5 ms·
No screaming on California roller coasters and thrill rides, state guidelines
- BaseS4 6y agoWhy is anyone still deferring to a legal construct whose entire basis of existence is derived from how many likes they achieve on a special day every few years?
- chovybizzass 6y agoRecall Gavin Nudesome
- db48x 6y agoIs there anyone who _doesn’t_ think the government has been overreaching all along?
- rscoots 6y agoIt's just an unenforced health guideline. Reading through the article it appears this lede is a straight up lie, no? >Six Flags Magic Mountain, Knott’s Berry Farm and Disneyland may need to add new warning signs at the entrances to their roller coasters and thrill rides when the California theme parks finally reopen: No screaming.
- pmiller2 6y agoNo, it's not a lie at all. The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen, then probably take them down when they're no longer required. This whole thing is a temporary measure.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rscoots 6y agoThe words "may need" is the lie. Is there anything to indicate these signs will be required in order for parks to reopen?
- pmiller2 6y agoHow else would you propose to indicate to people that there's no screaming on the rides?
- dragonwriter 6y agoI, the industry plan cited in the article, and the actual state industry-specific guidelines for amusement parks would all address this by requiring riders to wear masks. The article’s concern is pure fantasy being advanced as a form of anti-state-administration political propaganda, to fuel the current recall effort.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen There is nothing in either the actual published state industry-specific rules for amusement parks, or the lobbying document from the industry association suggesting that such signs would be required, recommended, suggested, or...well, anything else. The entire idea seems to be an invention of the article writer, whose nearest nexus to reality is the non-industry-specific concerns from a not-fully-cited source which seems to be some earlier version of the state reopening blueprint (but, notably, not the industry-specific guidance which has already been issued for the amusement park industry) which mentions activities involving screaming, etc., as things that need to be limited or mitigated generically to reopen. But the cited industry lobbying plan itself proposes addressing—and the actual state industry-specific guidance for amusement parks (that the article simply ignores) addresses—this with masking, not any rules about limiting or discouraging screaming, whether by signs or otherwise.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> It's just an unenforced health guideline. No, it's not that either. It's a not-industry-specific health consideration, for which there is no rule or guidance for the industry in question beyond mask requirements.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pmiller2 6y agoYes. The government hasn't done nearly enough in this crisis.
- mrfusion 6y agoWhich additional human rights would you suggest they take?
- pmiller2 6y agoYou mean which human rights would I suggest they respect? All of them, of course. My guess is that my definition of “human rights” is more expansive than your own.
- mrfusion 6y agoI suggest going by the UN declaration of human rights: https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/mobile.shtml https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/mobile.shtml
- das4119 6y agoThis yelling/screaming in particular is presumably done at high speed due to it being a roller-coaster and all. Is fast moving air in the outdoors really going to contribute to significantly high viral load exposure? I'd love to see the studies backing up the idea that screaming is actually a concern. This is a science based decision after all... Another aspect: Don't people line up before they get on the ride? Isn't that more dangerous? And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence? EDIT: Article does state: "These guidelines do not require parks to prohibit screaming."
- pmiller2 6y agoWho cares if it's a science-based decision? It's a near zero cost measure that requires no real effort to implement. This isn't about shutting down outdoor dining. Edit: I guess nobody understands cost benefit analysis here. Yes, the strength of evidence is low, but so is the cost, yet the potential payoff is huge.
- Justin_K 6y agoBecause we don't laws and rules based on whether it takes effort nor not.
- dragonwriter 6y agoRequired compliance effort (e.g., cost/benefit concerns) are very often a key consideration in laws and regulations.
- das4119 6y agowell if there's no science then it has nothing to do with any medical concern. Isn't that kind of the point?
- pmiller2 6y agoNo, it isn't. There's a reasonable belief that droplets from screaming could aerosolize and get spread to others on the ride. Given that, it makes sense to implement such a near zero cost measure that has literally no potential to harm anything or anyone. Why is this so hard to understand?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> No screaming on California roller coasters and thrill rides, state guidelines While this is the source headline, it is also a straight-up lie (as is the associated subhead) that directly contradicts the body of the article (given the source and message, more likely political propaganda than clickbait, hoping to drive perceptions among the large number of news browsers that don't read most articles beyond the headline) and should not be retained as the HN title. And even the body of the article is deceptive; despite referencing the new rules that allow park reopenings on April 1 in red-tier counties, it appears to base any mention of any potential impact on screaming in those rules from an undated reopening plan from an industry organization (that, given the absence of any press release announcing the plan on the organizations website, seems to be from before September 28 of last year) which itself appears to be lobbying for setting the industry rules for reopening by proposing responses to non-industry-specific concerns from some (uncited) state document. The actual industry guidance for amusement parks which was released some time ago (and remains current with the new rules which allow reopening in red tier and adjust capacity limits and other limits in other rules) does not say anything about screaming at all, implicitly addressing the concern which led to that being included in non-industry-specific guidance previously with masking requirements.
- halfnormalform 6y ago100% agreed. The headline and article are from separate universes. A better headline would be “Theme Park Association: Still Safe to Scream” but that’s not much of a story.
- tamaharbor 6y agoIs barfing encouraged?