Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.

No, no, no, no! This so-called "risk-benefit" analysis is all off. The knee-jerk reaction to tend to an allow an activity if it stimulates the economy and disallow it if the reverse is true is not science-based and is not how we will stop the spread. It also has the effect of leaving our children to disproportionately bear the burden of this pandemic because the activities that bring them joy and serve their (very real!) needs don't tend to generate much $$$$. What should be happening, alas, is that our government should be bailing out restaurant owners and other business owners. The fact (hello science, research, data!!) is that restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. do in fact spread COVID. Outside, fleeting interactions like TOT -- not so much, or at least much less so. We will be TOTing (with masks, of course, and with effort to maintain physical distance) because the risk is low and the benefit to my daughter's mental-health is substantial. TOT it is a Big. Fat. Deal. to her. Don't be so quick to dismiss special traditions like this for a child as trifling frivolities. Think about how just one special night out, a date-night, etc. can recharge and sustain you mentally and emotionally for quite some time! She has sacrificed A LOT this year -- A LOT!!! -- and trust me, we are doing our best to help her develop grit, not play the victim. But, darn it, I'm allowing her this because the risk is in fact low. And I'd be lying if the fact that the adults in my neighborhood are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities regularly didn't factor into my thought process.

So true, and so sad and enraging. The government is not doing its job so we all must consume, consume, consume to keep businesses afloat, meanwhile anything that helps kids flourish outside the home is too dangerous. Our poor, lonely, resilient kids.

I am lucky that my older kid has other plans he's excited about with our immediate household, so we won't be TOTing, but I'm not judging people who are. I think it's lower risk than outdoor dining, which plenty of adults are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.

No, no, no, no! This so-called "risk-benefit" analysis is all off. The knee-jerk reaction to tend to an allow an activity if it stimulates the economy and disallow it if the reverse is true is not science-based and is not how we will stop the spread. It also has the effect of leaving our children to disproportionately bear the burden of this pandemic because the activities that bring them joy and serve their (very real!) needs don't tend to generate much $$$$. What should be happening, alas, is that our government should be bailing out restaurant owners and other business owners. The fact (hello science, research, data!!) is that restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. do in fact spread COVID. Outside, fleeting interactions like TOT -- not so much, or at least much less so. We will be TOTing (with masks, of course, and with effort to maintain physical distance) because the risk is low and the benefit to my daughter's mental-health is substantial. TOT it is a Big. Fat. Deal. to her. Don't be so quick to dismiss special traditions like this for a child as trifling frivolities. Think about how just one special night out, a date-night, etc. can recharge and sustain you mentally and emotionally for quite some time! She has sacrificed A LOT this year -- A LOT!!! -- and trust me, we are doing our best to help her develop grit, not play the victim. But, darn it, I'm allowing her this because the risk is in fact low. And I'd be lying if the fact that the adults in my neighborhood are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities regularly didn't factor into my thought process.

I agree with you that we haven’t prioritized reopenings the way we should have. I agree with you that the government should bail out businesses and keep restaurants closed for indoor dining, but they’re not doing that. Our pandemic response has been terrible. There’s more common ground between you and I than you would think, but WTH with your last sentence? You think the adults in your neighborhood “are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities,” so that’s why you’re determined to take your kid to their houses to collect candy from them?!

My daughter will have a fleeting, outdoor, masked interactions with said adults, so, yes, it is a TINY risk that I am willing to take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.

No, no, no, no! This so-called "risk-benefit" analysis is all off. The knee-jerk reaction to tend to an allow an activity if it stimulates the economy and disallow it if the reverse is true is not science-based and is not how we will stop the spread. It also has the effect of leaving our children to disproportionately bear the burden of this pandemic because the activities that bring them joy and serve their (very real!) needs don't tend to generate much $$$$. What should be happening, alas, is that our government should be bailing out restaurant owners and other business owners. The fact (hello science, research, data!!) is that restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. do in fact spread COVID. Outside, fleeting interactions like TOT -- not so much, or at least much less so. We will be TOTing (with masks, of course, and with effort to maintain physical distance) because the risk is low and the benefit to my daughter's mental-health is substantial. TOT it is a Big. Fat. Deal. to her. Don't be so quick to dismiss special traditions like this for a child as trifling frivolities. Think about how just one special night out, a date-night, etc. can recharge and sustain you mentally and emotionally for quite some time! She has sacrificed A LOT this year -- A LOT!!! -- and trust me, we are doing our best to help her develop grit, not play the victim. But, darn it, I'm allowing her this because the risk is in fact low. And I'd be lying if the fact that the adults in my neighborhood are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities regularly didn't factor into my thought process.

I agree with you that we haven’t prioritized reopenings the way we should have. I agree with you that the government should bail out businesses and keep restaurants closed for indoor dining, but they’re not doing that. Our pandemic response has been terrible. There’s more common ground between you and I than you would think, but WTH with your last sentence? You think the adults in your neighborhood “are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities,” so that’s why you’re determined to take your kid to their houses to collect candy from them?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.

No, no, no, no! This so-called "risk-benefit" analysis is all off. The knee-jerk reaction to tend to an allow an activity if it stimulates the economy and disallow it if the reverse is true is not science-based and is not how we will stop the spread. It also has the effect of leaving our children to disproportionately bear the burden of this pandemic because the activities that bring them joy and serve their (very real!) needs don't tend to generate much $$$$. What should be happening, alas, is that our government should be bailing out restaurant owners and other business owners. The fact (hello science, research, data!!) is that restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. do in fact spread COVID. Outside, fleeting interactions like TOT -- not so much, or at least much less so. We will be TOTing (with masks, of course, and with effort to maintain physical distance) because the risk is low and the benefit to my daughter's mental-health is substantial. TOT it is a Big. Fat. Deal. to her. Don't be so quick to dismiss special traditions like this for a child as trifling frivolities. Think about how just one special night out, a date-night, etc. can recharge and sustain you mentally and emotionally for quite some time! She has sacrificed A LOT this year -- A LOT!!! -- and trust me, we are doing our best to help her develop grit, not play the victim. But, darn it, I'm allowing her this because the risk is in fact low. And I'd be lying if the fact that the adults in my neighborhood are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities regularly didn't factor into my thought process.

Completely agree with this. This is exactly what's going on here. We know restaurants, bars, and gyms help spread the virus. But it's apparently an important trade-off for the economy-- more so than school, which is a lifeline for many poor kids.

The "risk-benefit" calculation has been so off during this entire pandemic. Trick-or-treating is the least of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re right that one kid and their parents going door to door, wearing a mask and interacting very briefly with masked homeowners, isn’t terribly risky.

But think about what Trick or Treat usually looks like in neighborhoods with lots of kids and easy access to houses: multiple groups of kids and adults, crowding on doorsteps and sidewalks, hanging out chatting on porches and in yards, in many places sharing beverages and treats for parents as well. That’s the kind of thing that could easily become a superspreader event within a neighborhood, especially if adults are unmasked to eat and drink. Or if kids want to eat that favorite candy bar, so they take their mask off, and maybe share it with a buddy while mom and dad aren’t looking.

In other words, the official guidance isn’t about individual risk, it’s about public health.

THIS. This is the problem. It's not like your kid is the only kid who will be out trick or treating. You will be having kids from all over the place who otherwise wouldn't be coming into contact with each other all walking down the same sidewalks, etc.

Nah, this isn't the problem. You need to be in close contact breathing the same air with no air circulation. That doesn't describe outside events at all.

Also "superspreader" has come to mean anything over like 1 these days so now it's become an ineffective argumnet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.

No, no, no, no! This so-called "risk-benefit" analysis is all off. The knee-jerk reaction to tend to an allow an activity if it stimulates the economy and disallow it if the reverse is true is not science-based and is not how we will stop the spread. It also has the effect of leaving our children to disproportionately bear the burden of this pandemic because the activities that bring them joy and serve their (very real!) needs don't tend to generate much $$$$. What should be happening, alas, is that our government should be bailing out restaurant owners and other business owners. The fact (hello science, research, data!!) is that restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. do in fact spread COVID. Outside, fleeting interactions like TOT -- not so much, or at least much less so. We will be TOTing (with masks, of course, and with effort to maintain physical distance) because the risk is low and the benefit to my daughter's mental-health is substantial. TOT it is a Big. Fat. Deal. to her. Don't be so quick to dismiss special traditions like this for a child as trifling frivolities. Think about how just one special night out, a date-night, etc. can recharge and sustain you mentally and emotionally for quite some time! She has sacrificed A LOT this year -- A LOT!!! -- and trust me, we are doing our best to help her develop grit, not play the victim. But, darn it, I'm allowing her this because the risk is in fact low. And I'd be lying if the fact that the adults in my neighborhood are willy-nilly engaging in far riskier activities regularly didn't factor into my thought process.

Anonymous wrote:why can't my kids go door to door but most people are doing take out and the drive thru (I am too)? If someone is sick, I hope they dont go to work and I hope they wouldn't answer the door. In both cases, everyone is masked. One is done outside and the other in a building. One I am in front of someone for a few seconds and the other I could be in a store for 5-15 minutes. The main difference is I can "quarantine" the candy but I will immediately eat the take out.

I am not clear on the issue with ToT to be honest. My kid is just right past the age but if she had wanted to go I would have said sure

People don't need to get that close to hand out candy. They aren't licking the wrappers or their hands before giving it to your child. And your kid doesn't even to touch it.

For families that are really concerned, wear gloves to give out the candy or have your kids wear them.

It's outside, it's usually less than 2 hours duration and that's not with a single person but highly spread out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re right that one kid and their parents going door to door, wearing a mask and interacting very briefly with masked homeowners, isn’t terribly risky.

But think about what Trick or Treat usually looks like in neighborhoods with lots of kids and easy access to houses: multiple groups of kids and adults, crowding on doorsteps and sidewalks, hanging out chatting on porches and in yards, in many places sharing beverages and treats for parents as well. That’s the kind of thing that could easily become a superspreader event within a neighborhood, especially if adults are unmasked to eat and drink. Or if kids want to eat that favorite candy bar, so they take their mask off, and maybe share it with a buddy while mom and dad aren’t looking.

In other words, the official guidance isn’t about individual risk, it’s about public health.

Yes if they're unmasked. But the protests proved that it was safe for mass gatherings as long as we are masked and outside. This isn't different, except it's kids.

The protests proved that lots of people got lucky that COVID was never directly attributed to those protests. Driving drunk and getting home safely multiple times doesn't mean driving drunk is safe. It means you got lucky.

Anonymous wrote:You’re right that one kid and their parents going door to door, wearing a mask and interacting very briefly with masked homeowners, isn’t terribly risky.

But think about what Trick or Treat usually looks like in neighborhoods with lots of kids and easy access to houses: multiple groups of kids and adults, crowding on doorsteps and sidewalks, hanging out chatting on porches and in yards, in many places sharing beverages and treats for parents as well. That’s the kind of thing that could easily become a superspreader event within a neighborhood, especially if adults are unmasked to eat and drink. Or if kids want to eat that favorite candy bar, so they take their mask off, and maybe share it with a buddy while mom and dad aren’t looking.

In other words, the official guidance isn’t about individual risk, it’s about public health.

THIS. This is the problem. It's not like your kid is the only kid who will be out trick or treating. You will be having kids from all over the place who otherwise wouldn't be coming into contact with each other all walking down the same sidewalks, etc.

Anonymous wrote:OP, your kids can go trick or treating.

We are putting out treats and not answering the door. It will be fine and much like takeout.

+1

OP, your kids can go trick or treating.

We are putting out treats and not answering the door. It will be fine and much like takeout.

^^ oh forgot to add: we had huge protests (for good cause) this summer, and there was no mass transmission. People (mostly) wore masks and spaced out. I fail to see how this is much different.

honestly this whole pandemic has been about virtue signaling/security theater with no real strategy or action. This Halloween stuff is more of the same.

Temp checks, deep cleaning, etc etc— from what we know about this virus, neither is actually very helpful in preventing transmission. And yet we keep putting these “measures” into place to make people feel safe.

I do think people gathering in groups is a problem; a lot of families do pre-trick or treating pictures or parties. So perhaps they’re targeting that. But in general, I think the total ban is pretty dumb and think many families (maybe not more than 50% but enough) will ignore it.

Anonymous wrote:You’re right that one kid and their parents going door to door, wearing a mask and interacting very briefly with masked homeowners, isn’t terribly risky.

But think about what Trick or Treat usually looks like in neighborhoods with lots of kids and easy access to houses: multiple groups of kids and adults, crowding on doorsteps and sidewalks, hanging out chatting on porches and in yards, in many places sharing beverages and treats for parents as well. That’s the kind of thing that could easily become a superspreader event within a neighborhood, especially if adults are unmasked to eat and drink. Or if kids want to eat that favorite candy bar, so they take their mask off, and maybe share it with a buddy while mom and dad aren’t looking.

In other words, the official guidance isn’t about individual risk, it’s about public health.

Yes if they're unmasked. But the protests proved that it was safe for mass gatherings as long as we are masked and outside. This isn't different, except it's kids.

Anonymous wrote:No activity is risk free. It’s about risk vs benefit. Keeping restaurants open is vital for the economy. Celebrating Halloween in a traditional manner is not. It’s just one day, and finding a socially distant way to celebrate isn’t a huge deal. I think encouraging people not to trick or treat as usual will cut down on before and after parties, and generally help folks remember that these are not normal times. It is very hard to control mask wearing and distancing just out on the street as opposed to in a park or store. The last thing you want to do before flu season starts is seed more chains of infection for no good reason.

This. We’re all going to be exposed to some risk, but if we cut out unnecessary risks, transmission rates will be lower. I need groceries, but I don’t need to obtain candy from 20 different households. My kids can go for a walk (masked) in their costumes during the day on Halloween and I’m sure they’ll get compliments from neighbors. I can buy their favorite candies and create a candy scavenger hunt at home. We can have fun while limiting contacts with others. I’m not buying candy for trick or treaters, so don’t waste your time coming to my house.