3 ms·

well if there's no science then it has nothing to do with any medical concern. Isn't that kind of the point?

pmiller2 6y ago
No, 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?
- das4119 6y ago
  At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat? If they really think this is a real threat then I'd fully expect them to be already cleaning the various surfaces of the ride each time. That means alcohol swabbing all hand surfaces. I'd also expect the people waiting in line to be fully masked without exception because people talking is a known aerosol vector. That's the "reasonable" science approach to dealing with a known aerosol and surface infection threat. But I doubt they clean each time. I doubt they distance properly. In plenty of locations I'm sure they don't wear masks. If they aren't already doing all those preventive measures then adding a "no yell / scream" requirement is actually just nonsense because the simple and basic actions aren't being done. EDIT: on a more serious note, if there is no threat then the reason for the rule isn't health-related. That is even worse. That then makes it a rule put in place for health reasons yet with no actual health reasons. That's very bad public policy and sets a bad precedent since now anything can be justified for no reason. Doing it just for optics is even worse.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat? Again, who cares? Do you want to fund the research to find out? No? Well, here's a simple and nearly zero cost way to make sure screaming people don't transmit the virus.
    - das4119 6y ago
      If you don't care about evidence then this rule is therefore more about the optics - just the appearance of doing something. And because you don't care about evidence you can't then make claims about "making sure" because then you stray into the land of probabilities and possible guarantees. Which you can't do because that requires evidence to be even remotely useful. If the rule has any validity then you ALSO can't tolerate people talking before the ride. Can't stop one activity and allow the other. Talking is a known infection vector since it can easily fill a space like a room with a significant viral load. This is how people get infected simply by entering a room full of infected air that has suspended viral particles in it. But can you fill an area with a significant viral load when that area happens to be an open-air roller-coaster moving at high speed? So evidence does matter. Either way.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        No, I don’t care about evidence for something so simple with such a low burden. If you want to fund the research on this, be my guest, and I’ll gladly incorporate it into my view.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > this rule There is no actual rule here, just ungrounded scaremongering.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  without a more substantial argument, it doesn't seem like a "reasonable belief" to me. the fact that you have a bunch of people crammed together in a small train seems like it would overwhelmingly dominate the "safe or not safe" equation, not to mention the problem of how to get people to properly distance themselves in the long queues typical at amusement parks. if screaming is really the needle that breaks the camel's back, it's probably too early to reopen the parks at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

No, 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?

das4119 6y ago
At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat? If they really think this is a real threat then I'd fully expect them to be already cleaning the various surfaces of the ride each time. That means alcohol swabbing all hand surfaces. I'd also expect the people waiting in line to be fully masked without exception because people talking is a known aerosol vector. That's the "reasonable" science approach to dealing with a known aerosol and surface infection threat. But I doubt they clean each time. I doubt they distance properly. In plenty of locations I'm sure they don't wear masks. If they aren't already doing all those preventive measures then adding a "no yell / scream" requirement is actually just nonsense because the simple and basic actions aren't being done. EDIT: on a more serious note, if there is no threat then the reason for the rule isn't health-related. That is even worse. That then makes it a rule put in place for health reasons yet with no actual health reasons. That's very bad public policy and sets a bad precedent since now anything can be justified for no reason. Doing it just for optics is even worse.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > At the speeds we're talking about, is there even a threat? Again, who cares? Do you want to fund the research to find out? No? Well, here's a simple and nearly zero cost way to make sure screaming people don't transmit the virus.
  - das4119 6y ago
    If you don't care about evidence then this rule is therefore more about the optics - just the appearance of doing something. And because you don't care about evidence you can't then make claims about "making sure" because then you stray into the land of probabilities and possible guarantees. Which you can't do because that requires evidence to be even remotely useful. If the rule has any validity then you ALSO can't tolerate people talking before the ride. Can't stop one activity and allow the other. Talking is a known infection vector since it can easily fill a space like a room with a significant viral load. This is how people get infected simply by entering a room full of infected air that has suspended viral particles in it. But can you fill an area with a significant viral load when that area happens to be an open-air roller-coaster moving at high speed? So evidence does matter. Either way.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      No, I don’t care about evidence for something so simple with such a low burden. If you want to fund the research on this, be my guest, and I’ll gladly incorporate it into my view.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > this rule There is no actual rule here, just ungrounded scaremongering.
leetcrew 6y ago
without a more substantial argument, it doesn't seem like a "reasonable belief" to me. the fact that you have a bunch of people crammed together in a small train seems like it would overwhelmingly dominate the "safe or not safe" equation, not to mention the problem of how to get people to properly distance themselves in the long queues typical at amusement parks. if screaming is really the needle that breaks the camel's back, it's probably too early to reopen the parks at all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]