Nope, I wouldn't snitch in that case. I'm not a "snitcher" in that sense.
Now, let's take the case of my youngest son who's a junior in high school and currently enjoying his American football season. Our school system, and state for that matter, did a nice job of keeping the athletic programs running in light of COVID. There are rules however designed to keep the kids and coaches as safe as possible. For the kids, who are largely not high risk of course, its important because if they test COVID positive they must recuse themselves from the team and all team activities including games for 14 days. Its a short season as it is so missing two games in this case would be hugely impactful.
So, if some parents, lets say, had made their own "choice" to not abide and perhaps their kid was known to be COVID positive and they weren't following the protocol..... I might say something in that case. Reason being they are putting my kid at risk in such a case. Make sense?
But if a group of people want to gather at their own house, I say good on them. They aren't putting me or my family at risk so I have zero problems with that.
I sense that even you are beginning to feel the artificiality of this panic. The risk to your kid is the risk that he will lose his place on the team due to lockdown, not that he would die of a terrible disease, or even, I think, cause you or your wife to die of a terrible disease.
My partner has tooth ache, and the first appointment she could get is on Oct 8! Normally an NHS appointment for that would be on the same day! We are now going to explore private dentistry to see if we can get a significant advance on that date. I also know a man with an artificial leg. He describes the leg as 'electronic', and it needs to be tuned to work properly. He waited weeks for this to be done, and then all the COVID rules meant that he wasn't able to walk the required distance for them to make the correct adjustments.
Now imagine what it is like for people with incipient cancer.
The supposed need to suppress COVID by all and any means is being used to destroy the sheer integrity of Western societies.
Almost all the people 'diagnosed' with CV19 in the summer months have been asymptomatic but failed PCR tests. These are assumed to have no false positives, but I recently watched a video in which Karry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR process, spoke about his reason for opposing the use of this test for diagnosis. He had a rather roundabout way of speaking (and is dead now), but I hope I understood the essential problem with doing that.
These tests detect one, or a very few RNA fragments that are supposed to be found in CV19 (he was discussing AIDS but he is dead now, so he can't translate his observation into COVID). I think his main objection is that samples from people often contain whole or fragmented viruses of all sorts - including ones that have never been characterised. There are more of these in people who are in poor condition. If some of these viruses contain sufficiently similar RNA components, these will get amplified up to the point where they will give a false positive result. If the PCR cycles are set at 40, that corresponds to an amplification factor of 2^40, or about 1 trillion times.
David