Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we revisit this now that there is a projected opening date for Phase 1?
My Fairfax County Swim Club determined there is no financial sense opening in Phase 1, but plans to open in Phase 2 with all the restrictions. (Of course, this is based on membership assumptions at this point. Not sure if it will happen.)

Our youth sports league felt the same way. It wasn’t due to fear of transmission outside. We felt that was very low based on what the board had seen. The burden posed by restrictions was the kicker.

Our rec sports league just canceled as well, and for the same reasons.

The kicker is that the parents are now just putting their kids on travel teams (and forming new ones)- and plan to practice without field permits until field permits resume (and they will sooner or later) and travel to open areas to play games and tournaments. A rec league can’t do that. Not only is this way worse from a public health perspective (traveling around, staying at hotels etc) but it leaves our kids who can not afford the fees or are not skilled enough.

FWIW my kids aren’t going to play this summer at all. We don’t want to do travel.

This makes me feel worse. We all wanted our kids to play, but financially it would be difficult. Our league also has a small travel team, which was cancelled as well. I guess it only proves that youth sports is an industry machine with enough cash to make things happen. I am resisting the urge to think that they’ll do anything (even risk safety and health) to play. FWIW I think playing outside isn’t a huge health risk.

Oh gosh no- don’t feel bad. My DH is on the board of our league as well. They really wanted to play (and didn’t feel it is a health risk) but the requirements are just too challenging for a Rec league to meet. They have to follow all the rules, and our city is being fairly heavy handed.

We don’t have a travel team but many kids play in the same local travel org. They are now forming teams at all age levels to accommodate the demand- it at least keeps the kids together versus having them disperse to other local teams (and possibly not come back)!

My kids would’ve played rec if they’d been able, but I’m not a fan of travel teams in general- too much of a time commitment for us right now! I do feel bad for the kids who would like to play but can’t afford travel fees (or aren’t skilled enough to make the team)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we revisit this now that there is a projected opening date for Phase 1?
My Fairfax County Swim Club determined there is no financial sense opening in Phase 1, but plans to open in Phase 2 with all the restrictions. (Of course, this is based on membership assumptions at this point. Not sure if it will happen.)

Our youth sports league felt the same way. It wasn’t due to fear of transmission outside. We felt that was very low based on what the board had seen. The burden posed by restrictions was the kicker.

Our rec sports league just canceled as well, and for the same reasons.

The kicker is that the parents are now just putting their kids on travel teams (and forming new ones)- and plan to practice without field permits until field permits resume (and they will sooner or later) and travel to open areas to play games and tournaments. A rec league can’t do that. Not only is this way worse from a public health perspective (traveling around, staying at hotels etc) but it leaves our kids who can not afford the fees or are not skilled enough.

FWIW my kids aren’t going to play this summer at all. We don’t want to do travel.

This makes me feel worse. We all wanted our kids to play, but financially it would be difficult. Our league also has a small travel team, which was cancelled as well. I guess it only proves that youth sports is an industry machine with enough cash to make things happen. I am resisting the urge to think that they’ll do anything (even risk safety and health) to play. FWIW I think playing outside isn’t a huge health risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we revisit this now that there is a projected opening date for Phase 1?
My Fairfax County Swim Club determined there is no financial sense opening in Phase 1, but plans to open in Phase 2 with all the restrictions. (Of course, this is based on membership assumptions at this point. Not sure if it will happen.)

Our youth sports league felt the same way. It wasn’t due to fear of transmission outside. We felt that was very low based on what the board had seen. The burden posed by restrictions was the kicker.

Our rec sports league just canceled as well, and for the same reasons.

The kicker is that the parents are now just putting their kids on travel teams (and forming new ones)- and plan to practice without field permits until field permits resume (and they will sooner or later) and travel to open areas to play games and tournaments. A rec league can’t do that. Not only is this way worse from a public health perspective (traveling around, staying at hotels etc) but it leaves our kids who can not afford the fees or are not skilled enough.

FWIW my kids aren’t going to play this summer at all. We don’t want to do travel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we revisit this now that there is a projected opening date for Phase 1?
My Fairfax County Swim Club determined there is no financial sense opening in Phase 1, but plans to open in Phase 2 with all the restrictions. (Of course, this is based on membership assumptions at this point. Not sure if it will happen.)

Our youth sports league felt the same way. It wasn’t due to fear of transmission outside. We felt that was very low based on what the board had seen. The burden posed by restrictions was the kicker.

Anonymous wrote:Can we revisit this now that there is a projected opening date for Phase 1?
My Fairfax County Swim Club determined there is no financial sense opening in Phase 1, but plans to open in Phase 2 with all the restrictions. (Of course, this is based on membership assumptions at this point. Not sure if it will happen.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anywhere there are kids, esp younger ones, it is going to be more risky.

5 groups, each staying together and apart from others, isn’t a problem. How do you see 3 year olds staying put while mom packs up?

Some seem like they are determined to keep pools closed and people in homes. Personal items will be kept to a minimum. There shouldn’t be much to pack up. The 3 year old should be able to stay near the parent and the capacity will be reduced, so there won’t be many people to interact with. That three year old’s mom very well may have reserved the baby pool for the family. Mitigation occurs in layers. If someone is going to be concerned with minutiae such as a three year old getting ready to leave, the just stay home. Nothing will ever be perfect.

Yeah, this is just getting annoying. I am generally pro stay at home until community transmission is way down in one's area, and have been accused of being "doom and gloom" for pointing out details relating to indoor gatherings. But experts agree that an outdoor pool with social distancing measures is a relatively safe activity. I have a 3 year old and it really is not hard to keep him near me when I am gathering things together. If I really had to I could bring a stroller to the pool and strap him in to it while putting towels, etc. away.

I think some people just want to see kids hidden away until there is a vaccine, because they see little kids as germ spreaders who will make things less safe for them personally. They couldn't care less about the well being of those young children or the reality of parenting young kids in a pandemic. They are thinking solely of their own situation and how they want certain groups to put their lives on hold just so they can feel safe in the world. It's not fair to ask this of those who are more vulnerable and it's not fair to ask of those who are less vulnerable. Every single one of us is going to have to make informed decisions about what risks we will or will not take. Ideally these decisions will be based on data and the recommendation of experts. It's the only way forward.

Agree 100%. People who don’t care about pools/schools/playgrounds/libraries think opening them increases community spread but doesn’t benefit THEM at all, so they are anti. But oh my, Walmart and Home Depot and nail salons are essential to our way of life.

I agree with this. Also one of the very frustrating things about the different phases, is they seem based not on science or logic but on which industry had the best lobbyist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anywhere there are kids, esp younger ones, it is going to be more risky.

5 groups, each staying together and apart from others, isn’t a problem. How do you see 3 year olds staying put while mom packs up?

Some seem like they are determined to keep pools closed and people in homes. Personal items will be kept to a minimum. There shouldn’t be much to pack up. The 3 year old should be able to stay near the parent and the capacity will be reduced, so there won’t be many people to interact with. That three year old’s mom very well may have reserved the baby pool for the family. Mitigation occurs in layers. If someone is going to be concerned with minutiae such as a three year old getting ready to leave, the just stay home. Nothing will ever be perfect.

Yeah, this is just getting annoying. I am generally pro stay at home until community transmission is way down in one's area, and have been accused of being "doom and gloom" for pointing out details relating to indoor gatherings. But experts agree that an outdoor pool with social distancing measures is a relatively safe activity. I have a 3 year old and it really is not hard to keep him near me when I am gathering things together. If I really had to I could bring a stroller to the pool and strap him in to it while putting towels, etc. away.

I think some people just want to see kids hidden away until there is a vaccine, because they see little kids as germ spreaders who will make things less safe for them personally. They couldn't care less about the well being of those young children or the reality of parenting young kids in a pandemic. They are thinking solely of their own situation and how they want certain groups to put their lives on hold just so they can feel safe in the world. It's not fair to ask this of those who are more vulnerable and it's not fair to ask of those who are less vulnerable. Every single one of us is going to have to make informed decisions about what risks we will or will not take. Ideally these decisions will be based on data and the recommendation of experts. It's the only way forward.

Agree 100%. People who don’t care about pools/schools/playgrounds/libraries think opening them increases community spread but doesn’t benefit THEM at all, so they are anti. But oh my, Walmart and Home Depot and nail salons are essential to our way of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anywhere there are kids, esp younger ones, it is going to be more risky.

5 groups, each staying together and apart from others, isn’t a problem. How do you see 3 year olds staying put while mom packs up?

Some seem like they are determined to keep pools closed and people in homes. Personal items will be kept to a minimum. There shouldn’t be much to pack up. The 3 year old should be able to stay near the parent and the capacity will be reduced, so there won’t be many people to interact with. That three year old’s mom very well may have reserved the baby pool for the family. Mitigation occurs in layers. If someone is going to be concerned with minutiae such as a three year old getting ready to leave, the just stay home. Nothing will ever be perfect.

Yeah, this is just getting annoying. I am generally pro stay at home until community transmission is way down in one's area, and have been accused of being "doom and gloom" for pointing out details relating to indoor gatherings. But experts agree that an outdoor pool with social distancing measures is a relatively safe activity. I have a 3 year old and it really is not hard to keep him near me when I am gathering things together. If I really had to I could bring a stroller to the pool and strap him in to it while putting towels, etc. away.

I think some people just want to see kids hidden away until there is a vaccine, because they see little kids as germ spreaders who will make things less safe for them personally. They couldn't care less about the well being of those young children or the reality of parenting young kids in a pandemic. They are thinking solely of their own situation and how they want certain groups to put their lives on hold just so they can feel safe in the world. It's not fair to ask this of those who are more vulnerable and it's not fair to ask of those who are less vulnerable. Every single one of us is going to have to make informed decisions about what risks we will or will not take. Ideally these decisions will be based on data and the recommendation of experts. It's the only way forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if people can eat in restaurants, we should be able to go to the playground! Ridiculous.

How can you not get this?

At restaurants, they can easily remove tables or leave tables empty. Patrons are pretty immobile once they are seated. Employees can wipe all surfaces in between patrons. You’re in a small group (table) at a restaurant, usually with people from the same household.

At a playground, people are running around, touching the same surfaces. Those same people (kids) are the worst at not touching their eyes, nose and mouth, not keeping masks on or having ill fitting masks. Kids fail to correctly cover sneezes. Kids can’t appropriately keep 6’ apart from others. There is usually no water and soap to wash for 20 seconds.

It is 100% appropriate to open a restaurant before a park.

Except restaurants are inside and playgrounds are outside and the CDC has now said that covid-19 does not actually spread easily on surfaces.

+1. Outdoor is safer and less disease-spreading than indoor.

And kids need to move. Adults don't need to stuff their faces indoors at a restaurant. There is documented spread of COVID in restaurants. There is no evidence of it spreading AT ALL outdoors.

Of course is spreads outdoors. Kids are germs and unhygienic. You think an infected kid that sneezes, talks or coughs on another won’t likely infect that other person? Indoors is Not preferred over outdoors but you’re not safe bc you’re outdoors.

Anonymous wrote:What states or areas actually have pools open now?