News Disney mask policy at Walt Disney World theme parks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Communicora

Premium Member
I agree. After doing some Doom Googling, I'm concerned about CO2 levels when children wear face masks. Most articles I've read give reassurance that the increase in levels aren't that significant, but to my mind this doesn't jive with studies showing that merely living "downwind" of a highway can decrease a student's test scores or that breathing in phytoncides (being around plants, essentially) can impact humans fairly substantially. It seems to me that humans are extremely sensitive to air quality in other situations that have been studied, I just don't see how upping carbon dioxide levels, even a small amount, for hours and hours a day can be casually dismissed as clearly having no effect.

On the other side, the risk of unknown side effects from Covid (like, as mentioned upthread, diabetes,) are of course horrible for parents to think about.

If there were a fairly clear consensus on the risks and benefits of masks for young children it would be different - right now I do think it really is the wild west when it comes to information on the topic. Everyone is winging it, to some degree, and parents have to do the best they can with available information.
The study you linked involved adults wearing highly protective respirators.

I've never seen a child kitted out like that. If you are worried about CO2 levels for kids, you'd advocate for improvements to school facilities and ventilation systems. Classrooms crowded with more kids than they were designed for were already a ventilation problem before COVID existed. There is no evidence masks are causing health issues for kids.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Not only pre-omicron but they determined use of surgical masks made some improvement. From the article:


Since we are discussing the mask policy at WDW and they require a "face covering" and cloth is acceptable, their policy doesn't accomplish anything other than make some people "feel" safer. Pre-omicron you needed at least a surgical mask which they didn't require and now you need an N95 to make a significant difference.

The article contradicts itself on cloth masks. The line you quoted says they don't reduce transmission, but later in the article it says the data from the study does show a reduction for cloth masks, just not as good as surgical:

"The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth."
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
The study you linked involved adults wearing highly protective respirators.

I've never seen a child kitted out like that. If you are worried about CO2 levels for kids, you'd advocate for improvements to school facilities and ventilation systems. Classrooms crowded with more kids than they were designed for were already a ventilation problem before COVID existed. There is no evidence masks are causing health issues for kids.
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.

I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.

I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
I'm uncertain about the CO2 issues myself, and don't put much faith in what people say about it one way or another.
I do know one thing though - our species, and every other vertebral species - didn't evolve to have its breathing ports restricted for half of its waking hours.
 
Last edited:

jkh36619

Well-Known Member
I agree. After doing some Doom Googling, I'm concerned about CO2 levels when children wear face masks. Most articles I've read give reassurance that the increase in levels aren't that significant, but to my mind this doesn't jive with studies showing that merely living "downwind" of a highway can decrease a student's test scores or that breathing in phytoncides (being around plants, essentially) can impact humans fairly substantially. It seems to me that humans are extremely sensitive to air quality in other situations that have been studied, I just don't see how upping carbon dioxide levels, even a small amount, for hours and hours a day can be casually dismissed as clearly having no effect.

On the other side, the risk of unknown side effects from Covid (like, as mentioned upthread, diabetes,) are of course horrible for parents to think about.

If there were a fairly clear consensus on the risks and benefits of masks for young children it would be different - right now I do think it really is the wild west when it comes to information on the topic. Everyone is winging it, to some degree, and parents have to do the best they can with available information.
I read somwhere that it's the cow farts that will eventually kill us off.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.

I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
Why this study was retracted was perhaps the ones that know better saw this study as a big conspiracy baloney and threw this in the trash where it belongs.
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
Why this study was retracted was perhaps the ones that know better saw this study as a big conspiracy baloney and threw this in the trash where it belongs.
Then bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.

Anyways, will put the link below so you can see the specific issues cited:

 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
E6DB5B6A-8089-47DC-8114-187C1213B374.jpeg
 

helenabear

Premium Member
I've been chuckling for about the past two years, every time I see a person wearing a mask that isn't an N95.
Why? N95s are hard to find for kid/small adult faces. Wearing an adult size one on me is far worse than surgical. Which is what I wear. Plus they show that they do help. So why chuckle at people who have to mask when required and wear something good enough? I mean it's not like we had single layer of chiffon or something.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
Then bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.

Anyways, will put the link below so you can see the specific issues cited:

Umm, yeah hot garbage
\
Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions. In their invited responses to these and other concerns, the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review. Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter.

Do you even read this stuff?
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
Umm, yeah hot garbage
\
Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions. In their invited responses to these and other concerns, the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review. Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter.

Do you even read this stuff?
Of course. It’s difficult to get a feel for how substantial this criticism is as a layperson though. Remember that ALL articles are subject to various criticisms, it’s not like those that aren’t retracted have zero issues. Criticism is of course a vital part of the review process.

At any rate, it would be much more comforting if there was a non retracted study that showed the opposite - no impact on CO2 levels. I haven’t seen such a study. So there’s this one that DID find high CO2 levels but had some technical issues, and no other available evidence. Not comforting.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Then bad on a journal as well known as JAMA for publishing it in the first place. I mean it’s JAMA, this wasn’t published to Facebook or something.

Anyways, will put the link below so you can see the specific issues cited:

Don't be a sucker and fall for this garbage. Some unfortunately do.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
Of course. It’s difficult to get a feel for how substantial this criticism is as a layperson though. Remember that ALL articles are subject to various criticisms, it’s not like those that aren’t retracted have zero issues. Criticism is of course a vital part of the review process.

At any rate, it would be much more comforting if there was a non retracted study that showed the opposite - no impact on CO2 levels. I haven’t seen such a study. So there’s this one that DID find high CO2 levels but had some technical issues, and no other available evidence. Not comforting.
As a layman you should defer to those with specialized knowledge to judge for you if you don't posses the capability to judge for yourself, they did and they have. Hot garbage rejected.
You are hoping for a straw to grasp to support your conclusion despite there being evidence showing it is poorly conceived. Let the experts expert.
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
As a layman you should defer to those with specialized knowledge to judge for you if you don't posses the capability to judge for yourself, they did and they have. Hot garbage rejected.
You are hoping for a straw to grasp to support your conclusion despite there being evidence showing it is poorly conceived. Let the experts expert.
Not “rejected”, retracted. Passed review by a prestigious journal to be published, and *then* retracted. Very different. If JAMA is publishing hot garbage that is also incredibly worrisome, just in a different way. Presumably, though, this study was well designed enough to pass the first round of muster by a prestigious journal. It was later retracted when Tucker Carlson started screaming about it and apparently it didn’t stand up to *additional* scrutiny. Fair enough. But that is not an AOK thumbs up for face masks on small children. It’s one study with design problems showing elevated CO2 levels and no further evidence available.

I’ll leave it at that, there’s no point going back and forth when people have made up their minds. I’m completely open to the idea that face masks don’t increase CO2 levels in children at all, btw, but I want to see more data on the topic. Vaccines for kids made me nervous as well and then when I saw that millions of kids were vaccinated and no major adverse effects were reported, that really put me at ease. Show me robust data and I’m good - insist that a POV is right but no data is needed and I’m nervous.
 

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.

I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
Humans also don't do well when they get pneumonia.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Another JAMA study found fairly significant increases in CO2 levels of kids wearing masks. It was later retracted (after huge political backlash, so a bit sus) on technical issues but no evidence to the contrary has been solidly presented. We don’t really know how much CO2 kids are breathing in masks, which again, is worrisome, especially since other evidence indicates that humans are extremely sensitive to even very small changes in air quality.

I certainly think better air quality in classrooms overall is a great idea, especially as carbon levels may be increasing slowly with climate change, not sure what that has to do with my post though.
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Tiny increases may effect the climate but they won't effect air quality or breathing as long as the O2 concentration stays where it is.

I don't know why it would be so difficult to set up a mask with sensors and measure everything while a kid (or adult) breathes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom