientists are claiming this can be done in a very short period of time relative to the norm, you have to wonder if you don't play that angle, and produce some lead, that you won't get funding (compared to someone who does play that angle). That's all.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by fleury

You have experience in this, and I have no doubt you have more knowledge of this than probably anyone here. All I'm saying is that by most accounts, doing a vaccine in under 2 years has been unheard of to this point because it requires due process for side effects and effectiveness against the illness. Granted, in this case the enormous amount of resources being thrown at it is unprecedented as well, so there is an aspect of acceleration. Given that developing something of this nature has (to my knowledge) never been done and released this quickly, all I'm saying is there is a marketing angle for vying for funds. I don't think it's nefarious, because that's in some ways implying that it's being misappropriated or something untoward may be going on. But when something hasn't happened previously and now many scientists are claiming this can be done in a very short period of time relative to the norm, you have to wonder if you don't play that angle, and produce some lead, that you won't get funding (compared to someone who does play that angle). That's all.

Many of the vaccine candidates are picking up where research left off on both SARS-1 and MERS coronaviruses. Much of the heavy lifting had already been done years ago, and some of the key background studies on this virus had taken place in China earlier in the year. There's nothing fishy about what's going on, but what this does demonstrate is the power of science to produce value to our society when resources are properly and sufficiently applied.

Perhaps this will force governments to rethink their budgets when it comes to funding science. Funding has been dwindling over the last few decades, especially in the United States, as most of the voting public has not seen any need for science to be robust and well funded. I hope this changes that perspective for generations to come.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I have a friend who got covid19, a little cough and a small fever and what he called "crazy dreams" for a few days but he was over it fairly quick, no big deal...or so he thought! Jessie is 42 and very athletic, he loves to do 30-40k bike rides,play flag football and swim laps. He told me the other day that covid19 took his lungs away and gets tired within minutes now.

If I'm a young professional athlete looking to make millions at my sport I do nothing without a vaccine or guarantee.

I'm sorry for you friend's loss. My friend passed away suddenly in his sleep after appearing to get better -- probably a blood clot. Healthy 50 year old.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by blender

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but if you believe that 5% of the people infected with Covid 19 are dying from it I've got some land you might be interested in.

That is literally the official tally. You can argue under reporting of cases and/or deaths but the official count shows 5%.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

For 98% of the players it will be a mild cold. Injuries would typically keep them out much longer. If they're keeping to the hotels and not visiting the elderly during the tourney then it all seems pretty feasible still. Just have to avoid half a team coming down with it at once, which should be doable with the daily testing.

Some players will bitch because they probably have lowered interest in participating, for reasons like it being a few months removed from the season and being away from home/family. Understandable, but you're also getting paid millions to play. That some random players contracted it was because they're out in their own time and got it. Has little to do with the tournament. Once all teams are at the hubs they should be pretty well insulated.

I love how people make #### up. Yes -- many people are asymptomatic. But 1% of NHL players dying is a big ####ing deal. And we still don't have numbers of irreversible lung damage -- even if no one dies those are careers over.

Personally, I don't need hockey that badly. Over time, through various means, we will gain greater knowledge and greater control, and we can slowly trend towards "normalcy". But the idea anyone knows exactly what's going to happen is absurd. We're all figuring this out as it unfolds. If you're speaking with certainly you are assuredly speaking out of your ass.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

That is literally the official tally. You can argue under reporting of cases and/or deaths but the official count shows 5%.

People like him enjoy pretending context doesn't exist -- that there's some "natural" rate that ignores hospital/care worker capacity, knowledge of treatment, knowledge of prevention, age group, nutrition, local sanitation, cultural norms, seasonal variation, genetics, or even just plain luck. The fact is people will be arguing about "the rate" for decades to come.

What we do know for certain, is this is unusually virulent, unusually deadly, leaves many with what appears to be permanent damage, and is still poorly understood. There's real risk involved in pushing things too fast. Personally -- I don't need NHL players to be guinea pigs in this historical experiment. Somehow my ancestors survived without instant access to elite sport viewing.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by sempuki

I love how people make #### up. Yes -- many people are asymptomatic. But 1% of NHL players dying is a big ####ing deal. And we still don't have numbers of irreversible lung damage -- even if no one dies those are careers over.

Personally, I don't need hockey that badly. Over time, through various means, we will gain greater knowledge and greater control, and we can slowly trend towards "normalcy". But the idea anyone knows exactly what's going to happen is absurd. We're all figuring this out as it unfolds. If you're speaking with certainly you are assuredly speaking out of your ass.

I find the "Players are young and in great shape. If a very small handful of players suffer long term health complications it's worth the players taking the risk so I can get my hockey fix." crowd a disturbing quite frankly.