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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but as many have said earlier, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. The same would be true for parents who don't want their kids wearing masks while playing. If you and your kid don't like it, don't play. You are complaining without convincing, and seem to miss the whole point that things which work for you may not work for others. That is an impasse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but as many have said earlier, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. The same would be true for parents who don't want their kids wearing masks while playing. If you and your kid don't like it, don't play. You are complaining without convincing, and seem to miss the whole point that things which work for you may not work for others. That is an impasse.

If it's designed as a breathable sports mask, it's not blocking COVID-19. Most people have probably already had it by now, anyways. If it's a worry, and ACTUAL worry, get your kid out of sports. The most effective prevention is avoiding carriers (people). Staying over 20ft away from people is 100% effective, you'll just have to figure out how to get food and other supplies. Yes I'm being serious, much more than "I'm worried so wear this ineffective mask" crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but as many have said earlier, if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. The same would be true for parents who don't want their kids wearing masks while playing. If you and your kid don't like it, don't play. You are complaining without convincing, and seem to miss the whole point that things which work for you may not work for others. That is an impasse.

If it's designed as a breathable sports mask, it's not blocking COVID-19. Most people have probably already had it by now, anyways. If it's a worry, and ACTUAL worry, get your kid out of sports. The most effective prevention is avoiding carriers (people). Staying over 20ft away from people is 100% effective, you'll just have to figure out how to get food and other supplies. Yes I'm being serious, much more than "I'm worried so wear this ineffective mask" crowd.

You gave yourself away with the "most people have already had it" line. You are an anti-mask COVID denier. Admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

PP here - totally get it. Super frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

PP here - totally get it. Super frustrating.

They should stick with the rules at the time you signed up. There are other clubs that use the SoccerPlex for their games that are not involved in the Sam leagues. So the mask change does allow those clubs to schedule games now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP with the long post.
1. The study included both N95 and surgical masks, not just the former.
2. Others not wearing a mask does not "remove" your child's protection, just reduces it (if you were to believe if the tiny risk was even quantifiable in the first place). The risk is additive. If you are the type who weighs Covid risk above anything else - such that your kid is compelled to suffer through reduced pulmonary functions by wearing a mask while doing strenuous activity - others not wearing a mask will not reduce whatever protection your kid is getting from his/her mask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

PP here - totally get it. Super frustrating.

Just to be clear what the argument is now. Not science, expert guidance (someone listed multiple credible authorities), or even plain logic. We are just down to "impeding our kids' breathing while doing strenuous activity was promised to us, based on which we agreed to participate in soccer; now it must not change in the face of any evidence, guidance or common sense, regardless of what every other county in our area is doing, as that will be a breach of (what exactly?)". Is this qualitatively any different from "thou shalt not ask us to don masks in indoor public spaces because of liberty, life, whatever"?

Even this argument cannot stand on its own legs. Did MoCo ever commit that the same guidelines will be in place for the entire season, impervious to evidence, science, or even the rate of community transmission of the virus? Instead, from what I recall, the mask rule while playing games was "clarified" as an afterthought in a press conference, 3 days after the county council in its revision of previous rules did NOT include mask-wearing during games. Like all rules, it is expected to be re-visited periodically. None of this, of course, precludes your team insisting on mask-wearing for all its players, in all teams in the league it plays in, for the entire season. Or starting a masked league with like-minded parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Unless rec, your kids could never have played this way in any case since no other teams would play them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Unless rec, your kids could never have played this way in any case since no other teams would play them.

Yes, in Moco ALL the other teams were also required to wear masks. That's the whole point.

[Anonymous]

This morning, the Montgomery County Council voted to no longer require masks during 'vigorous and strenuous activities' including games and scrimmages. .

Per the Director of Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security, “We [Montgomery County] are adopting the American Association of Pediatrics interpretation around face coverings which allow them not to be worn during vigorous and strenuous activity." To view their interpretation click here. https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/07/22/sportsguidance072220

Here is how that ruling affects our club:


• Masks- Players are no longer required to wear masks during games and scrimmages in Montgomery County. Players must still wear masks when sitting on the sideline, when exiting/entering the venue, and during practices at all times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well thats on you for thinking that it would be a forever thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

PP here - totally get it. Super frustrating.

They should stick with the rules at the time you signed up. There are other clubs that use the SoccerPlex for their games that are not involved in the Sam leagues. So the mask change does allow those clubs to schedule games now.

then just schedule games against teams that also want to wear masks. simple.

I just cant believe that teams were making these decisions based on teh fact that ONE county in the entire state was doing this- the writing was on the wall that it wasnt going to last.