[News] Hamonic opts out of Return to Play

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s kind of the reason for the comparison. We regularly take a risk without thinking about it that significantly shortens our lives. So when faced with risks differential less than this amount a rational person should not care. Humans are of course not rational. I find the is this risk greater than driving a good check on whether or not additional safeguards are required for me to participate or if my fear is irrational

It is true that humans are not rational.

But that is not the case in this situation. It is rational for Hamonic to choose avoidance, even though the differential in risk is very small, and even extremely small.

It isn't zero, and it is greater than staying home. So it is rational for him to thus avoid it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

This is the best post in this thread.

A grown ass man with kids apparently telling someone on the internet to say it to his face in a fight challenge.

So brave.

What makes it even better is the guy he is challenging is fairly well known to be able to handle himself in physical skirmishes quite well thank you.

Too funny.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

1) living in a controlled environment, yes. But a controlled environment with several hundred other people. You need ALL of them to be fully compliant with the protocols, or it breaks down and risk elevates.

2) others may not be being as strict (no doubt), but I can use our house as an example because we a) have heightened risk, and b) are fortunate enough to be able to take the precautions that are available. We order in almost everything. And when we go to the grocery store (maybe every 2 weeks or so), we go to Sunterra where the crowds are MUCH smaller (maybe a dozen people in the store at one time, max) and the protocols are tighter. When this started, we went almost 2 full months before we had any contact with any other humans at all.

Staying home, when you're following the tightest protocols you can, is without doubt, the safer scenario. And it isn't close.

Yes for you, staying at home doing what you're doing is certainly safer than playing in the NHL's bubble.

Of course those working at Sunterra or working in the food supply chain have to make some decisions if they want to earn a living. NHL players too.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yes for you, staying at home doing what you're doing is certainly safer than playing in the NHL's bubble.

Of course those working at Sunterra or working in the food supply chain have to make some decisions if they want to earn a living. NHL players too.

I am confused. You recognized that for me, it is the safer choice... Hamonic is in the same situation.

[Enoch Root]

(he is not giving up the opportunity to work, he is just giving up the chance to play in the playoffs)

[#-3]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Agnostics are still believers. Sort of.

Honestly I think I get agnostics, largely are pascalians who like the odds that he has posed. But they have actually taken the time to weight the evidence and simply can't get away from the reality that they see infront of them. You can give me a million to one odds, but if I am drawing dead it's still a bad bet.

(in other words they are atheists who are lying to themselves because it is comforting).

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by goflamesgo18

And someone talking about another mans children with his keyboard is so brave too.

You know what, you're actually right here.

The absurdity of your post drew my comment, but I felt bad after posting it and making any comment on your kids, or your parenting more specifically.

I retract and apologize for going there.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is true that humans are not rational.

But that is not the case in this situation. It is rational for Hamonic to choose avoidance, even though the differential in risk is very small, and even extremely small.

It isn't zero, and it is greater than staying home. So it is rational for him to thus avoid it.

I don’t think anyone knows that. The level of risk differential is so small that you would have to see exactly how strict and tight his home bubble is to make the assessment that he would increase the risk to his family by playing. I contend it’s not a measurably different therefore not reason one way or the other

I agree it’s the rational decision not to play though. He would increase risk to himself with no gain. Of course if every player did this there would be a revenue hit and then the decision may not be rational depending on how much risk one is willing to take for monetary gain.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you mean "what's the process"?... you either need the money, or you don't, I'm not the one deciding. The situation was if you didn't need the money.

And yeah, honestly, anything above 0% and I'm not working if I don't need the money, the contract is going to be up anyway, and the people I work for are giving me the choice. Because, thing is, it could be a 0.05% increased risk of catching it and spreading it... it could also be a 15% increase, or 50% increase. It's not like there's any data the NHL can trot out that shows the exact risk level, you just know it's higher than average or, at very least, out of your control.

Are you suggesting you'd go to work, even if you didn't need the money and were told you didn't have to, despite an increased risk for your family catching a deadly disease? What percentage risk increase of that happening would you find acceptable?

I don't know what "need the money means"? Do my kids need to go to college? Do my kids need to play sports? Do my parents need me to help pay for some of their living expenses so they can enjoy retirement? Do I need a computer or home internet so I can post on CP?

You sure make it sound black and white. And for many, work is important beyond the financial rewards.

We live with risk everyday and it never stays constant. Are doctors, paramedics, policemen, food workers all staying home now? Should they?

No one tells anybody they have to go to work. Does an NHL player subject his family to increased health risk by going off to play in a tournament? I'm sure it's above zero. Of course so is letting your kids learn to drive or a great many other things.

Perhaps some data would be helpful. Is there any data to estimate the likelihood of a false negative test, layered with some quarantine protocol, still resulting in a person being infectious?

We all have different views of risk I guess. I just have a hard time seeing how the money fits in to it. I don't care how much money they make.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am confused. You recognized that for me, it is the safer choice... Hamonic is in the same situation.

Are we talking about players, or their families?

Are you able to work from home, or is your only option to work in a protected bubble with extensive testing in another city?

edit: And we'd have to assume the players are following the same protocols as you are. How would we know this?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think anyone knows that. The level of risk differential is so small that you would have to see exactly how strict and tight is bubble is to make the assessment that he would increase the risk to his family by playing. I contend it’s not a measurably different therefore not reason one way or the other

I agree it’s the rational decision not to play though. He would increase risk to himself with no gain. Of course if every player did this there would be a revenue hit and then the decision may not be rational depending on how much risk one is willing to take for monetary gain.

Okay, but even conceding 'not measurably different', it's still rational because at home he is in control, but in the bubble, he is relying on the behavior of others (to a much greater degree).

Anyway, I think we have covered this thoroughly. And we all - more or less - agree with his decision.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not at all a valid comparison and you know it. I have to drive.

In the case at hand, it is a simple choice: play, or not play in these playoffs? If playing increases risk, and I don't have to play, then I can easily avoid the risk.

What about risk of injury in playing hockey? Why show up to play if your salary is guaranteed?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What about risk of injury in playing hockey? Why show up to play if your salary is guaranteed?

Because you have a contract to PLAY hockey. If you don't show up because you don't want to risk injury and are fully capable then you won't get paid. Big difference.

Everybody has the option to stay away from work, and the employers have the option of not paying you. But if you get injured at work then you get paid.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What about risk of injury in playing hockey? Why show up to play if your salary is guaranteed?

I think this comes back to the sense of control we each believe we can exercise in any given situation. Rational or not, I am confident that most players feel more strongly that they can control their own injury risk than they do about their own risk of infection. It's hard to begrudge them this instinctive response.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

The worst part is that he's also a Flames fan.

Like ####, we don't need that bad rep. Could I interest you in the Oilers? Your No Goodness would match.

His userid says he is a Flames fan, but we know there are a lot of pretender here, claiming to be Flames fan and log on to here to bash the Flames and claiming he doesn't wear rose coloured glasses like the rest of us.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by IGGYRULES

Jeesh. People like goflamesgo18 are the reason this will be extended and more damaging than necessary. My sister gets all her news off Facebook too. Mainstream media, flouride in the water, 2 sun's, blah blah blah. I thought she was smarter than that. I'm beginning to wonder if she's actually my sister? It's quite surprising how many people actually believe this crap.

On a more positive note schools are stressing the importance of critical thinking and actually teaching kids the process of critical thinking. I'm hopeful.

Hmmm....I know there is a reason why I have been staying off Facebook. Thanks.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't know what "need the money means"? Do my kids need to go to college? Do my kids need to play sports? Do my parents need me to help pay for some of their living expenses so they can enjoy retirement? Do I need a computer or home internet so I can post on CP?

You sure make it sound black and white. And for many, work is important beyond the financial rewards.

We live with risk everyday and it never stays constant. Are doctors, paramedics, policemen, food workers all staying home now? Should they?

No one tells anybody they have to go to work. Does an NHL player subject his family to increased health risk by going off to play in a tournament? I'm sure it's above zero. Of course so is letting your kids learn to drive or a great many other things.

Perhaps some data would be helpful. Is there any data to estimate the likelihood of a false negative test, layered with some quarantine protocol, still resulting in a person being infectious?

We all have different views of risk I guess. I just have a hard time seeing how the money fits in to it. I don't care how much money they make.

I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the money thing. It’s super simple. You need the money, or you don’t. If you need the money to put your kids through college, then you need the money, if you don’t need the money for anything you listed, then maybe you don’t. This is not a complex scenario we’re talking about here. How do you not know what it means to need or not need money?

The money fits into it because it can be a deciding factor. Needing money is one of the things that make people assume more risk. Should someone go work at a grocery store if they don’t need the money? No, that would be ####ing stupid. Does Hamonic need 20K when he’s made $29M? Obviously not, but who knows, maybe a month of work is worth it. At $70k if someone said “I’ll give you $150 after tax for a month of work that might increase the risk of your family getting coronavirus, but you don’t have to say yes” and I have a family member I’m specifically worried about, why would I say yes? Would you?

Sure, we all assume some amounts of risk every day. We weigh those risks all the time. People teach kids how to drive because the benefit of driving is high enough that it’s worth the risks involved. People work dangerous jobs because the financial benefits is worth the risk to them.

The idea is to put yourself in Hamonic’s shoes. Keep it real simple and ask yourself: you don’t need the money (and the money itself isn’t much), your family has close and recent experience with respiratory illness and you almost lost your daughter, you know this will increase your chances of carrying the disease but you don’t know by how much, your boss says you don’t have to come into work... do you go in anyway? And why?

[topfiverecords]

Maybe cause ever since you were a young boy, on a dark chilly winter Saturday night, all bundled up in a toque, parka, mitts, ski-pants, proudly wearing a Flames jersey, trekking down to the neighborhood Safeway, sitting in a shopping cart picking out cherries, you longed to one day compete in the Safeway Cup Playoffs and raise that shiny silver Store of The Year cup. Pay or no pay, how proud you’d be to be named Captain and store manager of the year.

[GullFoss]

My cousin is an ICU doctor in London and he has been sleeping at a hotel since March as he is dealing one-on-one with Covid patients and because his parents are old (he's not worried about infecting his kids, but his parents babysit his kids while he's doing his 18 hour shifts). To me, that's a hero. He ran the odds and recognizes a real risk (his parents are in their 80s and each are at a 10%-33% chance of dying if infected). He's making a real sacrifice for his society by basically being separated from his family full time for months. And he runs the risk of infection himself every day. He's sacrificing for society at large.

Other people are also sacrificing by taking risks. People in meatpacking plants, uber drivers, front line grocery store workers, people in restaurants. It's everyone's job to minimize their risk of infection, while still trying to serve each other. Everyone should be washing their hands, adhere to social distancing and wear a mask. But everyone who can, should still endeavor to find a way to do their job. That's our society. It's service and sacrifice for each other.

Now I compare that to Hamonic and I don't get the love. He would be separated from his family, so they run no risk of infection from him. He gets tested daily and could quarantine for 14 days after his playoff run is over. If he or anyone in his family gets COVID, they're going to be dependent on medical staff risking the lives of themselves and their family to help them. All the food he's eating and stuff he's consuming comes from people who are taking COVID risks. Yet, he's not willing to take what I would consider a negligible risk decision because of his perception of risk.

I respect Hamonics right to make his decision. I don't respect his decision. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't play another NHL game.

[dammage79]

Shiny trophy <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Family.

At least some people have souls still. Not everyone is bound to throw everything away for a 1 in however many chance to lift a heavy trophy over their heads.