At least they bothered to note that employees would still be required to wear masks, unlike Hershey.
I’m not shocked by this, per se, but it’s gonna make for a real flashpoint moment for families in particular.
COVID-19 & Coasters: Coronavirus Impacts on the Amusement Industry
- Thread starter GrandpaD
- Start date
At least they bothered to note that employees would still be required to wear masks, unlike Hershey.
I’m not shocked by this, per se, but it’s gonna make for a real flashpoint moment for families in particular.
I mean again, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is to reward those who got fully vaccinated, allow them some normalcy. If someone who isn't fully vaccinated acts like they are to take their mask off, this isn't a threat to those who are fully vaccinated. If you don't want the sickies, get the vaccine. Only an extremely small number of people are actually unable to get the vaccine for medical reasons, and those people probably shouldn't be going to a theme park in a pandemic anyway.
I'd refrain from alluding to the fact that only one stance here has common sense. Even if that may be true since I'm the most genius person to ever live on the planet (I'll sign autographs this July), it's a good way to alienate those who you may disagree with, and makes it nearly impossible to get people to agree with you.
I do agree on the public opinion thing however, as for some reason the same people who have been preaching following the CDC guidelines this whole time are now giving me dirty looks for living like normal again now that I'm vaccinated and the CDC says it's fine. As long as I'm not violating a business' policies and I'm doing the CDC shid, kindly fuck off with your judgement.
I do agree on the public opinion thing however, as for some reason the same people who have been preaching following the CDC guidelines this whole time are now giving me dirty looks for living like normal again now that I'm vaccinated and the CDC says it's fine. As long as I'm not violating a business' policies and I'm doing the CDC shid, kindly fuck off with your judgement.
This has nothing to do with science.
Everyone agrees with the science that vaccinated people do not have to wear masks.
The point is without any control or enforcement the people that never wanted to wear masks in first place will just go without mask even if they are not vaccinated. And I suspect that there is a huge overlap between no-maskers and anti-vaxxers.
Everyone agrees with the science that vaccinated people do not have to wear masks.
The point is without any control or enforcement the people that never wanted to wear masks in first place will just go without mask even if they are not vaccinated. And I suspect that there is a huge overlap between no-maskers and anti-vaxxers.
I strongly believe vaccinated people should wear masks.
Even if we know there is a low risk of contracting Covid-19 after being vaccinated, we don't have trials regarding the ability of someone who has been vaccinated to spread the virus. Even when vaccinated, your body can still become infected, it simply knows how to fight the infection.
The "reward" for getting vaccinated is being a decent human being to those around you, the same as wearing a mask. It's protecting those around you who cannot get vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions.
Even if we know there is a low risk of contracting Covid-19 after being vaccinated, we don't have trials regarding the ability of someone who has been vaccinated to spread the virus. Even when vaccinated, your body can still become infected, it simply knows how to fight the infection.
The "reward" for getting vaccinated is being a decent human being to those around you, the same as wearing a mask. It's protecting those around you who cannot get vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions.
If people choose to still wear their masks when vaccinated, I will certainly respect their decision, just as I’ll respect those who choose not to. Personally I think I’m going to feel naked at first after a year of wearing a mask. I got way too comfortable singing in grocery stores, sticking my tongue out or otherwise making faces under my mask just because I could. (I can’t be the only one…right? RIGHT?) I’m afraid I’ll still be doing those things with my mask off and not even realize it.
Just as an aside. It’s seeming like this is going to be a very very small percent of the population. While I get the sentiment of what you are conveying here, and I do think these changes are premature because these vaccines haven’t really been tested yet, the CDC wouldn’t make this recommendation if they weren’t confident in their findings.
While I do understand where you’re coming from and I respect the viewpoint, it’s also possible for someone with the flu vaccine to catch the flu (even if it’s the same variant, since I know it’s a guessing game) and transmit it. I think this is an apt comparison considering that the vaccine drastically reduces severity of the virus on the very rare occasions when vaccinated people get it. We don’t wear masks every flu season for that small subset that’s extra vulnerable, do we? No. And we’re fine. I’ve done my part and would like to go back to normal. The risk is almost nonexistent
I actually base my stance assuming those who are vaccinated can still spread the virus. If people do not wish to get seriously sick from the virus then get the vaccine, it isn't my responsibility to take care of you at this point. Yes, when high risk individuals had nothing they could do to defend themselves at grocery stores or doctor's offices or other essential areas, I understand the policies in place to protect those pre-vaccine. Now that those who are high risk have the ability to do something to defend themselves, I should not still bear the responsibility.
As far as the "some people can't get the vaccine thing", as I have stated before, I am with @warfelg on this one. I have done research ever since someone first brought that up on the forum and I genuinely cannot find anything to suggest that any significant number of people who cannot get the vaccine exist to the extent of needing full protections such as masks, distancing, and capacity restrictions for all essential facets of life. But let's say there is the need for those protections, let's hypothetically say there is a significant number of 1-5% of individuals incapable of getting the vaccine. I still don't understand why they need to be protected from everyone in every circumstance. Sure, mask up at the essentials like I mentioned before. But if I am immunocompromised to the extent that I am unable to get a vaccine due to the risk of it ravaging my immune system and triggering a severe allergic reaction, I shouldn't be at a damn amusement park or anything like that anyway. Hell, there is a lot more than COVID that someone in that situation would have to worry about.
I don't want to sound like I do not care about others, as I do. I have been very conscious of the restrictions and playing things smart this whole time because though I may not be at high risk, I have family and friends who are. I just feel if we continue down this line of protecting every single individual down until nobody is at risk, when will it end? I feel we are at a good place to give back to people their ability to make some more decisions for themselves, that's just how things should be, even if there are dishonest idiots around. Everyone at high risk (by "everyone" I mean the vast, vast majority) has had the ability to get the vaccine and ensure there own protection for a while now. Frankly, I don't feel sorry for those who have chosen not to protect themselves. They are the ones putting it all on black. I am just your average joe who plays a few turns on the nickels before I pack it up and go home.
Sheesh, he brings it back to a piss poor casino analogy. What a classy fellow.
My understanding of this CDC guidance is that the evidence of how vaccination rates are impacting the rate of spread is effectively the real-world trial of whether or not vaccinated individuals are likely to both be infected and spread those infections: given the extremely low number of "breakthrough" cases of those vaccinated, and the fact there's no widespread evidence to contradict the idea that vaccinated individuals who do contract COVID-19 would also be less likely to transmit it (which is the case with pretty much all vaccines), the CDC's decision is predicated on belief that we would know by now if the scientific POSSIBILITY of the infected vaccinated leading to further infections of the unvaccinated was a significant reality.
I consider it the parallel to surface transmission: it was always scientifically possible, but it was never probable, and after the absence of real-world evidence reached a breaking point, the CDC revised their guidance accordingly.
Ah, but we should. There is really compelling evidence showing how simple prevention measures have severely reduced the cases of influenza.
Pennsylvania Department of Health said:
Sonja Olsen said:
Wearing masks saves lives.
It's all about where you draw the line of diminishing returns.
I'm deeply worried about pulling back all of these measures when our vaccination rates are still far from adequate for herd immunity and I'm all for pressuring people to receive vaccines by making the unvaccinated continue to follow other preventative measures to participate in public life. I'd be all for extending those policies to flu season as well—get your flu shot or you have to wear a mask (carrot/stick). That strikes me as good public health policy.
That said, expecting the population to do both is a bridge way too far for the VAST majority of folks and simply isn't a reasonable public policy expectation right now. I'm all for pushing for incremental change (like proof of vaccination or requirement of mitigation through masks), but the "and" isn't gonna win us many allies at all.
I'm deeply worried about pulling back all of these measures when our vaccination rates are still far from adequate for herd immunity and I'm all for pressuring people to receive vaccines by making the unvaccinated continue to follow other preventative measures to participate in public life. I'd be all for extending those policies to flu season as well—get your flu shot or you have to wear a mask (carrot/stick). That strikes me as good public health policy.
That said, expecting the population to do both is a bridge way too far for the VAST majority of folks and simply isn't a reasonable public policy expectation right now. I'm all for pushing for incremental change (like proof of vaccination or requirement of mitigation through masks), but the "and" isn't gonna win us many allies at all.
^^-- the current trend of the numbers indicates herd immunity is strong. The experts say 10x as many has had the virus than verified but I don't think they're sure they really believe it. I believed that's a conservative number and am being proven correct. The people unvaccinated isn't random, in many cases it's because they know their body and what has been through.
I don't have a choice between the virus OR the vaccine, I only have the choice of AND the vaccine, and think I've been through enough. I don't expect a medal for catching the stuff, but acting like your vaccine makes you superior pisses me off. If it comes back 6 months from now, I might be the first in line.
I don't have a choice between the virus OR the vaccine, I only have the choice of AND the vaccine, and think I've been through enough. I don't expect a medal for catching the stuff, but acting like your vaccine makes you superior pisses me off. If it comes back 6 months from now, I might be the first in line.
A lot of what I've said under the mask hasn't been pleasant and the singing tends towards Morbid Angel, but yes you are not the only one.
Last edited:
How do you intend to define yourself, in terms of park guidelines? Because the CDC has no guidance for people with antibodies, and so I’m curious how you feel the shifting rules apply to you.
As Zachary said, it’s all about the trade off. Good luck convincing society this is a worthwhile exchange
Probably maskless when distanced, masked when not. Or what everyone else is doing.
Last edited:
So a interesting thing I have seen a few tweets and FB posts about….so it sounds like at Disney masks are not required in what they consider “extended queues” only once you enter the actual
queue. Two examples are one at Runaway Railway you don’t need a mask until you enter the building. On Safari they have setup a backstage extended queue where masks aren’t needed. Again you only need it when you get in the actual queue which they aren’t filling.
queue. Two examples are one at Runaway Railway you don’t need a mask until you enter the building. On Safari they have setup a backstage extended queue where masks aren’t needed. Again you only need it when you get in the actual queue which they aren’t filling.
How do others feel about maskless strangers sitting next to you on rides? That happened to me yesterday on Twisted Timbers, and I wasn't ready for it. I was even wearing a mask, which seems like it should have made it clear I might not want that, but no. The row behind me or front of me, sure, but sitting right next to me? No thanks. Not until this thing is really gone.
Right next to me? That's a strong no for me, even if I'm wearing a mask.
But it's clearly going to be an awkward period. At Apollo's yesterday, I was alone in the back row and there was a couple waiting in line behind me. I could tell they were sort of hesitating like "Oh, can we? Should we?" and while they weren't masked I'm not concerned about myself and there was a seat of distance anyway, so I waved them on. But if I were at Invadr in the same position, I would not have expected to cram into a car with a single passenger, and wouldn't have allowed someone to slide in next to me if I was.
I guess the lesson is "sit in the closest seat when you get on as a single rider to keep this from happening?"