Anonymous wrote:While my spouse and I don't feel the risk is that high from soccer, with all the new rules/spacing restrictions, etc. we feel it'll be such a huge pain in the ass that he's not volunteering to be a coach for our youngest kid's team again.

It was hard enough trying to maintain order at games and practices with one or two rambunctious kids, he can't imagine trying to follow all the rules and get training etc. on top of this. Our two kids aren't crazy about soccer anyway, so we'll have to find other ways for them to get some exercise.

Once we hit phase 3, most of the restrictions like that will be lifted.

Probably if they play travel, because games involve a fair amount of contact (there is always debate about what should be a foul and what is acceptable). More casual games should be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, they are at risk in absolutely everything they do. The question is whether the incremental risk outweighs the likely benefit of activity. The thought process is straightforward. There is a threshold question of the risk for children (and a particular child, given comorbidities) in getting it and developing serious health problems. There is an additional question about the incremental risk that playing soccer games creates relative to other risks for transmission, including (1) leaving the house, (2) walking in public places, (3) going on playdates, and (4) going to school. Then there is another question about how this incremental risk compares to the risk of getting in a car on a road with other cars, etc. Then there is the question of whether the slight slight slight slight incremental risk is outweighed the benefit. Or so a rational thinker would go through the inquiry. It's kids, so people can be forgiven for not thinking clearly through the risks, especially about their own children. We are living our lives sensibly but actively. But we also let our children zipline, go into the ocean, climb/hike.

no mention of the risk of carrying it to many adults.

Right, but how is that risk different than the risk arising from any of the other activities? Does soccer increase the risk of retransmission? Dont be obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:It would be very strange if our kids could not go to school but could go to soccer

How so? Because I immediately think of the many many differences in the two scenarios.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, they are at risk in absolutely everything they do. The question is whether the incremental risk outweighs the likely benefit of activity. The thought process is straightforward. There is a threshold question of the risk for children (and a particular child, given comorbidities) in getting it and developing serious health problems. There is an additional question about the incremental risk that playing soccer games creates relative to other risks for transmission, including (1) leaving the house, (2) walking in public places, (3) going on playdates, and (4) going to school. Then there is another question about how this incremental risk compares to the risk of getting in a car on a road with other cars, etc. Then there is the question of whether the slight slight slight slight incremental risk is outweighed the benefit. Or so a rational thinker would go through the inquiry. It's kids, so people can be forgiven for not thinking clearly through the risks, especially about their own children. We are living our lives sensibly but actively. But we also let our children zipline, go into the ocean, climb/hike.

no mention of the risk of carrying it to many adults.

While my spouse and I don't feel the risk is that high from soccer, with all the new rules/spacing restrictions, etc. we feel it'll be such a huge pain in the ass that he's not volunteering to be a coach for our youngest kid's team again.

It was hard enough trying to maintain order at games and practices with one or two rambunctious kids, he can't imagine trying to follow all the rules and get training etc. on top of this. Our two kids aren't crazy about soccer anyway, so we'll have to find other ways for them to get some exercise.

Anonymous wrote:It would be very strange if our kids could not go to school but could go to soccer

That actually wouldn't seem strange to me at all.

Anonymous wrote:Are our kids at risk playing soccer? Yes. There is risk to everything. Everything. There is risk is sitting in your closet and not coming out too. Life is a balancing act of risk. It all boils down to whether or not the risk is worth the reward. If I had the option, I would send my kids to school 5 days a week. I'd also let them play soccer. If there is a spike and hospitals are getting overwhelmed, I'd back off. Now if I was in charge of schools, I'm not sure what I'd do. Because it's hard to decide what risks others should take.

Yes!!! That's a good way to put it. I've been getting annoyed about the school threads. Even as a parent who wants my kids back in school, I am put off by the lack of regard for teachers and staff, no mention risks. Sure, kids don't get the sick and don't die . . . mostly. But if too many kids get COVID and school and give it to mom or dad (or worse grandma or grandpa), and the one of them takes it work, and so on and so on. I am so glad I am not making these decisions.

Back to soccer, I am struggling with this too. My short answer is "who the hell knows?" We are seeing my elderly parents in a week (a calculated risk) and are minimizing exposure in advance of that visit. After that, I'm not sure.

One of my kids has a chronic health condition. I would give up anything, including sports and full time school for my kids, if I could go back in time and eliminate DC's suffering. It isn't a condition that we could have prevented, but I'm saying that from a health perspective, there is more to worry about than death.

Even with that background, my kids love soccer, so I will probably let them play. I wish the return were slower, like maybe 3 v 3 competitions spread through the field.

Are our kids at risk playing soccer? Yes. There is risk to everything. Everything. There is risk is sitting in your closet and not coming out too. Life is a balancing act of risk. It all boils down to whether or not the risk is worth the reward. If I had the option, I would send my kids to school 5 days a week. I'd also let them play soccer. If there is a spike and hospitals are getting overwhelmed, I'd back off. Now if I was in charge of schools, I'm not sure what I'd do. Because it's hard to decide what risks others should take.

nothing is zero risk.
Kids playing soccer outdoors is lower risk IMo.

It would be very strange if our kids could not go to school but could go to soccer

Yes, they are at risk in absolutely everything they do. The question is whether the incremental risk outweighs the likely benefit of activity. The thought process is straightforward. There is a threshold question of the risk for children (and a particular child, given comorbidities) in getting it and developing serious health problems. There is an additional question about the incremental risk that playing soccer games creates relative to other risks for transmission, including (1) leaving the house, (2) walking in public places, (3) going on playdates, and (4) going to school. Then there is another question about how this incremental risk compares to the risk of getting in a car on a road with other cars, etc. Then there is the question of whether the slight slight slight slight incremental risk is outweighed the benefit. Or so a rational thinker would go through the inquiry. It's kids, so people can be forgiven for not thinking clearly through the risks, especially about their own children. We are living our lives sensibly but actively. But we also let our children zipline, go into the ocean, climb/hike.

Who really knows at this point. We are at like 2-4% of the population infected. When we get to 20-25% we will have a real good idea of who and why people get more sick. These thing run in waves. The first and second waves are the worst. We are at the beginning of the first wave. We have another 2-3 years of this.

All the stats above are based on kids not going to school, not playing sports, majority staying home while their family members do the grocery shopping, etc etc etc.

Can they really be used as an accurate guage?

I'm not talking about social distanced practices. I mean actually playing - regular practices, regular games. Full contact, no gloves, no masks, and yes - throw-ins. I get all the other reasons for not allowing kids to get together in close contact with one another - namely that they will trade germs and even if they don't get sick themselves they will increase the transmission rate among the community. I get that and it's a valid concern, especially for those who have regular contact with elderly relatives.

But I've also seen posters on here comment that the risk to the kids themselves is intolerably high. Is it really, though?

According to the CDC the hospitalization rate for ages 5-17 is .1 per 100,000. That's literally 1 in a million. It's not just the lowest risk of any other age group - it's a tiny fraction of the risk of any other age group. Here's the chart: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

Here's another which really puts in in perspective IMO. Even as the numbers have soared for other age groups (esp >65), for 17 and under they've barely moved. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

Also, by comparison, the hospitalization rates for the 5-17 yo age group for the regular flu in 2018-19 was around 39 per 100K. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html


To be clear - I'm not anti-shutdown or anti-mask. I don't think the whole thing is a hoax. I don't think Covid-19 is nothing worse than the normal flu. Over 115,000 people have died, and I'd be surprised if that number doesn't double before we get a vaccine. The flu doesn't kill that many people. So if someone wants to make the argument that it is socially irresponsible to let our kids play soccer because they will increase the spread of the disease overall and contribute to more deaths, I think that's a fair argument. But I'm specifically addressing the argument that we, as parents, are recklessly risking our children's health and possibly their lives by letting them play soccer. I just don't think the data supports that. Thoughts?