MEDIUM RARE Jullie Y. Daza “. . . for the world in its present form is passing away.” From a letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (said to be a sinful people), read in church last Sunday. Whether those words, written a little less than 2,000 years ago, stopped you in your tracks or did not, considering how often they are repeated during the liturgical year and outside the pulpit, what matters is the dichotomy between faith and fear. On the one hand we believe we are in God’s loving hands, on the other we have to be a bit scared so we don’t take things for granted, let down our guard, and recklessly disobey the minimum protocols for staying safe from infection and transmission. Government’s latest plan, to allow 10-year-olds to go outside their residence in MGCQ areas starting Feb. 1, is setting off a brush fire of positive and negative reactions. Doctors and health workers are against it. Harmoniously, IATF and Cabinet members are for it. Mothers are torn between wanting to give their long imprisoned kids a break and wondering at the same time if it’s an insane idea. My take: Leave it to the parents (and leave the LGUs out of this). We cannot think for parents all the time. We don’t know what kind of 10-year-olds are in their care. If a family lives in cramped quarters, obviously their situation would be different from that of a family living in a well-ventilated home. I asked a little girl what she thinks. In her own words: “I will be 10 in a few months but I don’t think I will be ready even then. It’s not the appropriate age because not all of us act responsibly.” Next, I asked a 15-year-old boy to remember what he was like when he was 10. He replied: “It shouldn’t be hard to observe the do’s and don’ts. There’s no problem as long as I’m with adults who will look after me.” A professional nanny’s opinion: “Ten is too soon. I’d rather be careful than sorry.” Clearly, the idea is not to force parents to give their kids a free pass. In the long run, it all depends on what kind of parents they are and have been.