Neighborhood kids are allowed to play together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We now let our kids play outside with a group of 4-5 neighborhood kids. The parents of those other kids are, so far as i know, locked down at home but I don't have the details on their breaches of the home perimeter. Does this outdoor play introduce some risk? Sure does. Does it vastly increase the odds that we'll remain sane? Absolutely. For us (and the parents of the kids they're playing with), it just isn't sustainable to keep everyone locked up. Maybe some kids/families can. We tell them to keep distance while they're playing, and sometimes they actually do.

Oh, honestly. Of course it is sustainable. You're just selfish. Don't pretend you have some sort of right to being a dick because you're special.

+1

YMMV. Keep your kids inside and shake your fist from the window. I'm not PP and we don't allow kids inside houses or to share balls etc, but we do let them bike and play hide and seek etc. You make your decisions, I'll make mine.

As many have pointed out, your decisions affect other people. This is not a difficult concept.

So does unnecessarily traumatizing children. People aren't going to stay inside for years. They just aren't. You need to accept that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We now let our kids play outside with a group of 4-5 neighborhood kids. The parents of those other kids are, so far as i know, locked down at home but I don't have the details on their breaches of the home perimeter. Does this outdoor play introduce some risk? Sure does. Does it vastly increase the odds that we'll remain sane? Absolutely. For us (and the parents of the kids they're playing with), it just isn't sustainable to keep everyone locked up. Maybe some kids/families can. We tell them to keep distance while they're playing, and sometimes they actually do.

Oh, honestly. Of course it is sustainable. You're just selfish. Don't pretend you have some sort of right to being a dick because you're special.

+1

YMMV. Keep your kids inside and shake your fist from the window. I'm not PP and we don't allow kids inside houses or to share balls etc, but we do let them bike and play hide and seek etc. You make your decisions, I'll make mine.

As many have pointed out, your decisions affect other people. This is not a difficult concept.

So does unnecessarily traumatizing children. People aren't going to stay inside for years. They just aren't. You need to accept that.

Who is telling you that you'll need to stay inside for years? Here's what I'm telling you: make your decisions based on public health information, not internal frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We now let our kids play outside with a group of 4-5 neighborhood kids. The parents of those other kids are, so far as i know, locked down at home but I don't have the details on their breaches of the home perimeter. Does this outdoor play introduce some risk? Sure does. Does it vastly increase the odds that we'll remain sane? Absolutely. For us (and the parents of the kids they're playing with), it just isn't sustainable to keep everyone locked up. Maybe some kids/families can. We tell them to keep distance while they're playing, and sometimes they actually do.

Oh, honestly. Of course it is sustainable. You're just selfish. Don't pretend you have some sort of right to being a dick because you're special.

+1

YMMV. Keep your kids inside and shake your fist from the window. I'm not PP and we don't allow kids inside houses or to share balls etc, but we do let them bike and play hide and seek etc. You make your decisions, I'll make mine.

As many have pointed out, your decisions affect other people. This is not a difficult concept.

So does unnecessarily traumatizing children. People aren't going to stay inside for years. They just aren't. You need to accept that.

NP. FOR THE LOVE. Kids aren't going to be TRAUMATIZED by not being able to play with their friends. You people are even crazier than the people who won't even let their kids play in their yards.

[Anonymous]

Guys, keep pretending you’re changing peoples minds. It’s cute to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We now let our kids play outside with a group of 4-5 neighborhood kids. The parents of those other kids are, so far as i know, locked down at home but I don't have the details on their breaches of the home perimeter. Does this outdoor play introduce some risk? Sure does. Does it vastly increase the odds that we'll remain sane? Absolutely. For us (and the parents of the kids they're playing with), it just isn't sustainable to keep everyone locked up. Maybe some kids/families can. We tell them to keep distance while they're playing, and sometimes they actually do.

Oh, honestly. Of course it is sustainable. You're just selfish. Don't pretend you have some sort of right to being a dick because you're special.

+1

YMMV. Keep your kids inside and shake your fist from the window. I'm not PP and we don't allow kids inside houses or to share balls etc, but we do let them bike and play hide and seek etc. You make your decisions, I'll make mine.

My kids do go outside every day for hours. They just don’t play with other kids, because we aren’t selfish and we are trying to do our part.

[Anonymous]

We are all making micro-decisions every day that shift our risk profiles,and the risks we pose to others. Eg, in our house, only one of us goes to the grocery store. The other of us (me) hasn't been in a building other than our house in more than 5 weeks. In other houses, parents might take turns going to the store. Well, that decision doubles the potential vectors in the house -- and "affects other people" because it increases the odds that the virus comes home and then is transmitted to others. But I don't see people objecting mightily to families that have decided to divvy up duties like that. To me, letting kids play outside with other children subject to some reasonable guidance about distance and physical contact is not unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Everyone had varying degrees of being risk taking / risk adverse before the pandemic so it is to be expected that the same will transfer to this scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are all making micro-decisions every day that shift our risk profiles,and the risks we pose to others. Eg, in our house, only one of us goes to the grocery store. The other of us (me) hasn't been in a building other than our house in more than 5 weeks. In other houses, parents might take turns going to the store. Well, that decision doubles the potential vectors in the house -- and "affects other people" because it increases the odds that the virus comes home and then is transmitted to others. But I don't see people objecting mightily to families that have decided to divvy up duties like that. To me, letting kids play outside with other children subject to some reasonable guidance about distance and physical contact is not unreasonable.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone had varying degrees of being risk taking / risk adverse before the pandemic so it is to be expected that the same will transfer to this scenario.

Correct. And no one is changing anyone else’s mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are all making micro-decisions every day that shift our risk profiles,and the risks we pose to others. Eg, in our house, only one of us goes to the grocery store. The other of us (me) hasn't been in a building other than our house in more than 5 weeks. In other houses, parents might take turns going to the store. Well, that decision doubles the potential vectors in the house -- and "affects other people" because it increases the odds that the virus comes home and then is transmitted to others. But I don't see people objecting mightily to families that have decided to divvy up duties like that. To me, letting kids play outside with other children subject to some reasonable guidance about distance and physical contact is not unreasonable.

Alternating who goes to the grocery store makes absolutely no difference to you risk profile.

[Anonymous]

So does unnecessarily traumatizing children. People aren't going to stay inside for years. They just aren't. You need to accept that.

NP. FOR THE LOVE. Kids aren't going to be TRAUMATIZED by not being able to play with their friends. You people are even crazier than the people who won't even let their kids play in their yards.

AMEN. There is so much manufactured drama on both sides of this kids-playing-with-neighbors issue!

[Anonymous]

So does unnecessarily traumatizing children. People aren't going to stay inside for years. They just aren't. You need to accept that.

NP. FOR THE LOVE. Kids aren't going to be TRAUMATIZED by not being able to play with their friends. You people are even crazier than the people who won't even let their kids play in their yards.

AMEN. There is so much manufactured drama on both sides of this kids-playing-with-neighbors issue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all making micro-decisions every day that shift our risk profiles,and the risks we pose to others. Eg, in our house, only one of us goes to the grocery store. The other of us (me) hasn't been in a building other than our house in more than 5 weeks. In other houses, parents might take turns going to the store. Well, that decision doubles the potential vectors in the house -- and "affects other people" because it increases the odds that the virus comes home and then is transmitted to others. But I don't see people objecting mightily to families that have decided to divvy up duties like that. To me, letting kids play outside with other children subject to some reasonable guidance about distance and physical contact is not unreasonable.

Alternating who goes to the grocery store makes absolutely no difference to you risk profile.

How do you figure? Unless you assume that once one adult is exposed, the other is automatically exposed too (which is not the case), then having two people going out in public increases the risk for everyone in the family.