Anonymous wrote:Give me liberty or give me death, literally. That is what is being discussed. Really interesting study in sociology and personal choice vs. group choice, freedom v. societal health and trading one risk for another.

I don't think that is correct at all. Most people exercising liberty will not have death. They will make choices based on their assessment of risk. Conversely, if everybody stayed home, but the virus did not disappear, then we'd have no liberty for an extended period of time and then death when lockdown lifts. I don't think it is complicated at all. If you go out, you are exercising liberty, and if you stay in, you are exercising liberty, and if you worry about those going out, you can minimize risk to yourself. It's not like anybody is forcing people to leave their home, and if we cannot get a vaccine, then the people who are out are moving us to herd immunity, and those that stay home are free riding. But nobody s going to force people not to free ride. That is how both groups of people can exercise their liberty and we all move forward, absent a threat to hospital bed capacity, in which case lockdown would once again be appropriate.

Give me liberty or give me death, literally. That is what is being discussed. Really interesting study in sociology and personal choice vs. group choice, freedom v. societal health and trading one risk for another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!").

From what we have seen to date, I think the COVID-19 risk from soccer is minimal. COVID-19 spread outdoors is rare. The recent large-scale protests have not led to increased cases in urban areas with major protests including DC. It looks like you can have thousands of people shoulder to shoulder outdoors and have minimal COVID-19 spread. The contact in soccer is fleeting and the sport is played in a large outdoor space, not like a wrestling match as a contrast.

Minneapolis is just starting to see and report on a spike. We havent even hit 14 days yet from the first night of protests. Your entire second paragraph is jumping the gun.

Agreed it will take some more time to fully assess. But we are 3 weeks past the start of the Minneapolis protests and over 14 days past the start of the nationwide protests (weekend of 5/30 - 5/31). The data I have seen out of Minnesota looks good.

https://www.twincities.com/2020/06/12/mn-coronavirus-george-floyd-early-test-results-show-few-protesters/
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!").

From what we have seen to date, I think the COVID-19 risk from soccer is minimal. COVID-19 spread outdoors is rare. The recent large-scale protests have not led to increased cases in urban areas with major protests including DC. It looks like you can have thousands of people shoulder to shoulder outdoors and have minimal COVID-19 spread. The contact in soccer is fleeting and the sport is played in a large outdoor space, not like a wrestling match as a contrast.

Minneapolis is just starting to see and report on a spike. We havent even hit 14 days yet from the first night of protests. Your entire second paragraph is jumping the gun.

Anonymous wrote:I think we'll get a better sense of risk based on whether our clubs ask us to sign risk release forms for covid.

You already sign releases for a variety of things for travel soccer. (I think you either don't have a kid in travel soccer or sign things without reading.) That doesn't make the risks against which the release protects the club more or less likely. Nor, with something like Covid -- which can be caught from any number of sources outside the soccer field -- reflect anything about the risk of the activity for which you are signing the release. It reflects a preference not to be sued, which most of us share. If you don't like it, don't sign it. We all know the risks. You can decide accordingly.

I think we'll get a better sense of risk based on whether our clubs ask us to sign risk release forms for covid.

Anonymous wrote: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!").

From what we have seen to date, I think the COVID-19 risk from soccer is minimal. COVID-19 spread outdoors is rare. The recent large-scale protests have not led to increased cases in urban areas with major protests including DC. It looks like you can have thousands of people shoulder to shoulder outdoors and have minimal COVID-19 spread. The contact in soccer is fleeting and the sport is played in a large outdoor space, not like a wrestling match as a contrast.