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."
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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."