Mask mandate doubled down--keep them on while dining?

[joviroxx]

So masking is becoming more encompassing as number of cases are dropping fast? You would think it would be the opposite.

 

[dez1978]

Honest question - is this surprising to people?

We have this exact same rule in my entire state. (At least, I’m fairly sure it’s the entire state. At the very least, it’s a rule in my city.) It helps protect the staff, so they’re not approaching tables of unmasked people and so that people aren’t walking around in the restaurant (to the restroom, for example), without a mask on.

We don’t even have a mask mandate in my state so this to me is insane.

 

[KrazeeK120]

Honest question - is this surprising to people?

We have this exact same rule in my entire state. (At least, I’m fairly sure it’s the entire state. At the very least, it’s a rule in my city.) It helps protect the staff, so they’re not approaching tables of unmasked people and so that people aren’t walking around in the restaurant (to the restroom, for example), without a mask on.

@wilkydelts - I quoted my own post here, on which you used a “laughing” emotion. I didn’t say anything funny. Why are you laughing?

 

[cobright]

Ha!!! Disney is just looking for ways to keep people away at this point. Do they feel like the virus is only transmissible when not actively eating? Why implement it at this stage in the game, when numbers are steadily on the decline and vaccines are getting put on arms?

This is a commonly held misconception. The direct goal of public health policies in a pandemic is not to completely prevent people from being exposed to the virus. The measures it would take to do that would be prohibitively expensive and largely unnecessary. Anyone who has gone grocery shopping even occasionally over the last 8 months has almost certainly had an active Coronavirus (or a few thousand of them) in their body.

The goal of these policies is to reduce the aggregate viral load of the area in total; inside and outside of people. So a mask mandate (or premises rule, or whatever) that is in effect 100% of the time would be ideal from the perspective of reducing the viral presence of the environment, but we know that the last bit of that benefit comes at rapidly diminishing gains. Letting guests drop the mask for 12% of their day in the park (figuring about 1 hour of total meal time per 8 hours in the park) will reduce the benefit achieved but not by much.

But that's only looking at the direct effects of a strict mask mandate. For WDW, the policy is genius. Keeping people in the parks socially distanced and masked helps prevent the disease, but what helps the most is that such a policy alienates the type of people most likely to bring in the virus. People who travel as if nothing were wrong and hate to wear masks are staying out of Disney World right now and that is the best thing for Disney's bottom line.

You might say that the drop in revenue will destroy them. Or that their choice to disenfranchise super-spreader guests is leading to mass layoffs and damage to the economy, but Disney knows that the situation will resolve and things will return to normal. And while it sucks for the employees laid off, from Disney's perspective its financial goal is to reduce the amount they spend treating CMs who catch Covid from the guests (and paying out death benefits).

 

[KrazeeK120]

It’s surprising to me, yes. Locally it’s expected to be masked until seated, then masks come off. The servers are going to be exposed to maskless people for some period of time regardless. If the average meal takes 60 minutes, does 50 minutes of unmasked exposure vs 60 minutes really make any measurable difference? Doubtful.

I’m having trouble following. I’m afraid this is going to sound snarky and I don’t intend it to be, but the server isn’t hanging out at your table for 50 minutes. If you are wearing your mask when interacting with wait staff, you’ve decreased their exposure. When you’re not interacting with them, they’re not exposed to you.

Overall, this isn’t a massively huge change and if there’s even a small chance that it will help protect people who are literally serving people’s food and then cleaning it up, I just think it’s a nice thing to do. It doesn’t measurably affect the dining patrons.

 

[dez1978]

The CDC considers exposure as being in sustained contact at a distance of less than 6 ft with someone who has Covid for 15 mins or more. I’ve been a server for years. I cannot possibly imagine being in that close contact with a customer for 15 mins or more during an hour long meal. Especially as fast as they are moving at Disney. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ENJDisneyFan]

I’m having trouble following. I’m afraid this is going to sound snarky and I don’t intend it to be, but the server isn’t hanging out at your table for 50 minutes. If you are wearing your mask when interacting with wait staff, you’ve decreased their exposure. When you’re not interacting with them, they’re not exposed to you.

Overall, this isn’t a massively huge change and if there’s even a small chance that it will help protect people who are literally serving people’s food and then cleaning it up, I just think it’s a nice thing to do. It doesn’t measurably affect the dining patrons.

My point is just that the amount of time spent at a table NOT eating or drinking is literally only a couple of minutes, which I really don’t believe would make any measurable difference in the server’s exposure. For the vast majority of the time I’m at a table, I’ll be eating or drinking (and therefore unmasked), and the server will undoubtedly be interacting with me multiple times throughout the meal. It’s not a huge deal, it just seems an unnecessary burden to enforce.

And PS, you didn’t sound snarky

 

[wilkydelts]

@dez1978 How dare you use common sense in this argument!

 

[mmackeymouse]

Here is my complaint on this: Disney hasn't even figured out how to enforce the whole "only removing mask to eat or drink when stationary" business. I saw it all the time, down there. People eating or drinking while walking.

So...why add even more complications to their policies that will probably still not be enforced?

 

[JenBush]

To put this rule into perspective, it’s only going to increase someone’s mask wearing for maybe an extra 5 minutes per meal. Five extra masked minutes during an entire day masked at the parks isn’t very much. Whether it’s actually necessary doesn’t matter since it’s the rule now and Disney has the right to make/change rules whenever they want. Just gotta go with the flow these covid days.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

The CDC considers exposure as being in sustained contact at a distance of less than 6 ft with someone who has Covid for 15 mins or more. I’ve been a server for years. I cannot possibly imagine being in that close contact with a customer for 15 mins or more during an hour long meal. Especially as fast as they are moving at Disney. Just my 2 cents.

CDC considers that a "close contact" in their guidelines for contact tracing as the risk of transmission is high. This does not mean that you're at 0 risk if you only are within 6' of someone for 14 minutes.

Reducing exposure reduces transmission. Any way we can reduce that exposure is a positive and a policy like this does exactly that.

 

[IndyWDWDad]

This is a commonly held misconception. The direct goal of public health policies in a pandemic is not to completely prevent people from being exposed to the virus. The measures it would take to do that would be prohibitively expensive and largely unnecessary. Anyone who has gone grocery shopping even occasionally over the last 8 months has almost certainly had an active Coronavirus (or a few thousand of them) in their body.

The goal of these policies is to reduce the aggregate viral load of the area in total; inside and outside of people. So a mask mandate (or premises rule, or whatever) that is in effect 100% of the time would be ideal from the perspective of reducing the viral presence of the environment, but we know that the last bit of that benefit comes at rapidly diminishing gains. Letting guests drop the mask for 12% of their day in the park (figuring about 1 hour of total meal time per 8 hours in the park) will reduce the benefit achieved but not by much.

But that's only looking at the direct effects of a strict mask mandate. For WDW, the policy is genius. Keeping people in the parks socially distanced and masked helps prevent the disease, but what helps the most is that such a policy alienates the type of people most likely to bring in the virus. People who travel as if nothing were wrong and hate to wear masks are staying out of Disney World right now and that is the best thing for Disney's bottom line.

You might say that the drop in revenue will destroy them. Or that their choice to disenfranchise super-spreader guests is leading to mass layoffs and damage to the economy, but Disney knows that the situation will resolve and things will return to normal. And while it sucks for the employees laid off, from Disney's perspective its financial goal is to reduce the amount they spend treating CMs who catch Covid from the guests (and paying out death benefits).

I don’t think anyone misunderstood the goal of public health policies or the science behind wearing a mask and viral load indoors. The misunderstanding is the timing of the policy, as it’s being implemented 8 months or so after Disney reopened and at a time when positivity rates are declining. I have seen no studies to confirm that sitting at a table with your mask on reduces the viral load enough to reduce infection rates. It’s also odd that they have no problem letting more and more people into the park, increasing odds that more covid + people are visiting. Masks are good, but not perfect, so your chances increase. Things should be becoming a touch more lax and not more restrictive. If science is the guide, a layperson would have suggested this months ago, not now.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I don’t think anyone misunderstood the goal of public health policies or the science behind wearing a mask and viral load indoors. The misunderstanding is the timing of the policy, as it’s being implemented 8 months or so after Disney reopened and at a time when positivity rates are declining. I have seen no studies to confirm that sitting at a table with your mask on reduces the viral load enough to reduce infection rates. It’s also odd that they have no problem letting more and more people into the park, increasing odds that more covid + people are visiting. Masks are good, but not perfect, so your chances increase. Things should be becoming a touch more lax and not more restrictive. If science is the guide, a layperson would have suggested this months ago, not now.

It's a refinement of policy that likely came as a result of observations from cast members. Should they just ignore that their policy has a hole in it because they didn't put it in place early enough?

 

[2minny]

We don’t even have a mask mandate in my state so this to me is insane.

Really? What state do you live in?

 

[MickeyWaffles]

To put this rule into perspective, it’s only going to increase someone’s mask wearing for maybe an extra 5 minutes per meal. Five extra masked minutes during an entire day masked at the parks isn’t very much. Whether it’s actually necessary doesn’t matter since it’s the rule now and Disney has the right to make/change rules whenever they want. Just gotta go with the flow these covid days.

People are really overreacting to this. A minor change for the guest, but can positively impact the CM by reducing their overall total exposure to maskless guests pretty significantly over the course of a long shift. People seem to think their server only serves them ... while they are in contact with dozens of unmasked people constantly all day. Reducing their total exposure is respectful, courteous and logical.

 

[IndyWDWDad]

It's a refinement of policy that likely came as a result of observations from cast members. Should they just ignore that their policy has a hole in it because they didn't put it in place early enough?

Refinement is fine, but given the amount of people that Disney has for policy making, it’s hard to imagine this was not considered. If their concern is the CMs, why not close indoor dining altogether? It’s a policy change that looks and sounds good, but in actuality has little science to backup its implementation.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Refinement is fine, but given the amount of people that Disney has for policy making, it’s hard to imagine this was not considered. If their concern is the CMs, why not close indoor dining altogether? It’s a policy change that looks and sounds good, but in actuality has little science to backup its implementation.

It's pretty basic that reducing exposure reduces transmission. Masks reduce exposure, especially when someone is close by. What is your science to oppose this policy?

 

[Aimeedyan]

No biggie for me - I always leave it on while ordering/waiting for food and put it back on after I finish eating. I'm definitely not the only one in the room doing the same. It's the norm in many areas of the country already.

I also saw firsthand people camping out in counter service restaurants long after eating just to sit without a mask longer.

What I do have concern about is the front line CM's, that live off tips, that now have to enforce it. They struggle already in the parks and I see many just look the other way to avoid yet another confrontation. In a store at Epcot yesterday, a teenager was walking with his mask down eating a pretzel in the store and he passed 2 CM's who didn't say a word. They're tired. And those are store CM's not living off tips.

(we dined at The Wave this morning and this policy had definitely not gone into effect yet)

 

[KrazeeK120]

People are really overreacting to this. A minor change for the guest, but can positively impact the CM by reducing their overall total exposure to maskless guests pretty significantly over the course of a long shift. People seem to think their server only serves them ... while they are in contact with dozens of unmasked people constantly all day. Reducing their total exposure is respectful, courteous and logical.

Yes. This exactly.

Originally, CDC guidance was that being exposed meant being within 6’ of an infected person for 15 minutes or more.

Then, they changed the guidance to 15 minutes of CUMULATIVE exposure after there were documented cases of people getting sick after several short interactions with infected people. A notable example I remember reading about was a prison guard.

Disney is late in implementing this change, no doubt. But decreasing exposure is never a bad thing and is a very small adjustment for guests. Like really, it’s not a big deal.

 

[DisneyDadWV]

I'd be very surprised if this would be enforced after your drinks arrive. I don't think you'll have to take them off to drink, then mask back on. We leave ours on where we live anyway until the drinks arrive and put them back on after we finish while waiting to pay. I suspect this is mostly for the people that hang out 30 minutes after finishing their meals just to chit chat.