How many cases of this in people under 50??? What is the % risk of a pro athlete in their 20s and 30s getting permanent lung, heart or brain damage from a positive Corona test?
I would suspect you can't take any global %risk here and apply it to the proposed NHL situation. The risk of 1 person out of the 10,000 or whatever it takes to pull this off getting it, under the conditions they are going to try their best to impose to isolate and protect everybody, is by design intended to be very very low. The problem is that if that 1 person does get it... then probably many more people do. But you'll notice that they did come up with this proposal and are making these plans, so they have evaluated the risk and have decided it's small enough that they may be able to proceed about 40 days from now. Extremely low risk is not no risk.
And I keep asking this question and no one ever answers- what about the millions of us who are out there right now, BY NECESSITY- living our lives- working, going to stores, restaurants, etc? If it is such a big risk for pro athletes, what about the rest of us?? I am pretty sure permanent lung or brain damage would be a pretty big problem for anyone, not just a pro athlete. Are pro athletes above the rest of us??
Yes, pro athletes are obviously above the rest of us. Basically, anybody with more money than you have is above you. That's how our society works. And yes, you are at risk. Much, much higher risk than these players are going to be.
Look- I am not saying for one second that there isn't any risk at all- of course there is. But again, every single person lives with risk every day of their life. I would be willing to be the % chance of an athlete dying in a car wreck would be just as high as their chance of dying (or getting the damage you mention above) from this virus.
Gary Bettman isn't going to be held personally responsible if a player dies in a car accident, though. He had no control over that situation. Or make it "the NHL" as the responsible party, if you like. Nobody will hold the NHL responsible for a death outside of their control. If a player died of Covid-19 complications today, sitting out the season shutdown at home, nobody would blame the NHL. But then the NHL puts together this tournament and brings players and support staff from all over the world together to put on this show. It's for entertainment, it isn't "necessary" by any stretch of definition of the word "necessary". Now they've taken on total responsibility for anything that happens to the people they've brought together for this entertainment spectacle.
So I don't think they're looking at it in terms of global % probabilities. Rather, it's about their own liability here. A 0.1% risk that they aren't remotely liable for is different than a 0.1% risk that they will be considered totally liable for, that's the perception of risk being evaluated here.
And again I will point out- what we are talking about here are these players playing games in an empty arena, and every one of these players is going to be tested daily. I don't understand why so many people- even those in decision making positions, act like we are asking players to take some monumental health risk- it is simply not the case at all.
Are you using the word "monumental" correctly here? If there was truly a perception of it being a "monumental" risk, then they wouldn't be planning to do this. There would be outrage, people would be raking the NHL over the coals, the boards would be on fire with it, the players wouldn't have agreed to the proposal, etc, etc.
Instead, there is an acknowledgement of risk, small, and a presentation by the NHL of a proposed path to mitigate that risk. Nobody is getting very outraged by it at all. Doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the risk or express a little bit of surprise that the NHL is being bold enough to take on that risk. Doesn't mean we disagree with their plans either. It sounds to me like they're putting together a sensible plan and are leaving it open to ongoing evaluation and taking excellent precautions. I think it's a good plan and I'm going to watch those games if they take place and enjoy them.
I think the bigger debate really has to be around their plans for
next season. They believe they've hatched a plan to mitigate risks sufficiently to pull off this summer tournament, and I think most people believe they've got a good plan. But nobody knows what next season is going to look like, and no hockey again until December, or no fans in the arenas until a vaccine comes out (which could be much longer than that) would be a much bigger point of debate.
(Or do the ABs just not linger long enough to know?)
