I think this is an important question, but it's easy to see this conversation getting out of hand. First, let's narrow the definition of "risk" to "the risk of catching the virus while playing/training". Then we don't have to argue about how bad (or not) it is for kids to catch it ("kids don't get symptoms!", "what if they give it to their grandparents!").

I'm not an expert, but I've tried to follow the evidence as it comes out. It seems like the consensus about the most risky behavior is something like: 1) inside; 2) poor air circulation; 3) close to each other; 4) without masks; 5) for a longer time; 6) talking/singing/yelling. Playing soccer doesn't have most of those qualities. Yes, there is some contact/closeness (and without masks), but it is typically fleeting. And coaches can try to keep them apart a bit when lining up for drills or huddling before/after games.

So, I'd guess that playing soccer is a fairly low risk activity for kids. Probably just about as low as you could invent for them doing something "together" that wasn't completely contrived. Maybe riding bikes together would be lower? If the prevalence of the virus in the community is relatively low (as it is getting in the DMV), I'd feel pretty comfortable with my kids playing. If the prevalence was quite high, or increasing rapidly, I wouldn't be comfortable.

(For context, I wear a mask when I go inside a public place or am near others outside for more than a passing moment; and I try to do as much stuff as I can outside.)

The risks remain the same as before - broken bones, torn knees, concussions. COVID-19 risk is minimal.

What are the risks to our kids from shutting down the world for COVID-19? Educational deficits, lack of exercise, lack of socialization, increased hunger and poverty (outside of our wealthy bubble). But hey as long as they don't get COVID-19, it's all good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG enough already!!!! If you are worried keep your kid home til there's a vaccine. Stop trying to suggest its not worth playing. Sorry you are hesitant but majority aren't and want to move forward. If you're not wanting to play then just go away. Stop trying to discourage others from making their own choices. Just stay in your lane please.

I didn’t know the risk was less now than it was 3 months ago.

It's not.

Anonymous wrote:OMG enough already!!!! If you are worried keep your kid home til there's a vaccine. Stop trying to suggest its not worth playing. Sorry you are hesitant but majority aren't and want to move forward. If you're not wanting to play then just go away. Stop trying to discourage others from making their own choices. Just stay in your lane please.

I didn’t know the risk was less now than it was 3 months ago.

OMG enough already!!!! If you are worried keep your kid home til there's a vaccine. Stop trying to suggest its not worth playing. Sorry you are hesitant but majority aren't and want to move forward. If you're not wanting to play then just go away. Stop trying to discourage others from making their own choices. Just stay in your lane please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death rate for those infected under the age 19 is 0.001%. For those who don’t have the Math Skills, that is 1 death per 9,999 INFECTED!

Now if you have an Elderly at home, it could be a worry depending on that persons health.

again, the death rate for children is irrelevant. how is this hard to understand what the issue is with children spreading it? jesus

So thousands upon thousands of people can protest without social distancing and you are worried about some kids soccer tournament? Got it.

Duh, obviously.

Anonymous wrote:Death rate for those infected under the age 19 is 0.001%. For those who don’t have the Math Skills, that is 1 death per 9,999 INFECTED!

Now if you have an Elderly at home, it could be a worry depending on that persons health.

again, the death rate for children is irrelevant. how is this hard to understand what the issue is with children spreading it? jesus

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.


But I'm saying even with physical contact, the risk seems so small that it's not really worth worrying about.

I don't agree, but my soccer player's sibling has diabetes.

Death rate for those infected under the age 19 is 0.001%. For those who don’t have the Math Skills, that is 1 death per 9,999 INFECTED!

Now if you have an Elderly at home, it could be a worry depending on that persons health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, note the question and the top of the thread, and also, how are those many adults getting exposed to the kids unless they are not practicing social distancing. The rest of us are not putting our lives on hold because somebody somewhere feels like a soccer game increases their risk of getting sick from opening their mail. It is stupidity in the extreme.

Right now majority of children and young adults are "isolated" to a degree. Throw youth sports back into the mix and one carrier could easily spread it to 8 others, and they spread it to their parents (because I dont know about you but im not social distancing from my own family inside my house), the parents spread it, etc etc. Its one of the reasons schools were first entity to close (coupled with the unknowns of the virus effect on children), and the reason that schools are already planning for the fall with new schedules and tele-learning.

Its exponentially more risky to the population as a whole.

This is Ridiculous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, note the question and the top of the thread, and also, how are those many adults getting exposed to the kids unless they are not practicing social distancing. The rest of us are not putting our lives on hold because somebody somewhere feels like a soccer game increases their risk of getting sick from opening their mail. It is stupidity in the extreme.

Right now majority of children and young adults are "isolated" to a degree. Throw youth sports back into the mix and one carrier could easily spread it to 8 others, and they spread it to their parents (because I dont know about you but im not social distancing from my own family inside my house), the parents spread it, etc etc. Its one of the reasons schools were first entity to close (coupled with the unknowns of the virus effect on children), and the reason that schools are already planning for the fall with new schedules and tele-learning.

Its exponentially more risky to the population as a whole.

Anonymous wrote: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.

But I'm saying even with physical contact, the risk seems so small that it's not really worth worrying about.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

thats not being obtuse. You implied the risk of developing serious health problems was low. Yet didnt mention the clear risk of infection, no health issues, yet spreading it near and far.

And the comparisons to car accidents, heart disease etc is sooooo dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, note the question and the top of the thread, and also, how are those many adults getting exposed to the kids unless they are not practicing social distancing. The rest of us are not putting our lives on hold because somebody somewhere feels like a soccer game increases their risk of getting sick from opening their mail. It is stupidity in the extreme.