Just received word that masks during game play are no longer required at the Soccerplex!

[Anonymous]

Will this allow some of the other leagues to hold home games in Moco or is it too late for most leagues since I assume the other fields have already been rented?

Not looking forward to driving all over the place for games this fall.

[Anonymous]

Great, more Covid!

I am surrounded by idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

[Anonymous]

It was posted earlier, you clearly don't read. The reason you're only hearing from the Soccerplex, is it because they are loosely interpreting the statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. No one else interprets it that way. Therefore, everyone else will wear masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/



The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

you know people will not read what you wrote and just call you a Nazi, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

you know people will not read what you wrote and just call you a Nazi, right?

PP here. Of course I do. And then the very same people will turn around and denigrate half the population of the country for not following "science". Truth is, there is no reason for most folks to comb through technical studies. That is why we have local and state and federal authorities to make sense of the evidence out there and make informed recommendations, sometimes even based on insufficient evidence. But that requires the said authorities to be not clouded by politics and polls. MoCo officials are just responding to the politics, based on which way the wind blows in their county. The potential impact of bone-headed rules on children's lungs and heart - not in the news, so who cares (or even measures, as it is almost unmeasurable in the short-term, unlike Covid deaths)?

[Anonymous]

So explain something to me- how can small sided games be happening INDOORS at SoFive with no one wearing a mask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So explain something to me- how can small sided games be happening INDOORS at SoFive with no one wearing a mask?

I think everyone in MOCO is now thoroughly confused by the rules. Hopefully Dr. Stoddard and Dr. Gayles will put out a statement to clarify what it meant exactly when they added "we are following the AAP recommendations". It sounds like many clubs/teams are not sure how to interpret this.

[Anonymous]

I understand that official release from MoCo will come out within the next few days lifting the mask requirement for strenuous exercises which includes soccer games. Team practices will continue to be required to wear masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

you know people will not read what you wrote and just call you a Nazi, right?

PP here. Of course I do. And then the very same people will turn around and denigrate half the population of the country for not following "science". Truth is, there is no reason for most folks to comb through technical studies. That is why we have local and state and federal authorities to make sense of the evidence out there and make informed recommendations, sometimes even based on insufficient evidence. But that requires the said authorities to be not clouded by politics and polls. MoCo officials are just responding to the politics, based on which way the wind blows in their county. The potential impact of bone-headed rules on children's lungs and heart - not in the news, so who cares (or even measures, as it is almost unmeasurable in the short-term, unlike Covid deaths)?

Thank you PP, coming from one of the earlier PP's who tried to post rational arguments based on the actual available science and expert organizational recommendations. The unrelentless reflex of some people to call everyone idiots, or wanting to spread COVID, or being a COVID-denier, or to see people die, based on their own extremely conservative beliefs of COVID risk has been disappointing. People have really been so traumatized by our experience with this pandemic that they refuse to accept that some risk/reward calculation may, at limited times, weigh against a COVID mitigation measure like masks. How else can you explain people so up in arms in FOLLOWING the advice of the WHO, CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, the state of MD, and virtually every other state and county across the country. Arlington, Fairfax, Frederick, all the NY counties who have an awful lot of COVID experience and data, and so on, are all idiots who want people to die? I think it should warrant some self-reflection for people so upset when they are the ones going against all data and science, yet at the same time (rightfully) scream at the Trumpers and COVID-deniers for ignoring data and science. I know that is wishful thinking but it is really starting to become a problem in this county.

For people who said it is a loose interpretation of the recommendations, what is so loose? Is playing soccer hard not active exercise? Do you not consider it vigorous?

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/COVID-19/Pages/Youth-Sports-Participation-During-COVID-19-A-Safety-Checklist.aspx
https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/07/22/sportsguidance072220

This is AAP jointly with American Medical Society for Sports Medicine and National Athletic Trainers Association:

​When possible and safe, athletes should each wear cloth face covering--especially on the sideline, in dugouts, and during team chats. However, masks should not be worn during:

​​activ​​e exercise.​​

​​water sports.

sports where face coverings could get caught on equipment or accidentally cover eyes.

This is from AAP:

Face coverings are advised:

For coaches, officials, volunteers and spectators.
For all people arriving at and departing from an athletic facility or on the sidelines.
During non-vigorous exercise when physical distancing is not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So explain something to me- how can small sided games be happening INDOORS at SoFive with no one wearing a mask?

Looks like Sofive is not enforcing the rules. One call to MoCo and they will be shut down.

While MoCo is expected to lift the mask requirement soon for strenuous exercises as I indicated earlier, I don’t know if this will include indoor activities (indoor soccer games).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So explain something to me- how can small sided games be happening INDOORS at SoFive with no one wearing a mask?

Looks like Sofive is not enforcing the rules. One call to MoCo and they will be shut down.

While MoCo is expected to lift the mask requirement soon for strenuous exercises as I indicated earlier, I don’t know if this will include indoor activities (indoor soccer games).

Ok, I'm not too crazy conservative covid-wise, but that is just NUTS. Who is letting their kids do this?!

[Anonymous]

We decided to let our kids play based on the mask requirement. I'll be so pissed if they change it AFTER games are underway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

you know people will not read what you wrote and just call you a Nazi, right?

PP here. Of course I do. And then the very same people will turn around and denigrate half the population of the country for not following "science". Truth is, there is no reason for most folks to comb through technical studies. That is why we have local and state and federal authorities to make sense of the evidence out there and make informed recommendations, sometimes even based on insufficient evidence. But that requires the said authorities to be not clouded by politics and polls. MoCo officials are just responding to the politics, based on which way the wind blows in their county. The potential impact of bone-headed rules on children's lungs and heart - not in the news, so who cares (or even measures, as it is almost unmeasurable in the short-term, unlike Covid deaths)?

1. The study included N95 medical masks which are far different from the breathable sports masks most kids are wearing.
2. If your kid doesn't wear a mask, it removes protection for my kid - so everyone do their own thing - once again, doesn't work.