CMs wearing masks would protect the guests if the CMs are infected and the guests aren’t. I suppose that helps in a lot of cases since they are probably the most exposed of anyone on property, since they are there for the long term rather than for a few days, plus they have more direct contact with guests than other guests do. But it wouldn’t protect against infected guests infecting other guests.
4 Likes
I think @Pod posted somewhere in the other thread that they are only finding transmission among people in the same home to be about 15%. I would presume that is without masks. I’m not sure then how that information and the numbers used in this infograph mesh. Maybe someone much smarter than me can speak to it.
2 Likes
As I mentioned when I first posted it, I have no idea whether or how the percentages in the chart are validated. But my guess is that the percentages are meant to be relative to what your chance of being infected otherwise would have been. So if you had a 15% chance of getting infected with no mask, you would have a 70% x 15% chance of getting infected if only you were wearing a mask.
But in reality I wouldn’t trust those percentages - although the general implication is probably right (ie, you are more protected by other people wearing masks than you are wearing a mask yourself, but the benefit is compounded if you both wear one).
8 Likes
I agree. Who knows with the percentages. I think Pod also said the chances of picking it up at the grocery store were something like 1%. But I have no idea if that includes the use of masks or not. My guess is, in the open spaces of Disney, transmission rates would be very low. Indoors the numbers would go up a bit, but how significantly would depend on capacity I suppose.
1 Like
I think the message that visual is trying to show (I did look up the site it came from) is that the greatest protection is when everyone wears the mask?
The message I keep on hearing from Disney is they want to open with protocols in place that will ensure guest safety. I like that visual because I think it demonstrates why Disney will insists CMs and Guests both wear masks.
3 Likes
The R0 on COVID has been publicized at somewhere between 2-3 or maybe 5-6, meaning that everyone who is sick will infect, say, 2-3 other people in a certain time period (I think it’s a week, but correct me if I’m wrong).
So if an infected person is walking around Disney World, they’re not infecting people right and left. Rather, 2-3 unlucky people will get infected over the person’s entire vacation, probably ones who are spending time around the person or happen to interact with an object that has received a large amount of shedded virus. But probably not people who just strolled by or sat behind him on a theater.
If 3% of guests at WDW are infected, after a week long trip, 6-9% of guests will have been infected by them. The inverse of that is also true - 91% or more of guests will not be infected. That gets worse if a higher percentage are infected to begin with, but I doubt that would be the case since those with symptoms would hopefully isolate or wouldn’t feel well enough to go out. The rate would decrease if masks and other measures are in place.
Interesting to think about.
4 Likes
Insist guests wear masks? I’m not sure about that. Keep in mind right now, Governor DeSantis and the reopening task force are only ASKING all Florida residents to wear masks in public areas. This is not a requirement, but a recommendation in accordance with CDC guidelines.
2 Likes
Not to mention that a number of the infections are found in places where the people most likely don’t have the health or means to be taking a trip to WDW (nursing homes, meat packing plants, prisons, etc.).
3 Likes
Yes, but right or wrong, private companies can require as they wish. I know there are stores in my area and in my parents area requiring masks for entry. It isn’t required by state or local government but they are requiring as a protection for customers and staff.
People of course can opt not to give them their business, my point is only that, as a company they could choose to require masks.
4 Likes
My city started requiring them more than a month ago in any public place. My state added that requirement this week. I agree businesses can make decisions on their own.
It is interesting when you look at what is allowed, and what happens. For example, someone I know was throwing “a fit” that FL was allowing malls to open, so I looked. The Orlando Premium Outlet Mall said it was open. In fact, when I looked a couple of days ago 12 stores were open?
I think Disney wants to open. I just think they will measure what they have to do to protect guests, and themselves from allegations of negligence- just my personal opinion.
3 Likes
I know Disney Corp. is smarter than DeSantis!
Not quite that simple.
You see DeSantis and his team are giving businesses the freedom on how to keep their customers happy and safe at the same time. It’s part of the free market. Ultimately, the customer (or guest) will dictate if the protocols of the provider are sufficient.
If the business is not operating up to the standards expected by the client, they will lose customers and trust. The people will decide if Disney safety measures are adequate or not.
But, maybe Disney will take the highest precautions possible. It may be a gamble otherwise.
3 Likes
Well, that’s not it exactly. It means that the AVERAGE number of people infected will be 2-3 or whatever, but that doesn’t mean each person infected will infect 2-3.
Some of the research is pointing to some people being “super spreaders” that infect a large number of people, while others don’t infect any. So what happens if a super spreader is running around WDW without a mask?
Yes, a lot of WDW is outside, so that should help, but I’m not sure that reduces the risk enough. Remember Biogen:
There’s a lot of uncertainty why some people in households are infected and others aren’t. It could be unknown factors that make some more susceptible than others. That could explain why some households everyone gets it and others none do.
There is still so much we don’t know.
4 Likes
I have to say that that conference was a major factor in the MA outbreak, but it was the response to it that drove everything that lead to closures here. One of the early protocols said that people were not contagious until they had a fever. I have said many times, convention attendees family members went to schools and workplaces throughout the state. In the schools we asked “if you are contagious before symptoms with other viruses, how do you know this is not true with this one?”. The answer was “they know”. I don’t think that is the answer today ? In the next day or two we will reach 78k cases and 5,000 deaths.
It will be interesting to see what protocols Disney puts into place. I think a lot of businesses will go to a higher level until more effective treatments and hopefully a vaccine are widely available.
2 Likes
While I’m heavily in favor of mask use, I agree with DeSantis making it encouraged but optional. It’s too hard to fine-tune policies to suit every venue. What is appropriate inside an office building with its generally poor ventilation isn’t appropriate at an open-air garden nursery. In fact, it might actually be a bad idea in the latter setting, given the heat, etc.
But the main concern is the same problem with any law, however well- intentioned, which is enforecement. We’ve already seen ridiculously heavy- handed enforcement of mask laws and business opening laws. I think authorities should try to trust their people to do the right thing, and constantly emphasize what that is, before resorting to laws. Do you think the respect for COVID restrictions was better or worse before they arrested the beauty shop owner or took down the guy not wearing a mask? Are people more likely to comply now or just get a little but indignant and do what they want? Do you think the police liked making thise arrests? It just creates a distrustful and poisonous atmosphere, when we really need to stick together right now.
3 Likes
Exactly. The R0 is only the average number of people infected by each person who is already infected. I would imagine that someone who follows all of the advice and stays home will probably infect fewer people. I would also imagine that the average considers “normal” behaviors, like being home, going to work, school, the supermarket, post office, etc. But if you take that infected person and put them in a movie theater, concert hall, street fair, DISNEY WORLD… I think many, many more people would be infected.
4 Likes
What you said here is true.
Just to clarify what my point is: on average for all activities without interventions, the R0 is not high enough that everyone you contact casually will get infected - in fact, very few people will (again, on average - between super spreader events and casual contact). That doesn’t mean it’s safe, because a 2-3 R0 and 3% infected population would reach 60-70% infection within a matter of weeks.
But it does mean that if you can identify the less risky activities or the interventions that will make riskier activities less risky, you should be able to relax some of the shutdown without everyone getting infected, as long as you are ok with some tolerable level of spread. I’m hoping some of the reopening experiments being conducted in various states and countries will prove out which strategies are best.
3 Likes
That in-household transmission rate of 15% is pretty consistent, it comes from early data from both China and that tweet thread by Dr. Muge Cevik that’s posted in the other thread on this forum. I don’t really know if it’s with masks or not, probably both- they might have been wearing masks in Asia since it’s common to do that anyway, which might account for why their attack rate wasn’t higher, given presumably smaller homes, whereas our larger homes would naturally protect us a bit, so the rate averages out.
The 1% rate of picking it up out in the community I can’t really back up with a reference, I only just saw it in passing. I imagine that excludes subways, though!
3 Likes
Regarding your comment - which I completely agree with - and WDW, if the company indeed feels that more mask wearing = healthier guests, how much simpler and more effective is it to have irresistible and reasonably priced masks at resorts and outside parks.
Problem solved.
In that more guests will wear the masks. Can anyone realistically expect 100% compliance?
2 Likes
Agreed, and I think people not wearing masks would get a veritable tsunami of stinkeye from other guests. Worse than holding-spot-for-10-people-for-the-parade stinkeye. CM enforcement would probably pale in comparison to the power of peer pressure.