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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Every single one of these objectors refuse to identify specifically under what circumstances would make it ok to go back before vaccine or herd immunity. We cannot go back to school because cases are too high, but in NYC, we cannot go back to school because we want cases to remain low. Nonsense and obstruction every step of the way. We either learn how to live with this responsibly or we just pretend it’s ok to put everybody’s lives and development t on hold because nervous nellies have decided everybody should do what they say. Sick and tired of this garbage from people who continue who have no right to think having a college degree makes you smart - clearly those degrees taught very little to most of the people in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Np- Yes thou wise one. You are correct. Eveyone else is wrong.

[Anonymous]

I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

[Anonymous]

And yes, my kid plays on a Classics team in Montgomery County only (I know, the horror!) so I'd like to stick with the rules that were instituted before we sent our team registration in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Np- Yes thou wise one. You are correct. Eveyone else is wrong.

No - most people agree wth me. You however are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

Don’t bother. It’s falling on deaf ears and little brains. Their source is the Washington Post, which ran a long article tonight on the high risks of flight, noting that 9000 people had been potentially exposed to 160 flyers known to have had a COVID (though the article notes with frustration how nobody has been shown to have caught it among the 9000 from flight transmission). Sounds like a lot of people exposed, right? Of course the article fails to mention how many total flyers there were over the course of the CDC study because the concept of relative risk is completely at odds with the Posts agenda to shut everything down except the Treasury (for writing checks) and the Washington Post. They have educated their readers just as they wanted, which basically means scientifically and statistically illiterate and innumerate.

[Anonymous]

For the people complaining that the MSI season started with the mask rule and should therefore stay, I went back and read the emails from MSI when soccer games finally got approved. They said that the mask rule was under review and that "whatever the County requires will have the force of law, and will be our rule." As I understand it, that email went to all registered recreational players, coaches, and to Classic managers and club contacts on August 28. They don't have all the Classic players information at that time because that is not how Classic works, so sorry if your team did not communicate that to you. You should have been told they'd follow the County and that it was under review. I was always 100% under the impression that MSI was going to do exactly what the County required; nothing more and nothing less.

I'd argue that they're being unfair if they did NOT change the rule to correlate with County rules, given that is exactly what they said they would do. Wouldn't surprise me if they still kept it because of people like some of you on here, but frankly, what would be their basis to go above and beyond the County rules that now endorse the AAP guidance? Is it really wise for an organization like that to go beyond government restrictions and flaunt the medical guidance that the state and now county have endorsed? And if the worst case happens and there is a serious cardiac event, can you imagine the liability now without the cover of being mandated by law?

Last, can I just say those of you arguing against masks period, can you take that elsehwere? And the same for those of you who are making the quantum leap that those of us against masks in this context are generally againt it. This is about masks for vigorous outdoor youth soccer. This isn't a mask debate. It's for a specific activity. I know countless families, like us, that are strong supporters of wearing masks but do not for this specific context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people complaining that the MSI season started with the mask rule and should therefore stay, I went back and read the emails from MSI when soccer games finally got approved. They said that the mask rule was under review and that "whatever the County requires will have the force of law, and will be our rule." As I understand it, that email went to all registered recreational players, coaches, and to Classic managers and club contacts on August 28. They don't have all the Classic players information at that time because that is not how Classic works, so sorry if your team did not communicate that to you. You should have been told they'd follow the County and that it was under review. I was always 100% under the impression that MSI was going to do exactly what the County required; nothing more and nothing less.

I'd argue that they're being unfair if they did NOT change the rule to correlate with County rules, given that is exactly what they said they would do. Wouldn't surprise me if they still kept it because of people like some of you on here, but frankly, what would be their basis to go above and beyond the County rules that now endorse the AAP guidance? Is it really wise for an organization like that to go beyond government restrictions and flaunt the medical guidance that the state and now county have endorsed? And if the worst case happens and there is a serious cardiac event, can you imagine the liability now without the cover of being mandated by law?

Last, can I just say those of you arguing against masks period, can you take that elsehwere? And the same for those of you who are making the quantum leap that those of us against masks in this context are generally againt it. This is about masks for vigorous outdoor youth soccer. This isn't a mask debate. It's for a specific activity. I know countless families, like us, that are strong supporters of wearing masks but do not for this specific context.

Very well said. I'm actually going to have my kids keep wearing it during games but I by no means feel that individuals or companies should have to enforce it if it's not mandated by county. If you signed up for soccer (or anything this fall) you are accepting the ebb and flow that goes along with a pandemic as eveyone treads these new waters.

We are not with MSI anymore but I'm sure they have worked very hard to try and put together a safe program to keep these kids active and healthy.

To constantly complain about things such as this is what will make companies give up and ultimately in a year or two there will little for parents to choose from.

Weren't they one of the only and first soccer companies that gave parents 100% refunds last spring?

How quickly we forget.

[Anonymous]

Last, can I just say those of you arguing against masks period, can you take that elsehwere?

When the idiots arguing for masks take it elsewhere, so will we.

[Anonymous]

I have two kids - U16 in travel and U11 in MSI Classic.

The travel league is not requiring masks and I am okay with that decision. The fields are full size and even with two teams on it and full contact play there's very little prolonged contact between players. They might be close to one player they are guarding or when they are tackling but there were rarely more than 3 kids together at any time and the plays were very quick.

MSI Classic made my stomach queasy. They were playing on on a tiny field and there were sometimes 6 or more kids crowded around trying to get a ball and the game progressed mostly like that. MSI also set up the games like a tournament with many games simultaneously going on at the same time so there was a lot of passing other people and kids to and from the fields.

In DC1's travel league the two games that have taken place were on fields where there were no other teams anywhere close by.

It could be an age thing too but I think those of you objecting to MSI's position on this should watch a few games of the younger kids first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

Don’t bother. It’s falling on deaf ears and little brains. Their source is the Washington Post, which ran a long article tonight on the high risks of flight, noting that 9000 people had been potentially exposed to 160 flyers known to have had a COVID (though the article notes with frustration how nobody has been shown to have caught it among the 9000 from flight transmission). Sounds like a lot of people exposed, right? Of course the article fails to mention how many total flyers there were over the course of the CDC study because the concept of relative risk is completely at odds with the Posts agenda to shut everything down except the Treasury (for writing checks) and the Washington Post. They have educated their readers just as they wanted, which basically means scientifically and statistically illiterate and innumerate.

your tin foil hats- do you buy them or make them yourselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

Don’t bother. It’s falling on deaf ears and little brains. Their source is the Washington Post, which ran a long article tonight on the high risks of flight, noting that 9000 people had been potentially exposed to 160 flyers known to have had a COVID (though the article notes with frustration how nobody has been shown to have caught it among the 9000 from flight transmission). Sounds like a lot of people exposed, right? Of course the article fails to mention how many total flyers there were over the course of the CDC study because the concept of relative risk is completely at odds with the Posts agenda to shut everything down except the Treasury (for writing checks) and the Washington Post. They have educated their readers just as they wanted, which basically means scientifically and statistically illiterate and innumerate.

your tin foil hats- do you buy them or make them yourselves?

Your brain, was it born dead or did you allow to get programmed and indoctrinated voluntarily?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

Are you going to provide a link to your 14 studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this isn't a link to a study but there are links in the article. Masks work.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

None of the links in the article lead to a study showing masks work. The evidence in favor of masks is very poor. It boils down to the fact that in some cases where amsks were introduced case rates have fallen. However correlation is very weak evidence, as there were many plausible reasons for cases to fall - and there are plenty of other data samples where mask rules not correlated with such a change. In other words - what this article is calling evidence is not evidence at all - and it is the opposite of science. The whole erason for having a scientific method is precisely that correlation proves nothing. and this is obviosuly doubly true when you can only even show correlation by cherry picking your evidence. This is witchcraft, not science.

The evidence against masks on the other hand is based on fourteen randomized controlled studies. In other words actual science experiments where you have a control group and an experimental group - bith of which are subject to identical circumstances except for the variable you intend to measure. There have been fourteen such studies done on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases, performed with scientific rigor and fully peer-reviewed. Every single one has shown no measurable effect. None.

Are you going to provide a link to your 14 studies?

Yes, I would like to see this. Or maybe hes referring to the recent study that compared 14 different masks. lol