If you're having playdates, do youn also not believe in vaccines?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

+1

That was before we started extreme distancing. Nobody, literally, nobody has siad that is okay since we became stricter. Trails are shut down but its cool for you to have two families together exposing all the others they come into contact with and each other? No. You're being stupid and risky and you should just own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

This is not true. This is not allowed by the government at this point. You can literally be fined. Public officials have said to stop doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

+1

That was before we started extreme distancing. Nobody, literally, nobody has siad that is okay since we became stricter. Trails are shut down but its cool for you to have two families together exposing all the others they come into contact with and each other? No. You're being stupid and risky and you should just own it.

Not to veer off topic, but trails are certainly NOT shut down here in Arlington, so long as you maintain social distancing. And thank goodness for that!

"The County’s nearly 49 miles of paved multi-use trails and additional hiking trails, remain open, with strict social distancing. If you choose to go for a walk, or exercise outside, please maintain a distance of six feet from people who are not a part of your household. Crossing through parks to get to a trail or non-park destination is allowed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

I’m just saying people think they’re better when they’re not. Before they judge I say consider how many people you’ve caused to come in contact with other people and if you really consider what that is you’d be less likely to judge other people. But they think they didn’t have contact because they only got delivery and I think that’s wrong. I say don’t judge other people because they sin differently from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

I’m just saying people think they’re better when they’re not. Before they judge I say consider how many people you’ve caused to come in contact with other people and if you really consider what that is you’d be less likely to judge other people. But they think they didn’t have contact because they only got delivery and I think that’s wrong. I say don’t judge other people because they sin differently from you.

It's not a "sin", this is actual science. You are trying to impute principles of sin, relative risk in a jumbled mess to rationalize bad choices, but its actually really simple. If the risk is n2 - meaning each person exposed can infect two - when you cummulate exposures you increase the exposed population. And you're doing so knowingly. Meanwhile, having food delivered is for many people an actual necessity, and one people are taking serious precautions to do, masks, suits, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

I’m just saying people think they’re better when they’re not. Before they judge I say consider how many people you’ve caused to come in contact with other people and if you really consider what that is you’d be less likely to judge other people. But they think they didn’t have contact because they only got delivery and I think that’s wrong. I say don’t judge other people because they sin differently from you.

DP. Do you seriously think someone receiving a grocery delivery is engaging in a behavior that is equally risky as playdates? You need to read up more on how this virus is transmitted. Prolonged social contact is a huge factor in transmission. Receiving a delivery is not prolonged social contact. A playdate is. Stop telling yourself that what you're doing is fine. It is not. Just own it.

Driving a car carries a risk and potentially puts other people on the road at risk. No one is going to judge a sober person who gets in the car to go to work or wherever, but they will judge someone who drives drunk. Why? Because the drunk driver is engaging in an *unnecessary and known risky behavior* that puts other people at risk. That's what you are doing and that's why you're getting judged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

This is not true. This is not allowed by the government at this point. You can literally be fined. Public officials have said to stop doing this.

We don’t live in DC. It’s fine where we live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

I’m just saying people think they’re better when they’re not. Before they judge I say consider how many people you’ve caused to come in contact with other people and if you really consider what that is you’d be less likely to judge other people. But they think they didn’t have contact because they only got delivery and I think that’s wrong. I say don’t judge other people because they sin differently from you.

DP. Do you seriously think someone receiving a grocery delivery is engaging in a behavior that is equally risky as playdates? You need to read up more on how this virus is transmitted. Prolonged social contact is a huge factor in transmission. Receiving a delivery is not prolonged social contact. A playdate is. Stop telling yourself that what you're doing is fine. It is not. Just own it.

Driving a car carries a risk and potentially puts other people on the road at risk. No one is going to judge a sober person who gets in the car to go to work or wherever, but they will judge someone who drives drunk. Why? Because the drunk driver is engaging in an *unnecessary and known risky behavior* that puts other people at risk. That's what you are doing and that's why you're getting judged.

No, I think grocery shopping with delivery is roughly equivalent to grocery shopping on your own. If you’re getting other non life sustaining things shipped to your house, I think you are not considering the risk that puts on people indoors in the warehouses and in the indoor mailrooms. And, I’m right that none of you responding to me are considering this at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, I think play dates with another isolated family in a closed circuit is worth the minimal added risk because of the benefits to their mental health. Both families are only receiving grocery deliveries once a week and taking precautions when opening them (gloves, masks, washing hands after, etc.).

Public health officials have said this is ok. There was an article in the NYT explaining the do’s and don’ts of social distancing that addressed this specific issue. If you don’t want to take the risk, that is fine. It’s your choice. But don’t rage at us because you’re envious our kids are having play dates and yours aren’t when you could choose differently.

+1

That was before we started extreme distancing. Nobody, literally, nobody has siad that is okay since we became stricter. Trails are shut down but its cool for you to have two families together exposing all the others they come into contact with and each other? No. You're being stupid and risky and you should just own it.

Not to veer off topic, but trails are certainly NOT shut down here in Arlington, so long as you maintain social distancing. And thank goodness for that!

"The County’s nearly 49 miles of paved multi-use trails and additional hiking trails, remain open, with strict social distancing. If you choose to go for a walk, or exercise outside, please maintain a distance of six feet from people who are not a part of your household. Crossing through parks to get to a trail or non-park destination is allowed."

Not of our trails are shut down. Parking lots are closed and areas where you could gather and eat are.

Even Capital Crescent trail which is high density and narrow is open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about the posters saying they are letting their kids play with neighbors' kids for their "mental health". Do you really think your kids would suffer that much having to hang out with their parents? Even if you are tied up with work a lot of the day? I am finding that hard to believe in light of what we know about actual traumatic stressors that affect children. I think the parents allowing this are doing this to make their own lives easier but telling themselves it's for the sake of the kids.

+1.

+ 2

I agree that this is more about the parents than the kids, and they're using their kids as an excuse.

People are still going to the grocery store, picking up food, ordering packages... so while I get the idea that you *think* you're keeping the circle small... it's a facade. And a profoundly selfish, stupid thing to do.

Come up with other plans. I know people are frustrated, but so is everyone. Doesn't mean you have to stay locked indoors all day every day, but enact a little discipline.

+1000

THIS!

I have some acquaintances who are doing this stuff and I don't think I'll ever fully respect them again. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

You need some help. You’re not going to “forgive” people who are having packages delivered? I just had my sons essential life supporting medicine delivered. You wouldn’t know what that was nor should you. But the idea that You’re out there deciding that’s wrong is... insane. Get some help.

The point was that people are having playdates with others saying that both families are completely isolated...but no one is completely isolated! People are still grocery shopping, receiving packages, getting takeout, running into work every now and then etc. The playdates are the "stuff" the poster was writing about. No one is judging you for receiving packages!

None of my friends are "running into work"

I think 1 family member getting groceries once a week and deliveries are low risk.

Low risk to YOU. Not low risk to the person doing the delivery.

They are at higher risk of being affected by poverty because crazy people like you won't order take out than COVID-19.

You are quoting me. I don't do grocery delivery because it's hard to get here and I leave the slots for people who are higher risk than me. We go grocery shopping once a week, and I do takeout once a week. I feel comfortable with that. I also don't flip out when I see other people talking to each other. My point is - people are judging kids playing outdoors when they themselves are probably causing just as many people to come in contact with other humans when they shop online - so really they are no better, and they should not judge other people. That's my opinion.

No, its not an "opinion." It is an entirely incorrect statement. Kids playing together, toching each other, stuff, other kids, siblings, spreading germs all over play equipement, then the parents, then other family members - and if each kid in each family is playing with kids from other families - as opposed to a package, dropped off on the front porch? That people are picking up with gloves most likely and wiping down? There are objective ways to calculate risk. In your scenario, where each family involved has some outside contact, you are squaring that contact, increasing the risk by more than 100%. Because its inconvenient to you doesn't make it so. You're being obtuse, belligerent, and dramatically increasing the risk, rather than tamping down the curve.

No, you are comparing the package delivery incorrectly. I’m not talking about the package recipient - they’ve put the risk of the goods on someone else but it’s not low risk to everyone - only the recipient. The delivery person and the warehouse workers and the mail room workers still have the indoor, close quarters risk. Those people and their interactions in the warehouses and mailrooms behind the scenes are invisible to you as evidenced by their omission from your scenario here, but they’re not invisible to me.

You're being absolutely obtuse. I am not doing delivery of groceries because of this issue. But your pretending that you care more about those people so its totes okay to just do the whole double family thing is stupid. Each family is sending one person to the store. So you are doubling the risk. Or each family is having things delivered separately so YOU're personally doubling the risk for those people by having two sets of families exposures for them. What do you not understand about this?

I’m just saying people think they’re better when they’re not. Before they judge I say consider how many people you’ve caused to come in contact with other people and if you really consider what that is you’d be less likely to judge other people. But they think they didn’t have contact because they only got delivery and I think that’s wrong. I say don’t judge other people because they sin differently from you.

It's not a "sin", this is actual science. You are trying to impute principles of sin, relative risk in a jumbled mess to rationalize bad choices, but its actually really simple. If the risk is n2 - meaning each person exposed can infect two - when you cummulate exposures you increase the exposed population. And you're doing so knowingly. Meanwhile, having food delivered is for many people an actual necessity, and one people are taking serious precautions to do, masks, suits, etc.

For one, I am not only talking about food delivery. I’m talking about other kinds of online shopping such as Amazon. amazon and Instacart workers were protesting warehouse conditions recently, if I am not mistaken. My own mail carrier told me they’re kind of in close quarters at the post office too.

[Anonymous]

No, I think grocery shopping with delivery is roughly equivalent to grocery shopping on your own. If you’re getting other non life sustaining things shipped to your house, I think you are not considering the risk that puts on people indoors in the warehouses and in the indoor mailrooms. And, I’m right that none of you responding to me are considering this at all.

Grocery delivery is definitely safer than going out for groceries. But you are absolutely right about the risks behind the scenes for warehouse workers and delivery personnel. And you are ALSO right about keeping deliveries down to just the essentials. One of the best ways we can decrease the risk for those crucial, frontline folks is to STAY AT HOME and keep our kids at home as well.