Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

You’re reading into the way you want. NO grouping is allowed at all except on the deck by members of the same household. Everything in the water has to be 10’ front another swimmer/person/instructor.

I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but I can’t understand why a family can be together on deck and not in the water. That has yet to be explained to me.

Because the kind of family on deck is the kind that can be independent in the pool, under these rules. There is no kiddie pool or holding kids and walking around with them. As a result, you’d not have little ones at the pool at all. You’d have older kids, who could follow the in-the-pool rules, on deck with their families.

Sorry, I'm still not clear. So a parent with a one year old can't work with that child in the water, but could conceivably hold the child in the lap on deck?

Is it conceivable that a parent could hold his/her young child in their lap on deck, but not be allowed to do the same within a pool?

If a family can reserve an indoor table at a restaurant, and sit together on a pool deck, why can't that same family reserve a baby pool for themselves and utilize it? Are pools allowed to have member family units reserve marked out areas of the pool for their family's use only? If not, why? How is that riskier than an indoor restaurant or even the beach? 

The state's regulations allow for Indoor and outdoor recreational sports may occur if ten feet of physical distance can be maintained by all instructors, participants, and spectators, with the exception of incidental contact or contact between members of the same household. Why then are family units prohibited from contact within a swimming pool?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

You’re reading into the way you want. NO grouping is allowed at all except on the deck by members of the same household. Everything in the water has to be 10’ front another swimmer/person/instructor.

I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but I can’t understand why a family can be together on deck and not in the water. That has yet to be explained to me.

Because the kind of family on deck is the kind that can be independent in the pool, under these rules. There is no kiddie pool or holding kids and walking around with them. As a result, you’d not have little ones at the pool at all. You’d have older kids, who could follow the in-the-pool rules, on deck with their families.

Sorry, I'm still not clear. So a parent with a one year old can't work with that child in the water, but could conceivably hold the child in the lap on deck?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

You’re reading into the way you want. NO grouping is allowed at all except on the deck by members of the same household. Everything in the water has to be 10’ front another swimmer/person/instructor.

I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but I can’t understand why a family can be together on deck and not in the water. That has yet to be explained to me.

Because the kind of family on deck is the kind that can be independent in the pool, under these rules. There is no kiddie pool or holding kids and walking around with them. As a result, you’d not have little ones at the pool at all. You’d have older kids, who could follow the in-the-pool rules, on deck with their families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

You’re reading into the way you want. NO grouping is allowed at all except on the deck by members of the same household. Everything in the water has to be 10’ front another swimmer/person/instructor.

I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but I can’t understand why a family can be together on deck and not in the water. That has yet to be explained to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

You’re reading into the way you want. NO grouping is allowed at all except on the deck by members of the same household. Everything in the water has to be 10’ front another swimmer/person/instructor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids in our neighborhood have been swimming in this filthy run off creek since the pool is closed. I can’t imagine this is better for public health than swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

....and someone on here thought parents would be able to control their kids at the pool and keep a distance from other kids. ("Why aren't we trusting that adults supervising children at a pool can make sure their kids are following the rules?")

You have to govern to the lowest level of stupid. Hence the slow phased approach.

If they aren’t going to be supervised, I would rather they be unsupervised swimming in a chlorinated pool with lifeguards. Kids are going to drown, get bacterial infections, etc. swimming in dirty water.

You are missing the point. In both scenarios the parents are acting irresponsible.

Um, have you seen some people's kids at restaurants, stores and malls? They don't supervise them at all. Do you think parents out to eat or shop with their kids are somehow more responsible than those who would go to a pool? Yet we are letting that happen. Irresponsible parents will be irresponsible at pools, stores, restaurants, whereever.

So we are basically just saying people are irresponsible everywhere so also let them be irresponsible at a pool and/or a dirty creek. Got it. Kick it down the curb. Makes sense.

No, what YOU are saying makes no sense. You are singling out pools as a place that should stay closed because some people are irresponsible. Meanwhile it's ok for other places where some people are irresponsible to open. If a place is not safe due to some people being irresponsible, it's not safe. So why open some of those places and not others?

Got it. YOU win. Now go print this out and show your family. Stick it on the fridge with a gold star.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

it appears to favor commercial swim enterprises over non-profit outdoor community pools.

So 'classes' are acceptable in the water. 'facilitated fun' is acceptable. 'swim instruction' is acceptable. But letting a family reserve a section of a pool, and just swim is verboten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

NP here. This Phase 2 guidance is ridiculous! It allows people to sit on the pool deck, but not recreational swimming?!? Only active swim exercising - lap swim, diving, water aerobics - is allowed.
Such BS.

It specifies lap swim only for phase 1 & 2. Recreational swimming is not allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

How so?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

thanks- that had not been posted. And it's outrageous.

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/phase-1-considerations-for-aquatic-facilities/
Sorry if this has already been posted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids in our neighborhood have been swimming in this filthy run off creek since the pool is closed. I can’t imagine this is better for public health than swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

....and someone on here thought parents would be able to control their kids at the pool and keep a distance from other kids. ("Why aren't we trusting that adults supervising children at a pool can make sure their kids are following the rules?")

You have to govern to the lowest level of stupid. Hence the slow phased approach.

If they aren’t going to be supervised, I would rather they be unsupervised swimming in a chlorinated pool with lifeguards. Kids are going to drown, get bacterial infections, etc. swimming in dirty water.

You are missing the point. In both scenarios the parents are acting irresponsible.

Um, have you seen some people's kids at restaurants, stores and malls? They don't supervise them at all. Do you think parents out to eat or shop with their kids are somehow more responsible than those who would go to a pool? Yet we are letting that happen. Irresponsible parents will be irresponsible at pools, stores, restaurants, whereever.

So we are basically just saying people are irresponsible everywhere so also let them be irresponsible at a pool and/or a dirty creek. Got it. Kick it down the curb. Makes sense.

No, what YOU are saying makes no sense. You are singling out pools as a place that should stay closed because some people are irresponsible. Meanwhile it's ok for other places where some people are irresponsible to open. If a place is not safe due to some people being irresponsible, it's not safe. So why open some of those places and not others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids in our neighborhood have been swimming in this filthy run off creek since the pool is closed. I can’t imagine this is better for public health than swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

....and someone on here thought parents would be able to control their kids at the pool and keep a distance from other kids. ("Why aren't we trusting that adults supervising children at a pool can make sure their kids are following the rules?")

You have to govern to the lowest level of stupid. Hence the slow phased approach.

If they aren’t going to be supervised, I would rather they be unsupervised swimming in a chlorinated pool with lifeguards. Kids are going to drown, get bacterial infections, etc. swimming in dirty water.

You are missing the point. In both scenarios the parents are acting irresponsible.

Um, have you seen some people's kids at restaurants, stores and malls? They don't supervise them at all. Do you think parents out to eat or shop with their kids are somehow more responsible than those who would go to a pool? Yet we are letting that happen. Irresponsible parents will be irresponsible at pools, stores, restaurants, whereever.

So we are basically just saying people are irresponsible everywhere so also let them be irresponsible at a pool and/or a dirty creek. Got it. Kick it down the curb. Makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:Our pool is two blocks from our house. LOL at the idea that driving somewhere to rent a boat (??!!!) and sit in the heat on a boat is just as simple and fun as walking to our free private pool.

"Free private pool"? I've never heard of such a thing! Tell me where that is, I'm on my way! We pay $600+/year.