No screaming on California roller coasters and thrill rides, state guidelines(ocregister.com)
ocregister.com
No screaming on California roller coasters and thrill rides, state guidelines
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/03/16/no-screaming-on-california-roller-coasters-and-thrill-rides-theme-park-association-recommends/
33 comments
Is there anyone who _doesn’t_ think the government has been overreaching all along?
It'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.
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.
No, 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.
> 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.
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.
The words "may need" is the lie.
Is there anything to indicate these signs will be required in order for parks to reopen?
Is there anything to indicate these signs will be required in order for parks to reopen?
How else would you propose to indicate to people that there's no screaming on the rides?
I, 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.
The article’s concern is pure fantasy being advanced as a form of anti-state-administration political propaganda, to fuel the current recall effort.
[deleted]
> 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.
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]
Yes. The government hasn't done nearly enough in this crisis.
Which additional human rights would you suggest they take?
You 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.
I 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
This 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."
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."
> I'd love to see the studies backing this up.
Backing what up? The only mention of screaming in any of the documents referenced even implicitly in the article is in a non-industry-specific list of concerns to which the industry plan offers responses (which for screaming, etc., is “mitigate the risk with masks”.)
The actual state industry-specific guidance for reopening amusement parks doesn't mention screaming (but implicitly takes the same approach as the industry group plan, controlling any potential risk with a mask requirement.)
> And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
No, the non-industry-specific notes about that mean that an industry/activity where that regular occurs in groups that cannot effectively distance sufficiently or mitigate droplet spread by other means (e.g., masks) would be more of a concern for reopening conditions than if that were not the case, all other things being equal.
Backing what up? The only mention of screaming in any of the documents referenced even implicitly in the article is in a non-industry-specific list of concerns to which the industry plan offers responses (which for screaming, etc., is “mitigate the risk with masks”.)
The actual state industry-specific guidance for reopening amusement parks doesn't mention screaming (but implicitly takes the same approach as the industry group plan, controlling any potential risk with a mask requirement.)
> And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
No, the non-industry-specific notes about that mean that an industry/activity where that regular occurs in groups that cannot effectively distance sufficiently or mitigate droplet spread by other means (e.g., masks) would be more of a concern for reopening conditions than if that were not the case, all other things being equal.
Who 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.
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.
Because we don't laws and rules based on whether it takes effort nor not.
Required compliance effort (e.g., cost/benefit concerns) are very often a key consideration in laws and regulations.
well if there's no science then it has nothing to do with any medical concern. Isn't that kind of the point?
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?
Why is this so hard to understand?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> this rule
There is no actual rule here, just ungrounded scaremongering.
There is no actual rule here, just ungrounded scaremongering.
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]
> 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.
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.
100% 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.
A better headline would be “Theme Park Association: Still Safe to Scream” but that’s not much of a story.
Is barfing encouraged?