This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Good questions by dialadown

Deception is a loaded word that implies intent. That is not where I was going. Data is very context/assumption dependent which is a problem in the drive-by, "simplify it" world we live by. As state/county data collection has become more sophisticated, most notably in May/June, the definitions changed making trend data irrelevant to previous periods. These definitions are also not consistent from state to state so comparisons are meaningless. Unless you dig down (which doesn't fit our headline, drive-by society) a level or two to understand this, case data is hard to use for any conclusions. Death data is much more consistent and usually lags cases by a week or so (if correctly attributed to date). If these are going in different directions, there is always something with the case tracking/definitions that you don't understand. When someone gives you case data, you need to know the assumptions or you need the death data for context to help you begin to figure out what is going on. I now disregard case data when I hear it communicated at a summary level. Again, no intent, it is hard to communicate context and assumptions quickly and in a simple form.

On your second question about heart issues, this is my biggest fear with this disease and I watch it closely (never "no doubt") for all my kids but I also believe that the protocols, the testing lab on campus, the involvement and escalation path of medical experts that have been set up all make the campus athletic environment safer than the alternative. Also, by living in the raw data, I can personally stay grounded and away from the media hype that is driving so much fear. I do think the media has a ratings incentive to amplify fear. Obviously advancements in our medical knowledge are important to add to the mix but with data not anecdotal stories on the Today show.

Our family conclusions are highly specific to our situation, our personal risk/reward tolerance, and our faith in/knowledge of the environment to control and contain this. My original point was that to assume that kids are making this decision like 18-22 year olds in a vacuum without analysis and parental involvement is incorrect. Also, each family faces a different scenario, and each decision about playing/not playing should be respected and not judged by drive-by opinions. Many if not most of us take this extremely seriously not just regarding our kid's health but also how our actions impact society.