Re-opening rinks with social distancing

[Yazmeen]

Bit-by-bit regulations are being eroded by political pressure, particularly in the wake of protest marches. Even if protestors violate public health regulations, no official has the will to crackdown on them. In the US, NJ has been second only to NY in being the hardest hit state. Gov. Murphy has been fairly tough, but he himself joined a march, violating his own executive order ... and afterwards he just passed special exemptions for protest marches and religious services. Gov. Cuomo of NY has also been fairly tough, but has skirted the issue of large crowds of protestors (other than asking all protestors to get tested). So of course many businesses are legitimately complaining that, hey, why is it OK for thousands of protestors to pack in like sardines, but it is not OK for businesses to re-open. That question elicits a lot of hemming and hawing from the govs at press conferences.

Pardon me getting political, but there's also a lot of pressure on some of the Governors to soften their orders/regulations without even taking the protests into consideration. Here in PA, the legislature has passed a bill to rescind our opposite party Governor's emergency declaration for the state because they want everything to open up. What they don't realize (or more likely don't care about) is that doing so would eliminate protections for businesses, workers and residents that come with that order. No, they just want full steam ahead on reopening, never mind that the country is now showing signs of a second wave of the Beer Burden brewing and hitting.

For those of you outside of the US, we have another pandemic here besides the BB, best expressed by some former beauty queen in Nevada who, per her tweet in mid-March, was at a crowded restaurant after the governor was requesting people start to stay home - she proudly bragged that "took her sweet time" to enjoy her meal, "Because this is America. And I'll do what I want." (Note my tag line below - my older brother came up with that observation).

 

[bladesofgorey]

Part of why crowded outdoor activities aren't being cracked down on as hard as indoor activities and small businesses is because of what studies are starting to show about how this is transmitted. Outdoors near other people while wearing masks is a far lower risk than spending time indoors in a space that is not well ventilated, especially if proper precautions aren't in place (air flow, PPE etc.)

 

[spinZZ]

Part of why crowded outdoor activities aren't being cracked down on as hard as indoor activities and small businesses is because of what studies are starting to show about how this is transmitted. Outdoors near other people while wearing masks is a far lower risk than spending time indoors in a space that is not well ventilated, especially if proper precautions aren't in place (air flow, PPE etc.)

But it's not simply a question of indoor vs. outdoor. There have been limits on outdoor gatherings as well. The numbers keep changing. In NJ, the limit on outdoor gatherings has just been raised this week to 100, but with "... an exception explicitly allowing outdoor gatherings of more than 100 persons for First Amendment protected outdoor activities such as political protests of any persuasion or outdoor religious services ..... <ETA: Per Executive Order No. 152>” Prior to this week's change, when the protests started, the limit was on the order of 10's I believe (don't remember the exact number <ETA: It was 25>), without these special exemptions.

So there have been legitimate questions such as, "How come protestors can gather by the thousands in an uncontrolled fashion, but we can't hold outdoor graduation ceremonies for a hundred or so students and their families under a controlled environment?" Murphy has relented on outdoor graduation ceremonies (max numbers TBD); but at yesterday's press conference, Cuomo didn't budge when a reporter asked him about that (again this may change at any time).

To be clear, I'm not in favor of rapid re-opening. It's just that the govs have weakened their positions to maintain restrictions, because they don't have a good answer to the question, "How come protestors can gather by the thousands in an uncontrolled fashion, but we can't do X with Y people?", where X is some outdoor activity (even with controls) other than protests (and maybe religious services), and Y is a number much less than thousands. [Note: Not just social events, businesses such as outdoor weddings are impacted. And what about outdoor concerts with similar crowd sizes?] Then of course some people will extend the question to indoor activities with even much smaller numbers. And away we go ... down (or up, depending on your point of view) the slippery slope.

[ETA: Yes, away we go. A town in NJ, Asbury Park, is planning to allow indoor dining on Mon, which is not allowed under the governor's current Executive Orders. Murphy said that the state will sue the town. Murphy's stance: "We have one set of rules and they are based on one principle, and that is ensuring public health." I'm just waiting for the mayor of Asbury Park to quip up, "Hey, what about those protest marches?"]

 

[ZilphaK]

But it's not simply a question of indoor vs. outdoor. There have been limits on outdoor gatherings as well. The numbers keep changing. In NJ, the limit on outdoor gatherings has just been raised this week to 100, but with "... an exception explicitly allowing outdoor gatherings of more than 100 persons for First Amendment protected outdoor activities such as political protests of any persuasion or outdoor religious services ..... <ETA: Per Executive Order No. 152>” Prior to this week's change, when the protests started, the limit was on the order of 10's I believe (don't remember the exact number <ETA: It was 25>), without these special exemptions.

So there have been legitimate questions such as, "How come protestors can gather by the thousands in an uncontrolled fashion, but we can't hold outdoor graduation ceremonies for a hundred or so students and their families under a controlled environment?" Murphy has relented on outdoor graduation ceremonies (max numbers TBD); but at yesterday's press conference, Cuomo didn't budge when a reporter asked him about that (again this may change at any time).

To be clear, I'm not in favor of rapid re-opening. It's just that the govs have weakened their positions to maintain restrictions, because they don't have a good answer to the question, "How come protestors can gather by the thousands in an uncontrolled fashion, but we can't do X with Y people?", where X is some outdoor activity (even with controls) other than protests (and maybe religious services), and Y is a number much less than thousands. [Note: Not just social events, businesses such as outdoor weddings are impacted. And what about outdoor concerts with similar crowd sizes?] Then of course some people will extend the question to indoor activities with even much smaller numbers. And away we go ... down (or up, depending on your point of view) the slippery slope.

[ETA: Yes, away we go. A town in NJ, Asbury Park, is planning to allow indoor dining on Mon, which is not allowed under the governor's current Executive Orders. Murphy said that the state will sue the town. Murphy's stance: "We have one set of rules and they are based on one principle, and that is ensuring public health." I'm just waiting for the mayor of Asbury Park to quip up, "Hey, what about those protest marches?"]

Protesting against centuries-old systematic racism, the same racist structures which have directly lead to higher rates of death in some black communities from C****-19, is essential.

For as hard as it is for people to postpone graduations or weddings -- our own family has had to postpone two funerals and a wedding -- I wouldn't say any of those gatherings are essential in the same way as the protests. Lockdown was never going to be 100% perfect -- whether we're talking about essential workers needing to be at work or "sovereign citizens" and hoaxers who "don't believe in science" walking into grocery stores without masks on or figure skaters selfishly skating in illegally opened rinks while others are doing the right thing and waitng-- I'm on the side of postponing all those other large gathering events as a balance so that the protests and other truly necessary gatherings can take place.

It's simple, right? Protesting the unjust systematic killing of our own citizens versus a Kenny Chesney concert. If postponing all the other kinds of gatherings is the check and balance that allows all these essential protests against racism to take place more safely for the community at large --as in, not adding to the spread of the v**** or to the private and public resources needed to stage other large events -- I'm guessing most people of good conscience could give up/postpone the concert, etc.

 

[MacMadame]

I went to protests but I'm not sure I'd call them essential. I do consider that I had to do that in order to create the change I want to see in the world. But I did it knowing it was risky. I did everything I could to mitigate the risk, but I knew it was riskier than going to the grocery store so afterward, I didn't go anywhere (and still haven't) until I can get tested.

I think right now, while I understand why states and counties are going slowly with the re-opening, once you try to make fine distinctions between risks vs. benefits, you are going to get some contradictions. This is why my own suggestion was to put the risks into several buckets and open each bucket all at once. I think you get more compliance that way because it seems less arbitrary.

 

[ZilphaK]

I hope all those coaches working in spite of governor orders are at least mitigating risk to students by limiting their other contacts and getting tested. PA has free testing every three days for adults.

I have to visit with my 83yo mom once a week, so I certainly won't be first in line for beach openings or putting my kid in a rink with less-than-stellar opening procedures.

 

[spinZZ]

Protesting against centuries-old systematic racism, the same racist structures which have directly lead to higher rates of death in some black communities from C****-19, is essential.

For as hard as it is for people to postpone graduations or weddings -- our own family has had to postpone two funerals and a wedding -- I wouldn't say any of those gatherings are essential in the same way as the protests. Lockdown was never going to be 100% perfect -- whether we're talking about essential workers needing to be at work or "sovereign citizens" and hoaxers who "don't believe in science" walking into grocery stores without masks on or figure skaters selfishly skating in illegally opened rinks while others are doing the right thing and waitng-- I'm on the side of postponing all those other large gathering events as a balance so that the protests and other truly necessary gatherings can take place.

It's simple, right? Protesting the unjust systematic killing of our own citizens versus a Kenny Chesney concert. If postponing all the other kinds of gatherings is the check and balance that allows all these essential protests against racism to take place more safely for the community at large --as in, not adding to the spread of the v**** or to the private and public resources needed to stage other large events -- I'm guessing most people of good conscience could give up/postpone the concert, etc.

(a) Sorry, that argument doesn't wash with me. Anyone who wants a pass on their pet activities simply declares, "It's essential!" The debates over what is essential vs. non-essential already played out during the initial stay-at-home phase. Sure, life is complicated (definitely not simple), and no rules are 100% fair; but some are more unfair than others; while some are egregiously unfair. Some rules were amended upon request for further consideration, others weren't.

(b) Some examples for NJ.

* Initially auto repair shops were declared essential, but bike repair shops weren't. The bike repair shops complained, and the gov amended the list of essential businesses to include bike repair shops. Reason prevailed.

* From day one, liquor stores were declared essential. I believe that was the case in most states. I'm somewhat stymied that there weren't mass protests against this from the many businesses that were shutdown. Egregiously unfair in my book, but looks like there is overwhelming popular consensus (including business owners that were shutdown ) that liquor stores are essential.

* The big box stores (Costco, BJ, Target, Walmart, ...) could remain open because they had essential grocery and pharmacy departments. But their sales were not restricted to those essential departments. They were free to sell shoes, clothes, electronics, books, furniture .... anything at all. But if you were a dedicated shoe store, clothing store, electronics store .... tough, you're not essential, so shutdown. Definitely unfair, but alternative rules would be extraordinarily complex and unwieldy (given that grocery stores and pharmacies sell a wide range of non-essential goods as well).

(c) Then look at some activities people argued early on for what should be essential <ETA: In response to another post, I want to make it clear that these are not my arguments, but arguments other people made for what they considered essential.>:

* Religious services. Religious services held in a religious institution under the guidance of a religious official in the presence of other members of the religious community are essential; prayer at home is not enough.

* Visitation rights for terminal patients. Grandma is locked away in a hospital or nursing home. Doctors say she doesn't have long to live. Her family wants to see her and say good-bye. It's essential; they can't wait for the next re-opening phase ... she'll be dead by then.

* Funerals. It's essential that the dead be buried according to the customs of their religion and culture. In some instances, the greater community (100+ people) must attend to show respect. It's essential; they can't wait for the next re-opening phase ... services must be held within a short time after death.

* Physical fitness. Physical fitness is essential for health; ergo, gyms should remain open. [The mayor of NYC got a lot of flack over this. He gave a deadline for gyms to be closed; and a couple of hours before the deadline, he drove to a gym to workout. Reporters caught him doing this, and asked whether it was in the spirit of his shutdown order (while still within the letter of the order because it wasn't past the deadline). He answered something to the effect that in order for him to do his job during these trying times, it's very important for him to maintain his fitness.]

NY and NJ were the hardest hit states at the beginning of this mess. The govs took a hard line (and I applaud them for doing so), refused to allow all the above (in particular, did not declare them essential), and took action against violators.

(d) But when it comes to mass protests, they look the other way (whereas previously they did crackdown when too large a social gathering congregated at parks). And as I posted earlier, Murphy has explicitly sanctioned them in an Executive Order. But note that he did not include them as essential. He simply issued a waiver against the maximum number of people allowed in outdoor gatherings. Further, he was savvy enough to grant the waiver not just for protests, but also for religious services (which were previously declared to be non-essential), because he knew he would get a lot of flack from those who have been fighting to have waivers for religious services [He knew he wouldn't have a good answer to the question: "How come protestors can do whatever they please, but we can't have large religious (outdoor) gatherings?"] Whatever happened to: "We have one set of rules and they are based on one principle, and that is ensuring public health," ?

(e) So, for you, it's not OK for seniors to hold an outdoor graduation ceremony (even with appropriate rules); but it is OK for protestors to take over part of Seattle (with no rules), and hold a block party, complete with live music and film shows?

 

[spinZZ]

I went to protests but I'm not sure I'd call them essential. I do consider that I had to do that in order to create the change I want to see in the world. But I did it knowing it was risky. I did everything I could to mitigate the risk, but I knew it was riskier than going to the grocery store so afterward, I didn't go anywhere (and still haven't) until I can get tested.

I think right now, while I understand why states and counties are going slowly with the re-opening, once you try to make fine distinctions between risks vs. benefits, you are going to get some contradictions. This is why my own suggestion was to put the risks into several buckets and open each bucket all at once. I think you get more compliance that way because it seems less arbitrary.

In the words of Mr. Spock, "That's logical."

 

[ZilphaK]

(a) Sorry, that argument doesn't wash with me. Anyone who wants a pass on their pet activities simply declares, "It's essential!" The debates over what is essential vs. non-essential already played out during the initial stay-at-home phase. Sure, life is complicated (definitely not simple), and no rules are 100% fair; but some are more unfair than others; while some are egregiously unfair. Some rules were amended upon request for further consideration, others weren't.

(b) Some examples for NJ.

* Initially auto repair shops were declared essential, but bike repair shops weren't. The bike repair shops complained, and the gov amended the list of essential businesses to include bike repair shops. Reason prevailed.

* From day one, liquor stores were declared essential. I believe that was the case in most states. I'm somewhat stymied that there weren't mass protests against this from the many businesses that were shutdown. Egregiously unfair in my book, but looks like there is overwhelming popular consensus (including business owners that were shutdown ) that liquor stores are essential.

* The big box stores (Costco, BJ, Target, Walmart, ...) could remain open because they had essential grocery and pharmacy departments. But their sales were not restricted to those essential departments. They were free to sell shoes, clothes, electronics, books, furniture .... anything at all. But if you were a dedicated shoe store, clothing store, electronics store .... tough, you're not essential, so shutdown. Definitely unfair, but alternative rules would be extraordinarily complex and unwieldy (given that grocery stores and pharmacies sell a wide range of non-essential goods as well).

(c) Then look at some activities people argued early on for what should be essential:

* Religious services. Religious services held in a religious institution under the guidance of a religious official in the presence of other members of the religious community are essential; prayer at home is not enough.

* Visitation rights for terminal patients. Grandma is locked away in a hospital or nursing home. Doctors say she doesn't have long to live. Her family wants to see her and say good-bye. It's essential; they can't wait for the next re-opening phase ... she'll be dead by then.

* Funerals. It's essential that the dead be buried according to the customs of their religion and culture. In some instances, the greater community (100+ people) must attend to show respect. It's essential; they can't wait for the next re-opening phase ... services must be held within a short time after death.

* Physical fitness. Physical fitness is essential for health; ergo, gyms should remain open. [The mayor of NYC got a lot of flack over this. He gave a deadline for gyms to be closed; and a couple of hours before the deadline, he drove to a gym to workout. Reporters caught him doing this, and asked whether it was in the spirit of his shutdown order (while still within the letter of the order because it wasn't past the deadline). He answered something to the effect that in order for him to do his job during these trying times, it's very important for him to maintain his fitness.]

NY and NJ were the hardest hit states at the beginning of this mess. The govs took a hard line (and I applaud them for doing so), refused to allow all the above (in particular, did not declare them essential), and took action against violators.

(d) But when it comes to mass protests, they look the other way. And as I posted earlier, Murphy has explicitly sanctioned them in an Executive Order. But note that he did not include them as essential. He simply issued a waiver against the maximum number of people allowed in outdoor gatherings. Further, he was savvy enough to grant the waiver not just for protests, but also for religious services (which was previously declared to be non-essential), because he knew he would get a lot of flack from those who have been fighting to have waivers for religious services [He knew he wouldn't have a good answer to the question: "How come protestors can do whatever they please, but we can't have large religious (outdoor) gatherings?"] Whatever happened to: "We have one set of rules and they are based on one principle, and that is ensuring public health," ?

(e) So, for you, it's not OK for seniors to hold a graduation ceremony (even with appropriate rules); but it is OK for protestors to take over part of Seattle (with no rules), and hold a block party, complete with live music and film shows?

Protesting deep social injustice is not a "pet activity. " You've told me everything I need to know about weighing the value of your opinion and the veracity of your skew on "facts.".I'll take a pass.

 

[bladesofgorey]

Gyms are extremely high risk and should not be open. Exercise is essential to health and can be performed in one's own house or outside with a mask. Do you even science?

 

[spinZZ]

Gyms are extremely high risk and should not be open. Exercise is essential to health and can be performed in one's own house or outside with a mask. Do you even science?

Those were not my arguments. Those were examples of arguments others presented. [If you read my post again, I wrote: "Then look at some activities people argued early on for what should be essential:" And if you read my post again further, I wrote: "NY and NJ were the hardest hit states at the beginning of this mess. The govs took a hard line (and I applaud them for doing so), refused to allow all the above (in particular, did not declare them essential), and took action against violators." So I am definitely not arguing that gyms should stay open. ] There were similar arguments with respect to religious services, e.g.. Some argued, "I need to be at my (church, temple, mosque ...)." Others responded, "You can't pray at home?" Those examples don't apply to me. I don't go to a gym or a church.

In the context of the post I was responding to, the corresponding question is, "Is there no way to redress social injustice other than mass protests that spread the v_i_r_u_s in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c?" Jozet is arguing that mass protests are essential. Just like the way other people argued that what they wanted to do was essential.

 

[spinZZ]

Protesting deep social injustice is not a "pet activity. " You've told me everything I need to know about weighing the value of your opinion and the veracity of your skew on "facts.".I'll take a pass.

As Mr. Spock would say, "That is not logical."

 

[ioana]

So, rink I went to this morning was doing a good job having everyone wear masks in the common lobby are. They already had a printout of skaters' names with Freestyle reservations. In and out to the rink area. Icetime itself was nice and quiet with only about 10 skaters+coaches. Session after mine was significantly busier with about 20 people on ice (maybe even a few more?). Exit was through the back door to keep the lobby area traffic to a minimum. I actually took off my mask about halfway in since there was enough space to do so safely -and they don't requite you to wear one on the ice.

Not sure if the session size or available ice time will continue, but am happy with how this went today. Just in case anyone needed the play-by-play update or in-person experience .

 

[MacMadame]

* From day one, liquor stores were declared essential.

They were declared essential because the hospitals didn't want to deal with alcoholics going through withdrawal. Though in my state they can just buy their liquor in the grocery store so it could have been like shoe stores. I think other store owners didn't complain because they wanted to buy alcohol themselves. Also, if you start getting picky about what food is essential, it gets arbitrary and crazy.

(d) But when it comes to mass protests, they look the other way

Okay, but think about it... what exactly were they going to do? If you have 10,000 people at a protest, can you really arrest them all? Or give them all a ticket? (Since that's all they were doing to other violators where I live.)

In my state, there were protests to open up and the Governor said: I respect your first amendment rights but please social distance and wear masks. (Most didn't) He did the same thing for the BLM protests (Most did). So he was consistent at least.

And anyone who was violating the orders was treated with kid gloves. They got talked to. A lot. They got warnings. Then they got citations. Almost no one got fines. In some places, they didn't even do anything. In the end, most of this stuff was followed voluntarily because (a) people are basically law-abiding and (b) most of us understood that these orders would keep people from dying.

Which means they might as well say the protests are okay because, if they don't, people will go to them anyway and then once people figure out you can do whatever you want and nothing happens, they won't follow any SIP orders.

Do you even science?

That has to be my favorite post on C19 on this entire board.

In the context of the post I was responding to, the corresponding question is, "Is there no way to redress social injustice other than mass protests that spread the v_i_r_u_s in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c?"

I didn't think there was. Which is why I went to them.

But to get back to skating rinks... there is one thing I agree 100% with @Jozet on: I would have a hard time trusting any club or business that opened up "on the sly" ever again. What other health and safety regulations are they just ignoring?

In fact, at the start of the SIP, I belonged to two triathlon clubs. One shut down everything. They even put our monthly meeting on Zoom before there was a SIP only a recommendation not to have meetings of over 50 people. The other pushed the rules from day one. They continued to have group workouts until they absolutely could not in any way say they were within the rules. They have already started up group workouts again pushing the rules.

I got an email yesterday that the Masters swim program (included in the tri program) is starting back up. I am so tempted because I love to swim but I just don't trust them. I don't think they took this seriously and their ideas of how to follow the rules and what is safe absolutely do not match up with mine. I had already paused my tri club membership due to injury and I am definitely not turning it back on again. I am looking for a different place to do my Masters swimming as well. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Ice rinks have trouble making money as it is. Can they really afford to lose a ton of customers so they can open up early in violation of the law and get a few weeks' extra income from a small number of their regular customers?

 

[overedge]

The liquor stores around here are very safe to visit because they have nice wide aisles and clear sightlines. They're designed for shoppers who are carrying bulky items, and for staff to keep an eye out for potential shoplifters.

I feel a lot safer shopping there than I do at the grocery store, with narrower aisles and much less careful shoppers. I am a long way from ever going back to a big-box store.

FWIW one of the privately run rinks in my city has just reopened. I've seen how clean that place is during regular times, i.e. not clean. There is no way I would go there now even though it's the only ice in the city that's open.

 

[Yuri]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
SILENCE IS VIOLENCE

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

One of my rinks here in NJ is saying that they'll be restarting Learn to Skate in late July. I'm not so sure I'm ready to be there to teach it if they do. I need more time to think about this. They also haven't released any info on how the program will run. Hmm...

 

[ZilphaK]

One of my rinks here in NJ is saying that they'll be restarting Learn to Skate in late July. I'm not so sure I'm ready to be there to teach it if they do. I need more time to think about this. They also haven't released any info on how the program will run. Hmm...

We're considering no level one or snowplow sam classes at first, and no rental skates; all skaters must have own skates. I just don't see how you can do rentals without putting skates in quarantine for x days after each use. Also, breaking up sessions to two levels max per ice surface, so something like levels 2 and 3 on one rink, 4 and 5 on other rink.

 

[spinZZ]

-------


Okay, but think about it... what exactly were they going to do? If you have 10,000 people at a protest, can you really arrest them all? Or give them all a ticket? (Since that's all they were doing to other violators where I live.)

In my state, there were protests to open up and the Governor said: I respect your first amendment rights but please social distance and wear masks. (Most didn't) He did the same thing for the BLM protests (Most did). So he was consistent at least.

And anyone who was violating the orders was treated with kid gloves. They got talked to. A lot. They got warnings. Then they got citations. Almost no one got fines. In some places, they didn't even do anything. In the end, most of this stuff was followed voluntarily because (a) people are basically law-abiding and (b) most of us understood that these orders would keep people from dying.

Which means they might as well say the protests are okay because, if they don't, people will go to them anyway and then once people figure out you can do whatever you want and nothing happens, they won't follow any SIP orders.

-------

I didn't think there was. Which is why I went to them.



But to get back to skating rinks... there is one thing I agree 100% with @Jozet on: I would have a hard time trusting any club or business that opened up "on the sly" ever again. What other health and safety regulations are they just ignoring?

In fact, at the start of the SIP, I belonged to two triathlon clubs. One shut down everything. They even put our monthly meeting on Zoom before there was a SIP only a recommendation not to have meetings of over 50 people. The other pushed the rules from day one. They continued to have group workouts until they absolutely could not in any way say they were within the rules. They have already started up group workouts again pushing the rules.

I got an email yesterday that the Masters swim program (included in the tri program) is starting back up. I am so tempted because I love to swim but I just don't trust them. I don't think they took this seriously and their ideas of how to follow the rules and what is safe absolutely do not match up with mine. I had already paused my tri club membership due to injury and I am definitely not turning it back on again. I am looking for a different place to do my Masters swimming as well. I am pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Ice rinks have trouble making money as it is. Can they really afford to lose a ton of customers so they can open up early in violation of the law and get a few weeks' extra income from a small number of their regular customers?

Thank you for this post. You have neatly captured the juxtaposition of the two key perspectives that highlight what I consider to be a bizarre contradiction. My summary of your perspectives:

(1) With respect to protests:

• If the cause is sufficiently just and exigent, people can, and should, defy public health regulations.
• People are free to decide for themselves, according to their own consciences and judgements, what constitutes a cause that is sufficiently just and exigent.
• From a practical perspective, if a sufficiently large number of people defy public health regulations, government officials really can't do anything about it anyway.

(2) With respect to ice rinks:

• Ice rinks and other athletic facilities are starting to re-open.
• But these are still iffy times. We must proceed with due caution.
• If any facility defied public health regulations, and operated when they were ordered to shutdown, we can't trust them: after all, what other health and safety regulations are they just ignoring?

 

[MacMadame]

What's the contradiction? Going to protests isn't the same as running a business. A protest isn't a business. It's a bunch of people marching in the streets. Sometimes they aren't even organized by anyone. So it's not like I can say "I don't trust that protest anymore. I'm not going to go to it again."

 

[spinZZ]

What's the contradiction? Going to protests isn't the same as running a business. A protest isn't a business. It's a bunch of people marching in the streets. Sometimes they aren't even organized by anyone. So it's not like I can say "I don't trust that protest anymore. I'm not going to go to it again."

In my previous post, I intentionally kept the language low key and understated, because I didn't want to risk setting off sparks in a potentially explosive atmosphere. Apparently, my language was too low key and too understated, so I'll ratchet the language up a notch; though I fully anticipate what the consequences will be.

* There are isolated instances of rinks here and there re-opening too soon. "That behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible. We're in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c. They don't get to decide when they can open. Government regulations designed to protect public health and safety determine when they can open. Why don't they get it? Public health and safety is the number one priority. Raise the red flag. Sound the alarm. Danger. Danger."

* Thousands upon thousands of protestors pour out onto the streets in cities and towns all across the country. "What's that you say? We're in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c? We're defying government regulations designed to protect public health and safety? Oh, those rules are silly anyway. What are they going to do? Arrest all of us? You just don't get it, do you? Our cause is the number one priority, not public health and safety. We the people get to set the rules, not some government officials. And if you don't get that, well, at best you're insensitive, and at worst you're ...."

If I haven't made my point by now, and if you don't see a contradiction, it's futile to continue this discussion. Over and out.

 

[Lemonade20]

In my previous post, I intentionally kept the language low key and understated, because I didn't want to risk setting off sparks in a potentially explosive atmosphere. Apparently, my language was too low key and too understated, so I'll ratchet the language up a notch; though I fully anticipate what the consequences will be.

* There are isolated instances of rinks here and there re-opening too soon. "That behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible. We're in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c. They don't get to decide when they can open. Government regulations designed to protect public health and safety determine when they can open. Why don't they get it? Public health and safety is the number one priority. Raise the red flag. Sound the alarm. Danger. Danger."

* Thousands upon thousands of protestors pour out onto the streets in cities and towns all across the country. "What's that you say? We're in the midst of a p_a_n_d_e_m_i_c? We're defying government regulations designed to protect public health and safety? Oh, those rules are silly anyway. What are they going to do? Arrest all of us? You just don't get it, do you? Our cause is the number one priority, not public health and safety. We the people get to set the rules, not some government officials. And if you don't get that, well, at best you're insensitive, and at worst you're ...."

If I haven't made my point by now, and if you don't see a contradiction, it's futile to continue this discussion. Over and out.

Agreed! I live in a smaller town, so when someone organized a protest, there was a strong emphasis on masks, gloves and hand sanitizer. The organizers handed out masks to anyone who needed one. The YKW doesn’t discriminate

 

[Yazmeen]

I've seen more masks at protests than I saw yesterday at our local state park or in a very popular nearby town despite both still being in PA's yellow phase. Both of which were damn near shoulder to shoulder crowded.

 

[MacMadame]

If I haven't made my point by now, and if you don't see a contradiction, it's futile to continue this discussion. Over and out.

These are strawman arguments. If you can only make your point by twisting mine, then you haven't got one IMO.

 

[Kiki80]

Off the current topic of protests but maybe a welcome change of pace. I'm wondering, for those of you who feel very strongly that the rink you used to skate at is open illegally, will you go back once your area is in a status that you believe permits rinks to open? If not, do you plan to change rinks? Or even switch coaches or clubs if you feel they acted unethically by skating too soon?

 

[concorde]

Going on a different tangent. I am curious how the different clubs/rinks are handling pre-paid fees.

For instance if you prepay for a month of freestyle ice, did you get a refund/credit for when the rink was closed?

 

[concorde]

Off the current topic of protests but maybe a welcome change of pace. I'm wondering, for those of you who feel very strongly that the rink you used to skate at is open illegally, will you go back once your area is in a status that you believe permits rinks to open? If not, do you plan to change rinks? Or even switch coaches or clubs if you feel they acted unethically by skating too soon?

My daughter's coach told us about a "nearby" rink that is allowing private ice rentals. The coach and I talked about it very briefly and both of us agreed the risk was not worth it. I have known 2 families that have gotten some "private" ice and in both cases, the parent's behavior was consistent with what I have seen on the past - the parents' willingness to skirt the rules to give the kids an upper hand.

I suspect that the coaches that are willing to teach at closed rinks have never been the most ethical coaches. My guess is the signs were there before this happened and the parents were willing to overlook the signs. My guess is the parent will let the skater continue with the coaches after this end.

Would we switch rinks? Hard to tell since we want certain coaches and it would depend on where they have privileges.

 

[Yazmeen]

I live in Southeastern PA, home of illegally opened rinks, so it's kind of a moot question. I'm just glad I stopped skating at "hockey camp" central years ago.

 

[overedge]

Going on a different tangent. I am curious how the different clubs/rinks are handling pre-paid fees.

For instance if you prepay for a month of freestyle ice, did you get a refund/credit for when the rink was closed?

At my club, the shutdown coincided with the end of winter school, so the club didn't have to issue any refunds. I believe that other clubs in the area which had longer sessions issued refunds for the unused portion of the season.

ETA: Sorry, I was only thinking of the clubs at publicly-run facilities. The private facilities appear to be giving credits for unused ice time.

 

[spinZZ]

I live in Southeastern PA, home of illegally opened rinks, so it's kind of a moot question.

Just to confirm that I understand you correctly. By this, do you mean that all of the rinks in your area are illegally opened, so in the future you don't have the option to switch to one that did follow the rules (since not a one did)?