Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Yes it is invasive, It's also ridiculous.

Why on earth do you need to know if you played on the same field?

The odds of your kids catching a virus from the field beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field before your child are negligible.

The odds of your child catching a virus beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field after your child are zero.

Not the PP but I agree the team should be identified along with the time frame. Keeping the community safe is the most important thing.

Out of curiosity, do you think anybody positively tested should be publicly posted, along with name, address, work or school location? If not, why not?

No just as an employee shouldn't be identified but the place of employment should.

But then people presume everybody there is positive. So that is actually not useful information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Yes it is invasive, It's also ridiculous.

Why on earth do you need to know if you played on the same field?

The odds of your kids catching a virus from the field beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field before your child are negligible.

The odds of your child catching a virus beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field after your child are zero.

Not the PP but I agree the team should be identified along with the time frame. Keeping the community safe is the most important thing.

Out of curiosity, do you think anybody positively tested should be publicly posted, along with name, address, work or school location? If not, why not?

No just as an employee shouldn't be identified but the place of employment should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Yes it is invasive, It's also ridiculous.

Why on earth do you need to know if you played on the same field?

The odds of your kids catching a virus from the field beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field before your child are negligible.

The odds of your child catching a virus beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field after your child are zero.

Not the PP but I agree the team should be identified along with the time frame. Keeping the community safe is the most important thing.

Out of curiosity, do you think anybody positively tested should be publicly posted, along with name, address, work or school location? If not, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Yes it is invasive, It's also ridiculous.

Why on earth do you need to know if you played on the same field?

The odds of your kids catching a virus from the field beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field before your child are negligible.

The odds of your child catching a virus beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field after your child are zero.

Not the PP but I agree the team should be identified along with the time frame. Keeping the community safe is the most important thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Yes it is invasive, It's also ridiculous.

Why on earth do you need to know if you played on the same field?

The odds of your kids catching a virus from the field beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field before your child are negligible.

The odds of your child catching a virus beacuse somebody who later tested positive was on the field after your child are zero.

Anonymous wrote:We are not asking for kids names. We do want to know what teams so we can know whether or not we played against or at the same field as them before or after. Just want to be able to contact trace and monitor. Thats not to invasive of anyones privacy is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

Yes it is it. Tyranny is when the state imposes its will on the people by force. You might decided that you approve of tyranny in this case - but please don't claim it isn't tyranny - because it is the very defintion of tyranny.

Call me when there's an agent of the state on your doorstep with a gun to do a mask check. Until then, no.

Plenty of cases of this already. Try and open your small business without requiring masks in many states and see if you get left alone.

and rightfully so. the right thing to do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

Yes it is it. Tyranny is when the state imposes its will on the people by force. You might decided that you approve of tyranny in this case - but please don't claim it isn't tyranny - because it is the very defintion of tyranny.

Call me when there's an agent of the state on your doorstep with a gun to do a mask check. Until then, no.

Plenty of cases of this already. Try and open your small business without requiring masks in many states and see if you get left alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your life is “destroyed” because your kid has to work on skills instead of playing contact games for one or two seasons, something is very, very wrong with your life.

It's the children's lives that we're talking about -- not ours. Let's just let the kids LIVE LIFE and play -- don't deny them doing what they love because some people are scared a virus that's demonstrably over-hyped and where the risks to children are minuscule, similar to many other disease and non-disease risks (like driving in a car on 495) that we take every day.

No one is saying anyone else should be forced to leave their basement and come to watch a soccer game; no one is saying anyone should be forced to sign their kid up to play soccer. What we are pushing back against is fearmongering and using the power of the state for stop others from living life, based on our own evaluation of the risks.

Look, my own kids are playing soccer, so we're not hiding in the basement. But if you think the only reason to keep them out of this stuff is risk to your own kids, you're choosing to ignore a larger point: that asymptomatic kids can spread it to others. Not caring is your choice, but you should own it, and not pretend that those tyrannical other people are the ones doing it wrong.

I strongly disagree with the way you are looking at this. If we wish to have a free society, we must accept that not all people will evaluate risks the same way and that people will behave differently. If we choose not to accept that and attempt to force everyone to obey the orders of "one who decides for all" then that is the very definition of tyranny. If you wish people to wear masks without tyranny then you simply ask them nicely. To the extent that you can convince people that a disease is serious, and that masks are beneficial, then peope will sensibly do as you ask. If of course you ask people to wear masks without evidence that they work and because there is a bad 'flu this year then they are likely to ignore you. And if you then attempt to force them to do so - then yes indeed that is tyranny.

And it is not "not caring" provided that you behave in the same way you wish to be treated yourself. So - if the PP here would not wish to force others to stay inside for his benefit because he deems that quality of life is worth more than the risk to life - then he is not "not caring" at all. He is making what he views as the best choice for himself and for others.

Not caring would be the type of person who thought it was reasonable to restrict others' behavior but ignored the regulations himself.

Sorry, but you totally and completely lose me by invoking "tyranny," because no matter how much you may dislike it, this ain't it.

Yes it is it. Tyranny is when the state imposes its will on the people by force. You might decided that you approve of tyranny in this case - but please don't claim it isn't tyranny - because it is the very defintion of tyranny.

Call me when there's an agent of the state on your doorstep with a gun to do a mask check. Until then, no.