covid reported in area clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

[Anonymous]

+1
Good post.
I make sure my child keeps his distance from kids that are choosing to be more conservative or that the parents know my child is in a sport with some amount of contact and are okay with it.

Am comfortable taking this risk for my child, but by taking this risk we are potentially exposing anyone else we are in contact with and need to be extra careful..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1
Good post.
I make sure my child keeps his distance from kids that are choosing to be more conservative or that the parents know my child is in a sport with some amount of contact and are okay with it.

Am comfortable taking this risk for my child, but by taking this risk we are potentially exposing anyone else we are in contact with and need to be extra careful..

I agree with this and wish that there were some messaging from our public health officials about whether athletes exhibiting no symptoms should be periodically tested. I asked a question about testing those who are exhibiting no symptoms and who have had no known exposure and the answers were all over the place. If periodic testing would be helpful, why isn't it encouraged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

So I assume you're OK with not requiring children to get vaccinations against things like measles and polio before attending public school? Because in a free society we should get to impose the health risks of our own choices on everybody else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

So I assume you're OK with not requiring children to get vaccinations against things like measles and polio before attending public school? Because in a free society we should get to impose the health risks of our own choices on everybody else?

This would be absolutely OK with me. Personally I would prefer my own children were vaccinated against polio (although I would not force this on others) and not against measles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

Yes it is it. Tyranny is when the state imposes its will on the people by force. You might decided that you approve of tyranny in this case - but please don't claim it isn't tyranny - because it is the very defintion of tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

Yes it is it. Tyranny is when the state imposes its will on the people by force. You might decided that you approve of tyranny in this case - but please don't claim it isn't tyranny - because it is the very defintion of tyranny.

Call me when there's an agent of the state on your doorstep with a gun to do a mask check. Until then, no.

[Anonymous]

Just popped in to see how other clubs were dealing with potential exposure or positive tests. But I see Page 9 here has 29 mentions of "tyranny", so I'll quietly hit the Back button...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

No one should sign their kid up to play soccer if they are that concerned about their kid getting the coronavirus, or coming into contact with another asymptomatic kid who has the coronavirus. Of course, this coronavirus is only at trivial danger to children, far less dangerous than other disease and non-disease risks we allow them to take every day. But if any parent is so concerned about coronavirus then they are the ones who need to decide to pull their kid off the team. Don't demand that others stop playing, or put unreasonable "rules" on everyone else (how stupid, and dangerous in its own right, to see kids running around panting with masks obscuring their breathing) because of your own irrational, non-science based fears.

Kids. Are. Not. At. Serious. Risk. For. COVID. Dozens of other things they continue to do are statistically MORE dangerous than COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just popped in to see how other clubs were dealing with potential exposure or positive tests. But I see Page 9 here has 29 mentions of "tyranny", so I'll quietly hit the Back button...

Ha!

[Anonymous]

My kid's playing travel soccer. Has been since August. No Covid. She's alive. She's happy. Her teammates too.

Just to answer the original question. Far more cases of covid19 coming from the local adults, quite frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid's playing travel soccer. Has been since August. No Covid. She's alive. She's happy. Her teammates too.

Just to answer the original question. Far more cases of covid19 coming from the local adults, quite frankly.

Mine have been playing since June. No cases, to our knowledge, and kids are much, much happier.