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: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)?

You dummy, everything you wrote was about N95 or similar masks. Is that what the kids playing soccer are wearing? NO!

[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)?

You dummy, everything you wrote was about N95 or similar masks. Is that what the kids playing soccer are wearing? NO!

Reading comprehension is your friend. And a better vocabulary also won't hurt.

From the first page of the article I posted. Note the last sentence.

"Studies on cardiopulmonary capacity have been performed using respirator masks, e.g., full facepiece masks, filtering air-purifying respirators (APR), air-supplied respirators, blower powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR), and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) [11]. These respirators are better known as “gas masks” that are not used by health care professionals and are not suitable to be worn by the majority of the population. Data on cardiopulmonary capacity wearing medical masks are not available. Since surgical and FFP2/N95 masks are the two most widely used types of medical face masks, they were included in this study protocol."

More homework for you. What are surgical masks? Below is the link with the answer.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks#s2

[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)?

You dummy, everything you wrote was about N95 or similar masks. Is that what the kids playing soccer are wearing? NO!

Not the PP, but you dummy, the AAP and other guidance included in PP's blurb is NOT just about N95 or similar masks. Some people's stupidity has no bounds. Can you try clicking a link and reading? Several of us have also cut and paste it in here. While some of the particular research included may be more specific, for the love of god, that is not. How much louder and clearer can we unequivocally give you evidence of the experts guidance? You are free to have your own beliefs and opinions, but facts are facts as to what these organizations have put out guidance. Please explain to us mortals why you are more qualified than the experts who do not recommend it for children for vigorous activities or active exercise? Again, you are welcome to have your own opinion, but why should a government impose a requirement in direct contradiction to respected organizations and in favor of armchair experts like you?

Many people have said the following in this thread that I wholly agree with: People can agree to disagree. People can and will have their own views on children wearing masks while in vigorous activities. That's all fine. These are unprecedented times. But can't we at least agree on indisputable, in writing facts, such as the guidance from certain organizations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So I guess it’s official? Haven’t heard from our club yet

[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.

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.

Hence my - unless rec. Rec league teams playing in Moco would have played.

Travel teams from outside moco were refusing to play teams in moco unless they arranged the games outside moco and played without masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There aren't any other teams that want to wear masks.

[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'm on the fence. Vigorous activity for adults in masks is dangerous but indoor soccer on that small field with no masks? Eww.

[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.

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.

Hence my - unless rec. Rec league teams playing in Moco would have played.

Travel teams from outside moco were refusing to play teams in moco unless they arranged the games outside moco and played without masks.

This. Our first games were all outside moco.

I'd be surprised if any club promised "mask during games"

Most just said "we will follow local and CDC guidelines"

Honestly the recommendations have changed weekly all over the world. Youth soccer isnt going to be different.

[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.

Fwiw, im for mask during games but...

A) it removes partial protection if the other person isnt wearing

But not all.

B) did you really think that all other kids including opponents would be wearing a mask during games? If this was a criteria for signing up for soccer, it would be very short sighted.

[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.

This theory would only work if your entire schedule was in moco? Then I could see the concern.

The rule was added on a few days after the game initiaiton. And the first day they made this rule, most people on here were sure it would be gone within a couple weeks. I wouldnt have based an entire seasons plans on a rule that was questionable from the start.

[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.

This theory would only work if your entire schedule was in moco? Then I could see the concern.

The rule was added on a few days after the game initiaiton. And the first day they made this rule, most people on here were sure it would be gone within a couple weeks. I wouldnt have based an entire seasons plans on a rule that was questionable from the start.

There are Rec, Classic and Sam Leagues that purely plays in MoCo.

[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.

This theory would only work if your entire schedule was in moco? Then I could see the concern.

The rule was added on a few days after the game initiaiton. And the first day they made this rule, most people on here were sure it would be gone within a couple weeks. I wouldnt have based an entire seasons plans on a rule that was questionable from the start.

There are Rec, Classic and Sam Leagues that purely plays in MoCo.

Oh ok. Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that masks protect either the wearer or anyone else. There have been fourteen randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks, some of them conducted in indoor environments and with patients who are actually ill, and they have all shown no measurable effect. Zero. Nada. Zippy.

In addition contact tracing from countries where it was implemented early and strictly has shown that
- asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare
- outdoor spread even from symptomatic carriers is also exceedingly rare.

These masks do nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that masks protect either the wearer or anyone else. There have been fourteen randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks, some of them conducted in indoor environments and with patients who are actually ill, and they have all shown no measurable effect. Zero. Nada. Zippy.

In addition contact tracing from countries where it was implemented early and strictly has shown that
- asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare
- outdoor spread even from symptomatic carriers is also exceedingly rare.

These masks do nothing at all.

You are the reason we are not going to be able to get back to normal any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that masks protect either the wearer or anyone else. There have been fourteen randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks, some of them conducted in indoor environments and with patients who are actually ill, and they have all shown no measurable effect. Zero. Nada. Zippy.

In addition contact tracing from countries where it was implemented early and strictly has shown that
- asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare
- outdoor spread even from symptomatic carriers is also exceedingly rare.

These masks do nothing at all.

You are the reason we are not going to be able to get back to normal any time soon.

No I'm not. If everyone actually followed science like I do, instead of claiming to follow science and doing the opposite, we never would have had any lockdowns and we never would have left normal in the first place.

The whole reason we have to get back to normal at all, is people like you.