Poll says 72% of Americans uncomfortable returning to amusement parks

Why does someone even need to be asked if they are a (D) or a (R) when being asked this question? Politics should not define every situation in our life. This is as dumb as asking people if they will be putting their storm shutters up in the event of an approaching hurricane and following that up with, "are you a Republican or Democrat"? I mean, what the hell does it matter? There is a storm coming.

wahoo skipper said:

Politics should not define every situation in our life.

They shouldn't. But right now, for this, they do play a role.

I am not in the 72%. I would return to the park in a heartbeat if all the policy changes were dropped. However, I don't have the interest in being there with the sanitation theater and wearing a mask all day.

As far as politics, they are looking for trends, if they can find a trend they they can spin stories into an us vs. them which seems to be the goal nowadays.

It's a relevant question. For reasons not entirely clear to me, Republican/"conservative" team play means treating science like a belief system. Objective facts aren't really a strong suit for those folks. 🤷‍♂️

I'd like to know what percentage of them think Qanon is a real person.

wahoo skipper said:

Why does someone even need to be asked if they are a (D) or a (R) when being asked this question? Politics should not define every situation in our life. This is as dumb as asking people if they will be putting their storm shutters up in the event of an approaching hurricane and following that up with, "are you a Republican or Democrat"? I mean, what the hell does it matter? There is a storm coming.

Why did they find such a large difference, then?

"Republicans (27%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (12%) to say they feel safe going to an amusement park right now, according to the survey."

Your other example is actually a really good one, too - there's plenty of evidence that people who self-identify as Republicans or Democrats tend to respond differently to natural disasters.

Responses likely influenced by your interest in the given activity. More people would feel safe at certain indoor venues than outside? Objectively doesn't make sense unless part of basis for view is interest in the activity itself independent of safety issues.

Jeff said:

It's a relevant question. For reasons not entirely clear to me, Republican/"conservative" team play means treating science like a belief system. Objective facts aren't really a strong suit for those folks. 🤷‍♂️

Don't you think that's a bit unfair? I don't think there's too many Republicans showing up every day at these protests happening everywhere, do you? The science says we should be avoiding those large groups.

And why exactly is it a relevant question? For one side of the aisle to "own" the other side on who's more scientific? Not a good reason, to me at least.

wahoo skipper said:

Why does someone even need to be asked if they are a (D) or a (R) when being asked this question? Politics should not define every situation in our life. This is as dumb as asking people if they will be putting their storm shutters up in the event of an approaching hurricane and following that up with, "are you a Republican or Democrat"? I mean, what the hell does it matter? There is a storm coming.

Eh, from a research perspective, it's nothing more than asking a slew of currently relevant demographic information to see if anything "fun" happens to the data when you control for certain variables.

You don't need to be asked if you identify as a "D" or an "R", but you simply cannot argue this isn't relevant in our current reality. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.

Look; it's none of our fault that something that should be unifying (like an outside invader such as COVID-19) has been politicized...but of course it has.

"

GoBucks89 said:

Responses likely influenced by your interest in the given activity. More people would feel safe at certain indoor venues than outside? Objectively doesn't make sense unless part of basis for view is interest in the activity itself independent of safety issues.

That's a really good point. If you are used to going out to restaurants, shopping malls, or movies you are probably more likely to investigate what your local establishment is doing in regards to protocols. Potentially you are more likely interested in those activities because it's a return to "normal". But if you happen to frequent Coasterbuzz, going to amusement parks is more likely part of your wheelhouse.

I think it has a lot to do with interest level. As of this week I have eaten inside a restaurant about the same amount of times I have visited an amusement park. All my dining was pretty much need based though like the Dairy Queen on the turnpike or Subway at Walmart between errands so I didn't have to shop hungry or Subway on the way home from Cedar Point. Otherwise I probably would not have been in a restaurant yet not because it worries me but because I don't want it as badly. Haven't been to a salon because I normally didn't to start with same for the gym. I was at a museum earlier this week. I'm probably shopping less but again nothing to do with feeling unsafe I just find the experience frustrating and uncomfortable at this point. I have trouble with the masks so basically if I go anywhere a mask is required it's because I need it or want it really badly.

bjames said:

Don't you think that's a bit unfair? I don't think there's too many Republicans showing up every day at these protests happening everywhere, do you? The science says we should be avoiding those large groups.

For real? The science actually supports that outdoor protest with masks is reality safe, in the same way that a theme park visit is. And Republicans poll in the category of believing that systemic racism isn't even a thing. It's not a new phenomenon. Furthermore, you don't need to protest in person to call for reform against systemic racism. Please point to the Republican caucus members calling for that reform with public statements.

Sorry about my tangent. Maybe I threw this topic for a spin. I'm just pissed. My kids have to start their school year virtually, which isn't awful for high school aged kids but it is extremely disappointing for a Senior and a Freshman. They aren't missing the start of the year because the virus is out of control. They are missing the start of the year because our "leaders" chose to avoid reality, science, common sense and their damn responsibility for the past 7 months.

So yeah, I'm pretty irate.

So the inevitable question, arguments and details aside, virtual education is possible on a large scale. How long until the school board realizes it can save a boatload of cash and close all the physical buildings and transition everything to online only?

Online is possible but it doesn't work very well for K-12 and certainly not for K-5. Younger kids need to have someone watching and helping to keep focus. Left on their own online, most struggle. Its true of many older kids as well. Also a lot of benefit in terms of socialization. And a lot of extracurricular activities aren't easily put online (music programs, art, sports, etc).

Colleges are a different issue. I expect that many of them will not survive. There has been talk of consolidation for many years now but Covid likely will accelerate it.

Virtual education is only appropriate for some students. It's fine for those who thrive on it, or for when in person isn't possible but it's far from ideal. My son is a straight A students we have all the technology he needs to work online and he has a parent who works in education and he still hated the experience.

Those are all valid arguments. But while it may be harder for some to focus or less desirable socially that doesn’t make it impossible. If I take precedent that we have already established with virtual learning large scale, then combine that with safety because of disease spread and I can also guarantee no more shooting or bomb threats etc. my point is how long until someone pushes for this?

The only precedent set by the large-scale virtual education that was implemented was that large-scale virtual education is not good for anyone.

Virtual sex is also possible, without any fear of transmitting a disease or getting pregnant, but that doesn't make it better.

I'm being tongue-and-cheek, but there is simply no replacement for the social benefits (which are intimately tied to the cognitive, physical, and emotional benefits) that a tiny person gets from being face-to-face with their teachers, coaches, and peers.

Does it work for some? I suppose, and I am certain some have thrived, but I have yet to meet any human who has actually benefited from online k-12 education (meaning, it was "better-than-or-equal-to"), and I have worked with a hell of a lot of kids, parents, and families over the past 2 decades.

No one on any school board needs to suggest this; the option is already available to parents everywhere. If it was implemented, the town it was implemented in would collapse, because people move their families into school districts on purpose, and leave school districts on purpose.

The problem that our education system is grossly underfunded by governments on every level would not be solved by suggesting an education that is less-than.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it as a solution, or agreeing with it. But in this world of government cutting services, and saving money, along with all the recent loss in tax revenue it makes me wonder how long until they try to shove it down our throats.

They have made it mandatory in many places because of the virus, it just makes me wonder if they will eagerly roll it back to norm, or will they get the bright idea of trying to leave it like this?