Walt Disney World updates mask policy with reference to the COVID-19 vaccine

Jan 29, 2021 in "The Walt Disney Company"

Posted: Friday January 29, 2021 12:36pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Disney has updated its health and safety policy at the Walt Disney World theme parks to clarify that those guests who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are still required to wear a mask.

The updated policy reads:

Face coverings are required for all Guests (ages 2 and up) and Cast Members, including those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine. Please bring your own face coverings and wear them at all times, except when dining or swimming. You may remove your face covering while actively eating or drinking, but you must be stationary and maintain appropriate physical distancing.

All face coverings (whether disposable or reusable) must:

  • Be made with at least 2 layers of breathable material
  • Fully cover the nose and mouth and secure under the chin
  • Fit snugly but comfortably against the side of the face
  • Be secured with ties or ear loops and allow the Guest to remain hands-free

At this time, based on guidance from health authorities, neck gaiters, open-chin triangle bandanas and face coverings containing valves, mesh material or holes of any kind are not acceptable face coverings.

Costume masks are also not considered appropriate and are prohibited from being worn, in alignment with our existing rules.

Face coverings may have an integrated transparent plastic panel to aid in viewing the wearer’s mouth. These face coverings must:

  • Be a fabric face covering featuring a solid plastic panel containing no openings that is attached to the fabric on all sides using tight knit stitching
  • Meet all face covering requirements listed above

The use of face coverings is not a substitute for physical distancing.

Discuss on the Forums
View all comments →

MisterPenguin3 hours ago

That was back when they were trying to calm the 'cytokine storm.' As a mast cell stabilizer it keeps histamine from blowing up all your cells to stop an infection, whether it be a real one, or in the case of a allergy, an imagined threat. I've used it for allergies, and at the OTC dosage, it takes a few days to start working, which isn't promising if someone is in danger of immediate death. I don't know what a higher dose might do, tho. Anyway, I haven't heard of cromolyn as a therapy. But back then, they were throwing everything that *might* work to see if anything works. I think they rely on other anti-inflammatory agents now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm#Relationship_to_COVID-19

EpcoTim4 hours ago

Thank you, Bullseye.

Bullseye19674 hours ago

You made the same off both so depends on your brokerage fee. Probably the 100 shares.

EpcoTim5 hours ago

I bought 1000 shares of a stock at 20 dollars a share. It went up 5 dollars. At the same time I bought 100 shares of a stock at 200 dollars a share. It went up 50 dollars. Which stock was the better purchase?

ABQ6 hours ago

That's what has me concerned, not over safety or anything, just timing, Pfizer got its EUA one week prior to Moderna back in December, 11th and 18th respectively, and then its full FDA approval on August 27th. Hopefully soon, as I'm dealing with someone that FINALLY got their 1st dose of Moderna less than a month ago and is wishy washy on dose 2. At the time, which it was lucky at all to get them into a CVS for a shot, Moderna was what was available.

DisneyDebRob7 hours ago

They were about a month behind Pfizer..so if it follows the same path, maybe in a few weeks? It’s a guess, only going by the timeline of Pfizer. Someone else here may know better then my guess.

ABQ7 hours ago

When is moderna going to get its FDA approval for its initial dose?

DCBaker8 hours ago

"After weeks of internal strife at the Food and Drug Administration, the agency on Wednesday authorized people over 65 who had received Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine to get a booster shot at least six months after their second injection. The F.D.A. also authorized booster shots for adult Pfizer-BioNTech recipients who are at high risk of becoming severely ill with Covid-19 or are at risk of serious complications from the disease due to frequent exposure to the coronavirus at their jobs." "The F.D.A.’s decision will be followed as soon as Thursday by a recommendation from the C.D.C., which issues guidance on vaccine policy for clinicians and public health officials throughout the United States. An advisory committee of the C.D.C. is now in the midst of a two-day meeting on the issue. But even if the C.D.C. takes a different stance, health care providers are now authorized to offer third shots to Pfizer-BioNTech recipients who meet the F.D.A.’s eligibility criteria." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/us/politics/pfizer-boosters-fda-authorize.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

October828 hours ago

There's little evidence that the behavior of "seasonal" viruses is caused by variants or specific new mutations. Cyclical behavior is driven primarily by behavioral modifications, in the case of influenza, by the time spent indoors in the winter. In the case of Covid-19, masking and social distancing. We can expect continued large spikes in infection until measures are in place that control community spread. This might be high vaccination numbers or it might be permanent changes to work habits. I would be surprised if we don't see another substantial wave of infections unless the vaccination numbers improve substantially.

ArmoredRodent8 hours ago

I've often wondered about this area of research using existing medications. For example, Nasalcrom (Cromoglicic acid or cromolyn sodium) is an OTC nasal mast cell stabilizer, long used as the non-corticosteroid treatment of choice in the treatment of asthma, for which it has largely been replaced by leukotriene receptor antagonists because of their convenience (and perceived safety), and in treating allergies. A bunch of studies have come out in the last two years touting some success using Nasalcrom against a whole series of conditions; in several cases the actual cause-and-effect is unknown. It also (at least in my case) also produces a substantial physical barrier of "crusts" (commonly known as "boogers"). Last year, Nasalcrom was one of a number of drugs tested as emergency treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1252 ("In summary, Cromolyn may be effective in decreasing inflammation, ARDS, and cytokine storm in COVID 19 patients. It may also reduce viral replication and systemic inflammation, in particular cardiac inflammation."). But I haven't seen anything promising come out recently on direct inhibition of the Covid virus. I'm assuming that it wouldn't work as @Heppenheimer was suggesting, but perhaps because it was tested only as a mediator, not as a blocker. But I'm not capable of figuring that out.

ArmoredRodent9 hours ago

Actually, not so simple as that. Private fora must sometimes respect others' right of free expression: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (students have the right under California Constitution to circulate initiative petitions in a private shopping center that doesn't want them). Governments can often close its own buildings and grounds to free speech: Pleasant Grove v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government can refuse to permit expressive statue to be placed on government land). You have to look at who is speaking, the content of the speech, and the circumstances of the speech. One rule of thumb I have long used is the "speech spectrum:" speech can be placed on a spectrum of restrictions and freedoms on expression. The closer speech is to core government functions (including, but not limited to, government's own speech), the more power the government has to limit it. The further away from core government functions (personal beliefs), the greater the burden on government to show that it has the power to limit the speech. These can be tough decisions (as is true in most Supreme Court questions). For example, an extensive set of cases involving this question were decided in the 1990's, including those involving government employees' personal expression vs. government's desire to manage its own activities, control its own funds and protect against erroneous decisions.

StarWarsGirl12 hours ago

I assume we know absolutely nothing other than what history has taught us, which is that vaccines work. My issue (and many others have the same issue with this poster) is that this particular person tends to downplay the ultimate solution, which is getting shots in arms.

mmascari12 hours ago

That article is missing a bunch of stats to know what was really going on. The headline is a good sensational one focused on breakthroughs trying to get clicks. Assuming I pulled out the numbers correctly. There are 227 prisoners total. Vaccinated 185, unvaccinated 42 for an 81.5% vaccination rate. Then there's a whole bunch of unknown number of stuff with unknown number of vaccination status. Maybe they drive the vaccination rate up, maybe down. It's a prison, so we can probably assume there are relatively close living conditions and generally poor ventilation. Both of which increase risk of spread. The article doesn't say over what time period either. Was this all last week, or over the last 4 months or more of Delta? Maybe the underlying study has more details, I didn't dig in that far. If we assume the prison staff is vaccinated at exactly the same rate, 81.5%, that would tell us that 81.5% isn't high enough to decrease spread. That the rampant spread occurring in the unvaccinated population along with the reduced spread in the vaccinated population is still able to overwhelm the vaccinated population given whatever timeframe this covered. The vaccine is not a forcefield, wade around in a virus soup long enough and you'll have issues. If we assume the prison staff is vaccinated at a lower rate than 81.5%, say 62% since that's the Texas over 18 Fully Vaccinated rate in general (I dropped under 18, since they don't normally work at a prison), that would tell us the effective vaccination rate in the prison is somewhere between 81.5% and say 62% depending on how many staff vs prisoners there are. If prison staff are running lower than the public in general, it could be even lower. By now, we're pretty sure everything under 80% and definitely everything under 70% isn't nearly enough to provide protection. They're all before the inflection point. If we assume the prison staff is some ultra health conscious vaccine fanatics, perhaps they all work for the NFL on weekends and are 100% vaccinated. That would raise the effective vaccination rate in the prison above 81.5%, depending on staff ratio. If it's enough to raise it over 90%, this would truly be a bad sign since we're all hoping that by 90% we're good. Might also not matter, since while they can lower it, the fact they they're not always there probably doesn't help raise the effective rate as well. The prison staff also transition between the prison community and the general Texas community with a much lower vaccination rate. This dilutes whatever the effective rate in the prison is as new sources of virus are continually introduced. It's possible the prison staff has some vaccine requirement, weekly or daily testing, or some other protocol to avoid bringing in virus and negate this. But, it's Texas, that's not likely. See, there's a ton of great questions to ask there. Lots of unknowns that would all be super helpful. Notice, none of them were leading questions of "let's just give up, cause it doesn't work". :)

jpinkc12 hours ago

We can only hope and pray thats correct!