Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2. If your kid doesn't wear a mask, it removes protection for my kid - so everyone do their own thing - once again, doesn't work.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that masks protect either the wearer or anyone else. There have been fourteen randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks, some of them conducted in indoor environments and with patients who are actually ill, and they have all shown no measurable effect. Zero. Nada. Zippy.

In addition contact tracing from countries where it was implemented early and strictly has shown that
- asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare
- outdoor spread even from symptomatic carriers is also exceedingly rare.

These masks do nothing at all.

You are the reason we are not going to be able to get back to normal any time soon.

Anonymous wrote:

2. If your kid doesn't wear a mask, it removes protection for my kid - so everyone do their own thing - once again, doesn't work.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that masks protect either the wearer or anyone else. There have been fourteen randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of masks, some of them conducted in indoor environments and with patients who are actually ill, and they have all shown no measurable effect. Zero. Nada. Zippy.

In addition contact tracing from countries where it was implemented early and strictly has shown that
- asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare
- outdoor spread even from symptomatic carriers is also exceedingly rare.

These masks do nothing at all.

2. If your kid doesn't wear a mask, it removes protection for my kid - so everyone do their own thing - once again, doesn't work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We decided to let our kids play based on the mask requirement. I'll be so pissed if they change it AFTER games are underway.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

This theory would only work if your entire schedule was in moco? Then I could see the concern.

The rule was added on a few days after the game initiaiton. And the first day they made this rule, most people on here were sure it would be gone within a couple weeks. I wouldnt have based an entire seasons plans on a rule that was questionable from the start.

There are Rec, Classic and Sam Leagues that purely plays in MoCo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We decided to let our kids play based on the mask requirement. I'll be so pissed if they change it AFTER games are underway.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

This theory would only work if your entire schedule was in moco? Then I could see the concern.

The rule was added on a few days after the game initiaiton. And the first day they made this rule, most people on here were sure it would be gone within a couple weeks. I wouldnt have based an entire seasons plans on a rule that was questionable from the start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We decided to let our kids play based on the mask requirement. I'll be so pissed if they change it AFTER games are underway.

This is a good point. I would hope leagues would stay consistent on this.

Our team decided the opposite - that kids playing in games with masks isn't safe, so I guess they won't be playing games because they didn't register?

Exactly. You guys made your decision based on the guidelines and we made ours. Whatever rules they made should stand for the season. Our team was on the fence until the mask mandate was put into place. Once it was in place we decided to play. If they change it, we may loose 5 or 6 kids and not have enough to play games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miraculously, none of the girls on my dd’s team have suffered from hypoxia!

So your empirical sample of 15 girls in MoCo playing soccer for a few weeks has value compared to the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, and AAP. Sure ... keep telling yourself that. Nobody is saying kids are gonna drop like flies wearing masks. But there seems to be enough there that so many experts do not recommend it for vigorous activities.

No one dies driving 65/70 MPH either but the speed limit is 55.

It’s very easy. If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t play.

Don’t be a Rebel without a Cause. Not that hard for you to move your DC to VA to play if you’re so against masks. No one is forcing you to play in MoCo.

Can we please just get back to purpose of this post - was this rule changed for all of MOCO? Why are we only hearing it from Soccerplex?

Not what this thread is about though the wilful ignorance is consistent with some other posts but in fact it is well established that higher vehicular travel speeds are significantly more dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760-more-deaths-study-shows/

The irrationality on this forum runs amok. Do you all drive at 55 mph on the highway? How many people do you see driving at that speed on any highway? If you don't, the analogy of speed limits (analogy with mask rule) is also then an invitation to pretty much ignore the said limit (the mask rule) during game play.

To another PP, just like noone is forcing our kids to play in masked soccer in MoCo, noone is forcing your kid to play soccer with unmasked kids. Instead, my kid is forced to go outside the county to play soccer without a dripping mask clinging to her face and impeding her breathing 10 minutes into the game.

So how about this arrangement? Your kid wears a mask during game play, mine doesn't. And the team playing against us, who might be from another county, exercises the same autonomy of choice. If you think mask-wearing during vigorous play is appropriate, please feel free to convince other team parents. You will have the challenge though of finding a single reputed authority whose guidelines support that view. Not that has stopped anyone from pushing any pet-paranoia unsupported by logic, evidence, and (that much-abused word) "science".

To yet another PP. The AAP guidelines clearly recommend masks for "non-vigorous activity where social distancing is not possible". How can Soccerplex's interpretation of these words be considered as "loose" (your words, not mine). By which argument would a soccer game qualify as "non-vigorous" physical activity? The soccer that my kids and their teammates play (don't know about yours) is a highly vigorous activity, which involves doing multiple sprints every minute. To repeat myself, there is no reputable authority that stipulates mask-wearing during an activity of this nature. They are probably well-aware of the risk of being sued if a mask-wearing teenage athlete faints.

Finally, a plea to the single-issue parents. If you are forcing (or scaring) your kids to play in masks at any decent level of soccer, please do your research, take a step back, and think with a mind uncluttered by the media-driven monomaniacal representation of risks. The chance of catching Covid during incidental contact from another child outdoors is exceedingly small - there is a large body of peer reviewed evidence out there to strongly suggest that. On the flip side, the risk of impeded breathing during an intense activity, especially if it is occurring repeatedly over a period of time (in this case, weeks and months), leads to significantly diminished lung performance, which, logic dictates, cannot be good for long term health of children. That MoCo has stipulated this has no significance. Try asking MoCo officials which evidence they used to come to the cost-benefit conclusion. The answer is, none. Then ask them why, when a simple google search with the right combination of words might have led them to publications like these, based on a rigorous randomized study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338098/

A quick sample of "science" below for you. Caution: no single study is the last word (there is a link to an interesting "letter" from another set of researchers questioning the strong findings of this study) and this needs to be studied much more, particularly since longer-term effects cannot be known yet. But using the same logic I see being employed about Covid everywhere, where there is so much uncertainty (about the impact of use of masks during vigorous physical activity) and almost no evidence on the long-term impacts on children's health, are you ready to take the risk?

"Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

"Increased breathing resistance in ffpm and sm requires more work of the respiratory muscles compared to nm leading to higher oxygen consumption. Additionally, a significant proportion of cardiac output is directed via different mechanisms, e.g., sympathetically induced vasoconstriction, to the respiratory musculature [19]. Furthermore, the increased breathing resistance may augment and prolong inspiratory activity leading to more negative intrathoracic pressure (ITP) for longer durations. "

Finally, lest I am called a Trump-supporter and anti-masker. Our entire family wears masks everywhere recommended, including all indoor public spaces and outdoor parks. Just NOT during vigorous exercise. If we had high-risk individuals at home, we might have chosen to keep the kids out of soccer this season, rather than have them wearing masks during vigorous physical activity on a daily basis.

you know people will not read what you wrote and just call you a Nazi, right?

PP here. Of course I do. And then the very same people will turn around and denigrate half the population of the country for not following "science". Truth is, there is no reason for most folks to comb through technical studies. That is why we have local and state and federal authorities to make sense of the evidence out there and make informed recommendations, sometimes even based on insufficient evidence. But that requires the said authorities to be not clouded by politics and polls. MoCo officials are just responding to the politics, based on which way the wind blows in their county. The potential impact of bone-headed rules on children's lungs and heart - not in the news, so who cares (or even measures, as it is almost unmeasurable in the short-term, unlike Covid deaths)?