There is a WORLD of difference (in my mind) between doing this with 7-12 year olds and 16+ year olds trying to get drafted, or vie for Jr or college spots. Given this is the bantam board? I think Bantams could probably wait a while too. And the sneakiness with which they did this is the first hint that they were crossing a line.
There are clearly a lot of different opinions on what is safe, or fair, or morally correct, as well as what makes sense from a medical and scientific point of view. Since there is no consensus on this internationally, it's not surprising that there is a lack of consensus within the US or Canada on a state by state basis.
I would not be surprised that government agencies take the most conservative approach they can justify. Municipally owned and operated rinks are not likely to open in California this year in my opinion, because of liability concerns. If they don't open a rink, nobody can later come back and try and sue the city claiming they got Covid at the rink.
The same line of thinking likely permeates public policy.
The reality is that states like California have already, and will continue to apply inconsistent policy. Certain jobs are "essential" while others are not. Certain businesses are essential, while others are not. It's ok to go down to a Target and buy some groceries that were delivered from depots by trucks, unloaded at warehouses, stocked by employees and cashiers, but it's not ok to go get a hair cut. So a person in a warehouse must be at work, interacting with lots of other people who literally may be traveling across state lines, but a barber is prohibited from making a living, even if they wear masks, clean and disinfect between customers, and maintain social distancing guidelines within their business. Who is more likely to be spreading an infection?
People can run through the busy streets of NY covered in sweat, but kids who are virtually at no risk from Covid (and appear not to easily catch or pass Covid on to others) are not allowed to play a hockey game in a rink when they are wearing equipment head to toe, and we now have months of thousands of skates that appear to show this is relatively safe. I mean, c'mon it's hundreds of skates with thousands of participants at this point, and that's not even counting all the figure skating going on.
Meanwhile, take a look on the streets and consider this simple fact. Public transportation/buses have never been closed. You can see a public bus packed with people on many of LA's city streets as people use it to commute to --- wherever. Is that safe, to take a bus ride with 50 strangers on a daily basis? But of course those buses have to run because some percentage of those people depend on that transportation to get to work or... well we don't really know do we? They never mandated that only essential personnel with essential activities should be using public transportation. Such a restriction would likely trigger law suits, so they won't do that.
Nobody would dare close or restrict public transportation, but it's easy for the city or state government to close up a rink with no understanding of the efficacy or potential danger, because these rink owners aren't going to be able to fight the power of the government, even if this long period of shuttering literally forces the rink into bankruptcy and closure.
Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles is currently dealing with the aftermath of a rented home, used for a large party of hundreds of people, which culminated with gunfire, multiple people shot, and at least one death. Neighbors called the police to report this unruly party clogging the narrow streets, and blaring loud music into the neighborhood, but when the police arrived, they simply left, stating that there was nothing they could do about the party because it was a private function occurring in a "private residence".
Of course they had to return later to deal with the murder and such....
With this level of inconsistency and selective restriction and enforcement, it's clear that people have no alternative than to look out for their own self interest, because if you are expecting the government to do anything other than what is simplest for them to do, then you are probably going to be highly disappointed.
The vast majority of deaths from Covid-19 occurred in Nursing homes and long term care facilities. Aside from publishing some information on a website, what has the state of california done to address the flashpoint of the disease?
Apparently, the systems that are used to collate what the actual numbers of infections, recoveries and deaths are, is completely broken at the moment, and state officials don't even know what the hell is actually going on, other than to revert to manual records, phone calls to and from hospitals and spreadsheets. Ironically, the state assessment and county rating system is entirely dependent on numbers, so what is allowed in one county vs disallowed in another depends on data that the state can't accurately account for.
Here's the restriction criteria:
Doing fewer than 150 tests per 100,000 residents daily (over a 7-day average)
More than 100 new cases per 100,000 residents over the past 14 days...
Or having more than 25 new cases per 100,000 residents and an 8% test positivity rate
10% or greater increase in COVID-19 hospitalized patients over the past 3 days
Fewer than 20% of ICU beds available
Fewer than 25% ventilators available
So clearly these are going to be problematic for large densely populated counties who may never be able to get off the county watch list. It was basically criteria assembled that makes it simple for the state to restrict large portions of the state at anytime, where in some portions of a large county there may be literally no danger of Covid-19.
I'm not angry at the state, nor do I think they overreacted or made major mistakes. They did what they could given the information provided and recommendation of experts. But I also will continue to independently research approaches and the safety and viability of activities for me and my family, and push back against restrictions that aren't clearly defined, consistent with the current understanding of their relative safety or lack thereof, or downright absurd, when the state has shown they don't have the will or capability of doing so in a reasonable and consistent manner.