Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Posted Friday, January 24, 2020 11:49 AM | Contributed by Tekwardo

Shanghai Disneyland will close its gates on Saturday in an effort to stop the spread of a new SARS-like virus that has killed 26 people and sickened at least 881, primarily in China. It’s not known when the theme park may reopen.

Read more from Gizmodo.

Related parks

Monday, November 30, 2020 7:38 AM
Bakeman31092's avatar

Then what about face shields? Do those just look too silly?


+0
Monday, November 30, 2020 8:06 AM

I do believe there are people who have trouble with masks. I suspect it is somewhere around the same percentage of people who NEED therapy pets. Of course, lots of people abuse that one too.

My daughter had a very tough time with masks early on. She has anxiety issues and she was able to overcome them after a lot of practice. If there are people who cannot get past the anxiety then I'm not going to judge them. But, I do believe that is a relatively small number of people and certainly not all the folks who still today are claiming it to be so.

+2Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 9:40 AM
Jeff's avatar

Face shields are a secondary boundary, mostly to protect the eyes. They're useless without a mask though, because you're still breathing in unfiltered air. I see these football coaches wearing them without masks all of the time, and yes, that looks silly since it doesn't work by itself.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+3Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 10:02 AM

GoBucks89 said:

Are the antibody tests 100% accurate? And we aren't sure how long immunity lasts (for the vaccines either).

Nope, not very accurate. They're just the best they have available to find people with antibodies for plasma donation for the most part. My husband and many of his coworkers were testing in an effort to find healthcare workers to donate plasma with antibodies and they were told by the company doing the testing the accuracy is not so great, I forget the number they threw out but it's not one I would depend on I remember that.

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 11:45 AM

Jeff said:

They're useless without a mask though, because you're still breathing in unfiltered air.

I wear a pretty decent multi-layered fabric mask with replaceable filter, and while it conforms to my face quite well, plenty of air is escaping the mask as indicated by my glasses getting fogged up with regularity. Yes, my mask is equipped with a metal strip that forms them to my nose, and no, that doesn't work all that well.

Yes, masks capture some of my expelled "respiratory particles", but part of their function is to "limit the forward spread of those that are not captured". In that sense, while a mask and shield would be excellent when used in conjunction, a shield by itself is still helpful, and certainly not useless. Definitely better than nothing for folks who cannot wear a mask, and probably better than some of the "masks" (read: bandanas) that some people are wearing in public, crowded spaces.


Brandon | Facebook

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 12:45 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

It's not just masks though. Masks aren't the solution. They're a tool to improve your odds. We always talk about "those people" that don't wear masks. Do you guys really see that many people day-to-day not wearing masks or wearing them chin diaper style? I don't. (Anecdotal disclaimer and so forth)

I dunno. Just feels like another weird spot that keeps getting discussion that, to me, while it is a concern, isn't one I'm seeing play out very often (if at all) in the real world. I think we see the stories about the lady getting kicked off on the airplane or the news interview with the "muh freedoms!" guy and assume this is more than an exceptional situation being used as an attempt to get your attention.

At any rate here's a fun tool:

https://indoor-covid-safety.herokuapp.com/

It's getting hammered right now, so it may not load until traffic drops. The tool assumes one person in a room with you has COVID-19. Then, it hands you an incredible amount of control to tweak the variables at play.

I wanted to share the tool, but I also wanted to share a quote from the article that I read that linked to the tool:

Let’s try an example. You just enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner in a typical 20-foot-by-20-foot dining room with a group of 10 people. People talked normally. Nobody was wearing masks since they were eating. The air was of average humidity.

“Based on this model, it should be safe for this room to have: 10 people for 18 minutes.” If you had simply followed a six-foot distance guideline and worn a mask, as the CDC suggests, these guests would be safe hanging out indefinitely. Which is clearly nonsensical.

“But what if they were wearing masks?” you ask. Good question. Let’s assume no one ate and instead talked through coarse cotton masks. Cotton masks bought them two more minutes of safety. Opening the windows to increase ventilation helps more. It buys another six minutes.

Which is what I'm saying above. It's been on the tip of my tongue for a while, but never felt like the right time to jump in with it. Masks aren't the answer. They're one tool for reducing your risk. Another is six feet of social distance. Another is just not going around anyone or spending time in enclosed spaces.

I think what I'm going to do is get one of those headbands with a little plastic battery-operated fan on it that is supposed to keep you cool, but turn the fan around so it's blowing the air away from my face. With ventilation being such a huge part of spread, a personal ventilation system should pretty much guarantee my safety. Suck it, mask wearers!

(for the record, the tool, under the choice of mask type/efficiency, lists "no mask/face shield" as the same choice for purposes of the math)


+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 12:59 PM
Jeff's avatar

I don't understand the argument against masks as not being "the" answer because they're not 100% effective. No one is saying that they are, but they're the most obvious, low-cost, effective thing that you can do, in addition to behavioral and situational precautions. Why is that so hard to accept?

djDaemon said:

and while it conforms to my face quite well, plenty of air is escaping the mask as indicated by my glasses getting fogged up with regularity.

You're missing the point. No mask and a face shield = all of the air escaping, none of it being filtered, so it's like wearing nothing.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 1:00 PM
eightdotthree's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:
Masks aren't the answer. They're one tool for reducing your risk. Another is six feet of social distance. Another is just not going around anyone or spending time in enclosed spaces.

No **** Sherlock.


+0
Monday, November 30, 2020 1:41 PM
Jeff's avatar


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Monday, November 30, 2020 1:43 PM

I have a friend who’s a singer/performer and he and a few others have picked up a caroling gig at Easton Town Center. (Yes, that stuff is still happening).
Anyway, it’s an outdoor gig so maybe it’s relatively safe, and a recent FB post shows them with these odd contraptions on their faces that look like masks with windows, I guess so we can see them sing, smile, etc.

Also- I saw an article about what pandemic newness should be invited to stick around after the fact. Top of the list was masks. A lot of respondents said they wouldn’t need a mask 24/7 but it sure would come in handy. Not feeling well? Put on your mask. Standing in a long line with everyone breathing on you? Mask. Want to signal to everyone that for whatever reason you’d like to be left alone today? Mask.
Also included was no handshaking, not feeling compelled to hug strangers, and general distancing.
(I forgot to look for dry humping)
But it seemed, at least for some, that being able to avoid some of these previous normalcies was also a sort of freedom.

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 1:43 PM

Jeff said:

No mask and a face shield = all of the air escaping, none of it being filtered, so it's like wearing nothing.

Wearing a shield slows down the air escaping and directs some of it downward, reducing the diameter of your biological sphere, which is better than wearing nothing. Perhaps not much better, but if someone cannot wear a mask and would instead wear a shield, we should be encouraging that over wearing nothing.

Taking the comparably hyperbolic "wear a mask or don't leave your house" stance is, I don't think, helpful. We're never going to get 100% of the people doing the scientifically-correct thing 100% of the time. But if we can maximize the extent to which people are able and/or willing to comply with prophylactic measures, we can probably get a better outcome overall.


Brandon | Facebook

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:41 PM
Bakeman31092's avatar

Gonch's quoted article lost me at "typical 20-foot-by-20-foot dining room." :)

Jeff, there have always been two sides to the effectiveness issue with masks: protecting yourself and protecting those around you. I sort of agree with your take regarding face shields for self-protection, but are you saying they are completely useless? Seems like they should be somewhat effective at limiting the spread of your respiratory droplets to your surroundings.


+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:45 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeff said:

eightdotthree said:
No **** Sherlock.

Wow. Ok.

So why do you guys spend such an inordinate amount of time arguing, complaining and generally whining about people and masks? It's barely a factor and it's barely something people aren't doing.

Assuming we trust the math of the MIT professors who created the tool I linked to, a mask is buying you less time than opening a window. But we don't have very many ventilation debates around here, nor do we try to one up each other or signal our superiority and greater understanding of the science and experts by bragging of opening our windows or our HVAC airflow statistics.

Perhaps it was stating the obvious. I guess I misunderstood that it was so obvious given how so much time seems to be spent discussing and arguing masks like they're THE factor.

Jeff said:
I don't understand the argument against masks as not being "the" answer because they're not 100% effective. No one is saying that they are, but they're the most obvious, low-cost, effective thing that you can do, in addition to behavioral and situational precautions. Why is that so hard to accept?

It's not an argument against masks, it's an argument against putting so much weight on the mask. Or, more realistically, an argument against the amount of time spent telling others they suck for their mask stance. (and then doing just that)

It is one of the easiest, low-cost things we can do. It's also one of the least effective things we can do. Less effective than simply opening a window in the scenario I quoted. (which is even cheaper and easier, thus making it a much more efficient solution assuming an either/or choice)

We're standing in the middle of the road....during rush hour...with no protective gear...and closing our eyes...

...and then debating and getting heated over which pair of shoes might get us out of the way of the oncoming semi the quickest.

At that point, debating sensible flat vs basektball shoe seems to be missing the point as much as debating mask vs face shield does.

Also from the article:

However, upgrading from coarse cotton masks to surgical masks increased the number to a whopping two hours. But with a catch: If those surgical masks are worn improperly by half of the people—say, the masks fit loosely or the wearers’ noses are sticking out—the safe time plummets back down to 32 minutes. Human factors matter a lot.

It’s a demonstration that wearing masks properly does help. After working on the source math behind this tool, Bush concludes that we absolutely should because it’s the most “dramatic” effect he noticed; it moves the needle in any circumstance, buying you precious minutes to stay safe. However, masks are not hazmat suits. They cannot overcome the reality of being in a small space with other people.

So once you guys get past mask vs shield can we do a deep dive into the different kinds of masks?

The tool is neat though, if you can get it to load. Unfortunately, it's not just going to say "Wear a mask!" so I suspect it will be quickly dismissed.

Honestly though, airflow debates that go as hard as the mask debates (keeping the windows closed because "muh freedoms!" or "anyone not using a HEPA filter is immoral") would be terrific.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Monday, November 30, 2020 3:02 PM
+5Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:53 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Bakeman31092 said:

Gonch's quoted article lost me at "typical 20-foot-by-20-foot dining room." :)

Right? What kind of hovel do these people live in that they have to try to squish 10 people into 400 sq ft.

Pffft! Peasants.


+4Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:55 PM
Jeff's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:

So why do you guys spend such an inordinate amount of time arguing, complaining and generally whining about people and masks? It's barely a factor and it's barely something people aren't doing.

Then...

It's not an argument against masks, it's an argument against putting so much weight on the mask. Or, more realistically, an argument against the amount of time spent telling others they suck for their mask stance. (and then doing just that)

Because the point you're making is the one that drives non-use and apathy.

And seriously, if it was something people were barely not doing, how does one explain where we are right now? I mean, hospitals beyond capacity and the mobile morgues y'all like to consider hyperbole are no less real.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:14 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeff said:

And seriously, if it was something people were barely not doing, how does one explain where we are right now? I mean, hospitals beyond capacity and the mobile morgues y'all like to consider hyperbole are no less real.

Because of all the other things (that we've all agreed not only exist, but are also painfully obvious) that increase/decrease risk in a much bigger way.

In fact, that was exactly my point. Of all the things we can do to reduce risk, the mask is practically worrying about our shoes while standing in traffic.

I said somewhere early on in this thread, while on the subject of sliders, something to the effect of decisions already being made. Lemme find it...one sec.

Here it is:

I said on April 10th:

We've already made these decisions though. We've planted the flag in a specific spot and accepted the outcome. My wife and kid still go to work 6 days a week because we've decided hotel rooms and pizza are worth the additional risk of keeping those contact points in place.

That's as simplified as I can make the concept. Could we reduce the spread further by not deciding hotels rooms and pizza are essential? Absolutely, but we didn't.

We decided to stand in the middle of the traffic a long time ago. And 8 months later, we're still mad about people's shoes.

I mean, I totally get the arguments agsinst holiday gatherings or dry humping in bars or stuff along those lines. But if you're already there, the mask isn't the deciding factor. It's just not.

ETA - With that said, if you're out, wear a mask. It's not that difficult. It's so easy that I can barely fill up a hand with the number of bare faces I've seen in the past month or so. (outside of places it's been deemed acceptable such as restaurants)

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Monday, November 30, 2020 3:17 PM
+1Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM
eightdotthree's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:

So why do you guys spend such an inordinate amount of time arguing, complaining and generally whining about people and masks? It's barely a factor and it's barely something people aren't doing.

You shared one simulation and we're supposed to treat that as gospel? I can't load it. Is it peer reviewed? Where are they getting their data from? Are you basing masks being "barely a factor" on anything other than this one simulation?

I gave you **** because Dr. Fauci, the CDC, et all, have hammered away that masks combined with social distancing, and hand washing being the key to stopping the spread for upwards of 9 months. The CDC's page on masks has well over 20 citations on the effectiveness of masks.

Last edited by eightdotthree, Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24 PM
+4Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:19 PM
sirloindude's avatar

eightdotthree said:

Is it peer reviewed?

**does a shot**


13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones

www.grapeadventuresphotography.com

+4Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:40 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Eightdotthree said:
You shared one simulation and we're supposed to treat that as gospel?

Not at all. I didn't mean it to come off like that.

I can't load it.

Neither can I right now.

Is it peer reviewed?

Obviously not.

Where are they getting their data from?

They're MIT professors:

"Bush, alongside his MIT colleague Martin Z. Bazant, have answered that question with a complex mathematical model, which simulates the fluid dynamics of virus-loaded respiratory droplets in any space, from a cozy kitchen to a gigantic concert hall."

Are you basing masks being "barely a factor" on anything other than this one simulation?

Yes. My own anecdotal evidence that the vast majority (to the point of it being nearly ubiquitos) are wearing masks, combined with the knowledge that other factors (simply not going around people, keeping as much space as possible, keeping air flowing and filtered, etc) all have more of an effect.

You can get to the point of simply not needing a mask - for instance, solitary existence in your own home.

By the time a mask makes a significant difference, you've decided to ignore other means of mitigation. (and sometimes, that's totally valid I think - for example, grocery shopping)

The point is, using the quoted example and trusting their math (and I have no reason not to), if you've already decided to gather 10 people in a 400 sq ft space, the mask buys you two additional minutes. Opening a window, buys you six.

Going to Wal-mart yields different results:

From the article:

...let’s stretch it into a 180,000-square-foot Walmart. And let’s fill it with 1,000 people who are good about wearing their coarse cotton masks. The only other variable I’m changing is that the air is probably a bit drier than in your home.

In these conditions, the tool says people should be safe for 68 minutes—if only one person has COVID-19.

Cool. It buys you time. It doesn't make you safe.

Masks don't make you safe. They make you safer. In some (many? a few? specific?) situations that safety is neglible.

The discussion here, to me, rarely reflects that...and feels like it completely ignores other factors that we all understand and agreed exist (to the point of my post being worthy of ridicule) and arguably matter as much or more.

I gave you **** because Dr. Fauci, the CDC, et all, have hammered away that masks combined with social distancing, and hand washing being the key to stopping the spread for upwards of 9 months. The CDC's page on masks has well over 20 citations.

Fair.

Also from the article:

Obviously this is just a model. It’s a simulation—researchers’ best guess of how our world works. It isn’t perfect and cannot guarantee your safety in any situation. But after using this MIT tool for over an hour, I went from feeling comforted to feeling like things are even less safe than I thought. The model seems to suggest that, when we’re stuck indoors during the peak of a pandemic, the only way to “stay safe out there” is to try to not go out there—or let anyone in—at all.

So yeah, I misfired in my post.

My take isn't apathy in wearing a mask. It's more along that lines that if you're debating or angry about wearing masks or which mask to wear, you've already missed the mark.


+3Loading
Monday, November 30, 2020 4:04 PM

This article is more about 6ft distance than masks but its similar in its view totality of circumstances approach:

https://www.businessinsider.com/6-foot-distancing-rule-is-outdated-...tem-2020-8

+1Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...