[News] Hamonic opts out of Return to Play

[Sandman]

-This virus was created by the Democrats to make Trump look bad
-The number of COVID deaths have been exaggerated by health care workers who have been paid to lie.
-My Dad invented the question mark.
-I'm sane, the rest of you are INsane, and trying to steal my magic bag.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Sandman

-This virus was created by the Democrats to make Trump look bad
-The number of COVID deaths have been exaggerated by health care workers who have been paid to lie.
-My Dad invented the question mark.
-I'm sane, the rest of you are INsane, and trying to steal my magic bag.

And the BLM movement is trying to dethrone god.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

And the BLM movement is trying to dethrone god.

Wait.......who told you???

[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.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What? Anything above a 0% risk and you're not working? Am I understanding you correctly?

What's the process for deciding who "needs the money"?

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?

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Wait.......who told you???

Fox News and they'd never mislead anyone about anything

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Apology 100% accepted. Sorry if I misread you.

1) Living in a controlled environment where those you are in close contact with are being tested regularly.

vs.

2) Staying at home, continuing to have some semblance of contact with outside world including groceries errands etc. with no testing

I think it's debatable which exposes you to more risk and depends on your activities in scenario 2 I guess. Personally, I believe we will see very few positive tests once the players get to Edmonton and TO.

I think the key reason number 2 ends up safer is you can be tested or quarantine yourself before leaving the bubble. If you leave a two week gap between exit and contact with your family risk of infecting your family as a result of playing is zero. Now the risk to him is still present and likely greater than if he went on a high level home based isolation plan but his risk to his family would not be increased.

I certainly support him looking out for his own self interests over the interests of the NHL, fellow players and fans.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Apology 100% accepted. Sorry if I misread you.

1) Living in a controlled environment where those you are in close contact with are being tested regularly.

vs.

2) Staying at home, continuing to have some semblance of contact with outside world including groceries errands etc. with no testing

I think it's debatable which exposes you to more risk and depends on your activities in scenario 2 I guess. Personally, I believe we will see very few positive tests once the players get to Edmonton and TO.

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.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Wait.......who told you???

A guy whose name starts with Q and shall remain anonymous. Oh ####!!! I just gave it away.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the key reason number 2 ends up safer is you can be tested or quarantine yourself before leaving the bubble. If you leave a two week gap between exit and contact with your family risk of infecting your family as a result of playing is zero. Now the risk to him is still present and likely greater than if he went on a high level home based isolation plan but his risk to his family would not be increased.

I certainly support him looking out for his own self interests over the interests of the NHL, fellow players and fans.

Not zero. Testing isn't perfect. And there have been cases of re-emergence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by goflamesgo18

Lol thanks. They will be alright though. They are healthy.

Sounds like they will be back in school this fall. Full time. Why is that? Why is it that all these rules are contradicting and make ZERO sense. You sir are the idiot. Enjoy being a brainwashed plug. Looking like a ###### wearing your mask in your car.

I think this comment about school is worth addressing

Plans are being made for 3 alternatives
1) full time school
2) a hybrid approach
3) full online

So the best we can say right now is we don’t know if in Alberta kids will be going back to school full time. As to why they are trying to do that is that the childcare problem for kids is one of the biggest bottlenecks in opening up the economy. So opening up schools will be a priority over other activities.

Secondly if you look at areas that opened up schools with spacing in force it was found that children were not a significant source of spread of Covid. For whatever reason this virus affects them less.

The second thing you see with all the contradicting rules is actually evidence that it isn’t a scam. You see if I was going to make up a virus I would make sure I had my #### together so the recommendations would make sense consistently. Instead what you see is people learning and making mistakes and then adapting to the mistakes as more is known about the virus and how policies affects the spread of the virus.

One thing I don’t understand with the position that it’s a scam is Why? In every scenario a person with the means to pull off this level of conspiracy could do it in a far simpler way.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What? Anything above a 0% risk and you're not working? Am I understanding you correctly?

What's the process for deciding who "needs the money"?

I don't know who decides where the line is. But I am fairly confident that someone making $3.8M is probably on the happy side of that line.

As for anything above zero and I am not working... I am fortunate thatI can work from home, but if the choice was increase the risk or not work - and again, I am fortunate - I am choosing 'not work'.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not zero. Testing isn't perfect. And there have been cases of re-emergence.

Testing daily plus quarantine would be essentially perfect. You aren’t going to have two weeks of false negatives with no symptoms. The statistical likelihood of it happening is nil.

Reemergence is also not a statistically significant

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Testing daily plus quarantine would be essentially perfect. You aren’t going to have two weeks of false negatives with no symptoms. The statistical likelihood of it happening is nil.

Reemergence is also not a statistically significant

When your concern is with your daughter's health, statistical significance is not a good enough defense.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When your concern is with your daughter's health, statistical significance is not a good enough defense.

Do you take that approach with driving?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you take that approach with driving?

It is never that simple. The sense of having no control over the potential for infection differs dramatically from the confidence each one of us feels behind the wheel of our own cars.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is never that simple. The sense of having no control over the potential for infection differs dramatically from the confidence each one of us feels behind the wheel of our own cars.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

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

[kurwamac]

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

....
I think your engwish is broken.

[kurwamac]

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.

Well, that's how I feel when I see people on /calgary reddit and other Calgary forums viciously arguing that we should all live on smaller property lots and live in smaller houses. No other place on earth will you find people demanding for lower living standards. Calgary has a larger than average group of quirky thinkers. Shorts in winter...ugh.... *face palm*

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you take that approach with driving?

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.