Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[ABQ]

If we're actually at something that looks like herd immunity, hopefully the discussion will be a single page.

Ha, if WDW were to repaint the smoke stack on a ferry boat the wrong shade of black, it would result in 100 pages of posts. Nothing on this forum takes just a single page.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Because snarky nicknames and buzzwords are great ways to have productive conversation.

 

[sullyinMT]

Draw your own conclusions.

Both go down. Vaccines really sped up or reached a critical juncture within that timeframe. Look at the steeper slope of the mask mandate line. The jump can be explained by more populated states with mandates still in place having a variant outbreak prior to vaccinating enough people to stop that blip (MI comes to mind). Economic activity via dining and bars was still a thing, even with mask mandates. Masks suck, but they’re still working and should be around in some, lessening, fashion until we’re actually where we think we are (collectively). At least, that’s what I see.

 

[Nubs70]

Because snarky nicknames and buzzwords are great ways to have productive conversation.

"Follow the Science" is a buzzword(s)?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

"Follow the Science" is a buzzword(s)?

I didn't say it was.

 

[FormerMember]

I’m guessing you won’t feel comfortable in any major city then right now. I wouldn’t be taking in a Cubs game or Phillies game then if I were you. I could go on and on.. crime is up everywhere since the people have been taking to the streets again. Like many people here have said.. determine your own risk of things and let others do the same. If someone wants to wear a mask that’s fine.. if someone doesn’t want to go to a Broadway show that’s fine also. We all make decisions on our own risk level and what we want our families to possibly endure.

Correct! I was simply postulating on why the “pent up demand” wasn’t materializing on Broadway. Manhattan is a scary place right now.

 

[sullyinMT]

Easy now... you might trigger a COVID bro with these facts.
On a more serious note I find it ironic that those that say “follow the science” are so against dropping mask requirements outdoors where COVID transmission is proven to be basically non existent.

Actually, I think most are delineating WDW, or more specifically the parks at WDW, and the rest of “outdoors.” The overwhelming majority here are in accord that outdoor masking can go away, except in large or congested gatherings like a sporting event or theme park. Few, if any, here are pushing for continuous outdoor masking when distanced or with casual contact. As this is a Disney forum, we’re judging with theme park eyes what Disney’s next steps might be.

 

[disneygeek90]

You read this as masks working? A higher case rate, is, working?

The problem with relying on strictly the graph is that there were other variables in every state. In a perfect world, we could duplicate a state and see what happens. One masked Florida and one unmasked Florida. There's too may dependent variables in nearly every state that it's hard to take the graph at face value.

Maybe California would have been 10x worse if they weren't as aggressive as they were. Maybe Florida would have 1/3 the number of deaths if they did what California did. There's too many working parts and moving factors like average age, population density, weather, access to open areas and paks etc to draw conclusions on any handful of states against one another.

 

[sullyinMT]

You read this as masks working? A higher case rate, is, working?

Yes. More dense population centers exist in those 34 data points. Far more variables exist than whether or not a mandate exists, as we’ve gone over a few times. We’re hovering at 11 cases/100k around here. With a few more people getting shots and keeping their mask on (indoors, mind you), there’s no reason we couldn’t be at CA’s 5ish.

 

[jinx8402]

You read this as masks working? A higher case rate, is, working?

I mean, it is hard to draw any conclusion since every state is unique with it's mandates, people voluntarily masking still, vaccination rates and population density amongst other things.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Ha, if WDW were to repaint the smoke stack on a ferry boat the wrong shade of black, it would result in 100 pages of posts. Nothing on this forum takes just a single page.

They repainted them coal black instead of jet black? What hell hath Bob Chapek wrought?

 

[mmascari]

If you read the article, there are scientists in it that state exactly that. They claim that outdoor transmission - NOT in a crowd - is very likely less than .1%. Let me repeat that - .1% or 100 times LESS than the CDC is stating. How is that not flawed??????

The "NOT in a crowd" is super important. There's "Outside" and then there's "Outside" and they're not the same. I like to assume if someone is going to spill their beer on me if they're startled/excited, we're in a crowd. If it's more than one person, it's a big crowd.

It is concerning that the CDC went with the less than 10% number rather than the far more accurate less than 1% number. It is one thing to be conservative but something else entirely to be that misleading. Its not a good look. Poor communication on their end at the very least.

They're always going to be conservative, it's a safety item. If there's 10 chances for something and on average, 5 times it's bad. Nobody set's the safety at 5. It get's set at 8 or 9. If it was set at 5, because that's the average and then it happens 7 times with dire consequences there would be huge outrage.

Combine that slant, with what does "Outside" mean, especially as you move between zones and nuance, along with different crowding levels at the different transitions. Then, you end up a guideline that's more aggressive than an individual may like.

It's a guideline, for all scenarios not a nuanced apply to a the specific items of a specific scenario. All those Outside activities, like walking the dog, trails by yourself, distanced at the park, clearly they're all not needed despite the guideline. Change that dog walk to a close circle of people talking while dogs run in the dog park. The trail to a single file crowded climb in a national park where you cannot turn back and only move forward when the person in front moves. At the park, everyone move to the line for the snack shack on top of each other. All of those are "Outside", the guideline clearly assumes the worst since it's not nuanced and not trying to deal with the transitions.

They can't really increase outdoor capacity if they still requires masks indoors though, can they? Lines would stretch farther and wait times would increase.

Not if they decrease spacing to 3'. We're getting signs of that happening, like rerouting Buzz to create room for MILF. If line spacing decreases, they should be able to get a few more people in the parks.

While most people would prefer they keep the capacity lower, keep the distance, and ditch the masks, as that's a better experience for the guests. They're likely to do the reverse, increase capacity, reduce the distances, and keep the masks. Since they'll effectively make everywhere a crowd. This also solves the transition zone for them, if you're always in a crowd, you're rarely transitioning to a real "Outside not crowded" area.

I suppose there's places at WDW where I don't have to worry about an excited person spilling their beer on me because I'm all alone on the path, but it doesn't feel like many. The places you can walk from the resort to a park all come to mind, not masking for the majority of those walks would make sense. Someplace near the park, as you bunch up approaching security depending on the time, that's probably where a transition to crowded happens.

At some point, you have to trust adults to be adults (and to look after their children). "Put on your mask as you enter a building" is not an unreasonable standard.

Define "building"?
The overhang area where we're 3 feet apart?
The entrance area closer in under the overhang with a wall on one or two sides?
Deeper in the entrance area, still one wall wide open behind me, and I'm only 1 step in after all?
At the first sign that says "mask on"?
At the second sign, since the first was just a suggestion?
After the cast member reminds me someplace past the second sign?

I think Disney would prefer to to ramp up capacity and guests so that you're always in a crowd before they would prefer to a dynamic nuanced mask policy.

For all the angst over outdoor masking, I can't even imagine what the discussions are going to be like when it's time to drop indoor masking.

I think this will actually be easier. First, it's not going to happen until there's enough vaccinated/low enough spread, so the risk in general will be much lower. Presumably, since indoors with random people for long periods is the worst scenario, this will be the last restriction removed. Second, there's no question then about when do you put it on or take off. It's just off, you didn't even bring one.

Oh how I look forward to that not even have one, sitting with my beer. It wouldn't bother me if the nearest person was still far enough way to not worry about spills. I like to hang out a exciting places.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Actually, I think most are delineating WDW, or more specifically the parks at WDW, and the rest of “outdoors.” The overwhelming majority here are in accord that outdoor masking can go away, except in large or congested gatherings like a sporting event or theme park. Few, if any, here are pushing for continuous outdoor masking when distanced or with casual contact. As this is a Disney forum, we’re judging with theme park eyes what Disney’s next steps might be.

Exactly. I don't wear a mask outdoors in general, unless in a congested area. I see some people wearing masks even walking around lightly populated parks, but it's not a requirement whatsoever.

Theme parks, particularly Disney theme parks are places I associate with lots of people in close proximity. Even if crowds are spread out in general, that can change in an instant when walking through a choke point.

Masks outdoors at WDW still makes sense to me.

 

[mmascari]

My department has done so well working from home, my boss is ok with people working a day or two a week from home on a permanent basis.

Keep working them. You can get it up to a day or two a week in the office, then couple days a month, and then two or three weeks a year as the final answer. Everyone comes in for the week when there's a quarterly department meeting. And, that's it.

 

[Nubs70]

My department has done so well working from home, my boss is ok with people working a day or two a week from home on a permanent basis.

My companies NA president hasn't left his summer home in Laapland in 12 months.

 

[AEfx]

Far more variables exist than whether or not a mandate exists, as we’ve gone over a few times.

Exactly. People are so focused on the "mandate" part that they don't see that just because a mandate lifted, everyone didn't automatically stop wearing masks. For example, New Hampshire technically let their mandate lapse (though still said they recommended people continue to do so and affirmed their effectiveness). In response, many businesses in the state (especially those that have multi-state presence) put out notice that they would continue to require them in their businesses regardless of a mandate or not.

 

[danlb_2000]

Keep working them. You can get it up to a day or two a week in the office, then couple days a month, and then two or three weeks a year as the final answer. Everyone comes in for the week when there's a quarterly department meeting. And, that's it.

No, that's not the direction I want to go. Being able to work from home a day or two a week is fine, but you really loose a lot of the spontaneous collaboration you get when you are in the office together.

 

[Chi84]

Masks work fine; the problem is with mask mandates. They generally can't be enforced in the places where COVID is most likely to be transmitted. We have a mask mandate at our local arboretum - you would have to work pretty hard to get COVID from passing someone on a trail. Same with stores - people are not likely to be in contact with any one person long enough to get infected.

I wish the CDC and other health agencies would better explain the numbers and percentages they are using and put them into proper context. As is, a lot of people are left underestimating the effectiveness of the vaccine, overestimating the effectiveness of certain mitigation measures, and misunderstanding their likelihood of getting infected as well as the circumstances under which infection is more probable.

 

[sullyinMT]

Exactly. People are so focused on the "mandate" part that they don't see that just because a mandate lifted, everyone didn't automatically stop wearing masks. For example, New Hampshire technically let their mandate lapse (though still said they recommended people continue to do so and affirmed their effectiveness). In response, many businesses in the state (especially those that have multi-state presence) put out notice that they would continue to require them in their businesses regardless of a mandate or not.

The signs exist here, too. But people (including many staff) couldn’t care less. Indoor use is maybe 50%. A few counties over to the next city is much better.

 

[GoofGoof]

For all the angst over outdoor masking, I can't even imagine what the discussions are going to be like when it's time to drop indoor masking.

Pop some popcorn because it’s coming soon

Where I live in PA they are dropping the indoor mask mandate when 70% of adults are vaccinated. Should be sometime in 4-6 weeks at most. I imagine other NE states like NY/NJ/MA will follow the same pattern. CA has already said they are dropping all Covid restrictions by mid-June if things continue to look good. Once those major population centers start dropping restrictions it will be harder and harder for national chain stores and national attractions like WDW to keep them. If we hit 70% of adults vaccinated nationwide by July 4th (the target) I could see all Covid safety mandates relaxed shortly after. It’s going to be a wild ride