lhsgolf19
Registered User
So we basically got a 4th Round Pick for nothing... Solid! lol
AbsolutelyWith Green's history of infections and other medical issues, that makes the most sense
It isn't worth risking his well-being
Mike Green is probably done as an NHLer.
Who's going to sign him next year with a chance this could happen again?
I support any player who opts out. That's their call.
But these decisions will impact the way GMs assess the risk around offering contracts to these players.
I think someone will take a chance on him, but we're probably talking a 1 year league minimum contract at this point.
Maybe.... but if they let Holtby walk, they'd have room to add a better player. Looks like Gudas is on his way out, he was going to be a healthy scratch when the season was suspended.Worshington maybe?
Worshington maybe?
I think someone will take a chance on him, but we're probably talking a 1 year league minimum contract at this point.
Edmonton isn't even in the playoffs yet. They still have to beat Chicago in the best of 5 to qualify.From the Wings perspective, Green won't be playing in the playoffs, so we will get the 4th this year instead of the 3rd next year (attained if Edmonton reached the conference finals and Green played 1/2 the games or something).
Edmonton isn't even in the playoffs yet. They still have to beat Chicago in the best of 5 to qualify.
And it's not like Edmonton dummied Chicago during the season, they actually lost the season series, not that it matters.
There are 8 teams that qualified
Boston, Tampa, Washington, Philly
St.Louis, Colorado, Vegas, Dallas
Agreed.With Green's history of infections and other medical issues, that makes the most sense
It isn't worth risking his well-being
Umm, aren't we still on track for having a vaccine in the next 6-9 months? I can see some GMs having pause on guys for the start of next season, but things might be fine at the trade deadline, let alone into subsequent seasons.Could be. But the truth of the matter is, whatever value he had just got destroyed.
Same with Hamonic.
Most of the other guys were headed for Europe anyway.
But what GM, knowing COVID-19 is probably not just going disappear, is going to invest in Hamonic?
If you get him as a bargain-basement, capfriendly, deal, that can be nice. But even then, you might play the whole season and realize you can't count him when the games matter.
I credit players for doing what they have to do. But there are consequences that will come with these calls.
Umm, aren't we still on track for having a vaccine in the next 6-9 months? I can see some GMs having pause on guys for the start of next season, but things might be fine at the trade deadline, let alone into subsequent seasons.
We don't know when a vaccine will be ready. We don't know if vaccines will work.
Vaccines will work. Immunity for COVID-19 should be in the realm of years, not months. Mutations appear to be very slow, which is vital for an effective vaccine. And currently there is very little environmental pressure for the virus to change. Reinfection is often a matter of individual viral load and immune response, which is so say... Those who would get COVID twice probably got it very mild the first time. A vaccine gives sufficient viral load for immune response.
There's different kinds that have different costs associated, so it will be a process to find the magic ratio of efficacy to cost, but it will eventually work. I'm hopeful for the RNA versions, as they are quite cheap and easy to produce. Fingers crossed.
But I understand if there's zero end in sight, it makes your position of everything retuning to normal ASAP, including a luxury like hockey, more palatable, so don't let our optimism about a solution next year get in the way.
I've read enough articles that question they will be effective.
It's not a question of developing a working vaccine, it's how long it will last. If it's only good for 3 months, for example, that's still going to be extremely difficult to roll into the general population.
However, there's nothing to indicate right now that will be the case. It mutates slowly. Comparable viral vaccines last a year or more. So at present, the conservative estimates are saying a vaccine should last a year.
Vaccines will provide a more targeted immune response and improve outcomes moving forward.
And keep in mind the entire world is working on this simultaneously. It will only take one successful attempt to cascade our efforts.
There's a real irony a few months ago, that I was considered a fearmonger regarding where things would be at this time, but now I'm a bastion of optimism going into next year. It's nice to be on the other side I suppose.
Based on this I assume it would be similar to the vaccine for influenza? In the sense that you would need to get a shot every year?
Yeah, basically! You guys may know this, but I'll type it out just in case. Different strains of influenza ebb and flow year to year. This is due to a lot of reasons, some of which are mutation. That's why we get one annually. It's not the same dose each year.
With influenza, they look at the strain that's prominent in Asia and then mass produce that vaccine for the West. So that's why sometimes you'll hear people complain about the vaccine "not working." Your vaccine works, but they might have projected wrong. The flu strain that took off here was different than the one in Asia, and so it didn't provide complete protection. It's still recommended, as even if the strain guess was wrong, the similar antibodies for any related strain can be beneficial, even if not wholly protective. So you may get the flu with a flu shot, but it could have been worse without.
With COVID-19, virologists have noted it's fairly stable. That's actually really good for vaccine production. COVID-19 has a code check when it reproduces, so mutations are slow. It wants to make sure any copies are like the original. Again, very good. It means when we lock down a good vaccine, it should be effective and stick for a period of a year or more, instead of months.
Some officials have warned we may not get it all figured out by next year. That's fair. They are being safe with their promises to the public. I wouldn't dare say with absolute certainty we'll have a vaccine that will work for a year+ by this time next year. However, many folks in the field are optimistic. These are the same folks that were very doom and gloom about the global pandemic outlook. An exact date is hard to lock down, but we will develop a vaccine. There is currently 1 approved for limited use and 4 that are in phase 3 clinical trials.*1
I would imagine starting next year, we'll receive routine COVID vaccines and boosters for the rest of our lives.
It's not unlike how health care professionals get routine boosters for varicella (chickenpox) or MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) throughout their lives.
Interestingly enough, there's ongoing research suggesting that strong MMR antibody response could be beneficial in suppressing the worst effects of COVID. So if you haven't got yourself an MMR shot since you were a child, it could be worth refreshing. It won't hurt you, it's cheap, and at bare minimum you'll have renewed your immunity to those nasty viral strains (which are seeing increases in the general population as a consequence of the anti-vax movement). I want to strongly note while I don't think it's a bad idea to get an MMR booster in adulthood, the evidence that it helps with COVID symptoms are not proven at all.*2
*1 Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker
*2 Could an everyday childhood vaccine help against coronavirus? - CNN
EDIT: Quick side note! Thought I'd lump this into my overly long post.
There was a lot of talk a few months ago about chloroquine (that malaria drug) for COVID-19. We all kinda stopped talking about it because the major news outlets ran these stories pretty aggressively and the proponents of the drug shut up about it. But unfortunately, they found no statistical significance to the drug aiding fight off COVID.
Hydroxychloroquine drug in University of Minnesota trial does little to prevent COVID-19