But this is the problem with the analysis that “significant spread has never been traced to any outdoor environment”— it always comes down to the technicality that it’s extremely difficult to trace outbreaks to outdoor environments (such as WDW parks) because infections can always be blamed on other places (people sleep indoors before/after their visits and also tend to travel in cars, monorails, gondolas, planes, etc.). Also, true contact tracing isn’t actually being done.
Those other things are where the danger lives for many things.
Much like many of the other recent comments about "XYZ is safe and doesn't need ABC". They're frequently correct, that the specific XYZ would be totally fine. A better question is what other things surround that activity. How easily is it to control the shift from XYZ to DEF that does need those extra ABC mitigation efforts.
An easy example is a an outdoor stadium with sufficient distance between people in the stands. That sounds totally safe. Everyone outside, nice 6 foot or more distance between groups. No worries at all. The issues come up with that's not all people at the stadium really do and they don't magically transport from their cars directly to their seats. There are lines to get in, get out, restrooms, clubhouses, eating, and other ancillary activities. Some of those have easy delineation, make that restroom line be outside and only allow limited people in. Others are more fluid, everyone leaves at the same time and hits a choke point, in a winding staircase, and they pile up on top of each other. Better control when they leave could help, assuming people listen.
You're left with two options:
- Over mitigate. Wear a mask or keep things closed in situations where it isn't really needed for the primary activity but it's hard to segment the auxiliary activities.
- Under mitigate. Go wild in all those perfectly fine primary activities and accept that as things slide into the auxiliary things they'll have less mitigation.
In the WDW case, there's lots of changing between scenarios. I can understand why they want a simple policy based on the most restrictive scenario. Essentially option 1 where they over require masking in general to avoid having to monitor the change between areas. One advantage, there's relatively few places where the transition between masked and not masked happens then. Option 2 would have significantly more transitions.
That walking in the park example, of people raising and lowering as they pass. It's very dependent on actual crowding size and flow of people. Out for a jog mostly alone, I'll completely agree masking to pass someone is stupid. If you're that mostly alone, just give enough space when passing. That's how we walk the neighborhood. In a very busy park, with limited trails where groups occasionally get jammed up. Now you're starting to have to make decisions. Is this person I'm passing now really going to be gone in 2 seconds? Is there another group coming at them, are they getting stuck, are they just a jerk and going to stand right next to me for 5 minutes breathing in my face?
You can bet we have some option 1 posters and some option 2 posters here.
www.cnn.com
(I married a Hoosier, FWIW). Great Wolf Lodge (indoors) is wide open near Kings’ Island from what I gather. A few indoor touristy spots around there, too.