One point you’re missing there loco112.... your rights to free expression end at the door. You’d be on private property and if you don’t like their rules, leave or stay away. You have no say on how private enterprises legally conduct their business. If you did, that would be called anarchy.

Total rubbish. A public business cannot refuse service to a protected class, which is a very small number of classifications (different ethnicities and women specifically), but businesses can refuse service for most other reasons (you are naked, smoking tobacco, playing a tuba, etc.). Now, courts are able to make a determination as to what is reasonable, as with anything, but I seriously doubt that an argument about mask wearing infringing on your rights would get far.

At Disney World, security will ask you to leave the property if you won’t comply with mask rules. This includes wearing approved masks (not bandannas or “neck gaiters”) at all times unless seated at a restaurant or in a socially distanced “relaxation” area where masks can be lowered.

Not to mention that not wearing a mask during a pandemic could be seen infringing on others’ personal rights/freedoms, whatever you want to call it. In the most simplest of terms, your rights end when they infringe on someone else's. Or how about simply conducting ones self by the Golden Rule. You’ll meet nicer people that way.

To get back on track, our facilities don’t have a layout conducive to social distancing throughout. Rather than having the aggravation of playing traffic cop, we’re closed to the public and enforce the usual COVID rules on our members working on projects. Nobody complains.

Regarding the use of barriers between seats of railroad passenger cars:

Social distancing rules say people should not be less than 6 ft. away from each other. But it seems like it is also accepted that some type of partial barrier between two people means that it renders the distancing rule moot because the barrier interrupts the line of sight between them. So for practical purposes, the person on the other side of the barrier does not exist, and so the two people can be closer than 6 ft.

There is apparently no definition of the effective area of the barrier. I have seen some of them at cashier stations that are about 18” square, with open space all around them. This reasoning seems to suggest that the droplets only travel in a straight, beam-like trajectory. Are the droplets just not capable of circumventing such barriers by drifting around them?

Something perhaps associated with this is: I recently traveled on American Airlines domestic. They made a point that face coverings were expected, and that if you refused to wear one on the aircraft, you faced being banned from any future American or American-operated flight.

I did find it interesting that patrons would not be 'asked to deplane' if they refused to wear a mask, or that police would be called to enforce the request if the patron caused any difficulty. Amtrak already gives summary authority to its personnel to do both those things for far less cause than social safety.

This is as idiotic, scientifically, as the idea that social distancing doesn't apply if you know the person, or are engaged in a commercial transaction with them.

The 'barriers' are about as good as sneeze guards. They may be helpful -- but the virus is still spread in the air by directed talking or coughing, and both the distance and 'breaking the force of the expulsion' remain essential.

Perhaps a more immediate problem, in this context, is that interactions that require commercial 'close distance' -- taking or picking up orders in a submarine-sandwich shop; paying in a checkout line; buying tickets or gifts at a museum -- require similar safeguards to those provided by the 'social distancing' default rule. Putting a teller-window-style barrier does help some, but the correct approach is to lower your voice, point your face away from direct proximity, don't breathe or talk heavily... and wear an effective mask, not just a feel-good facecovering dictated by the scientifically ignorant or politically expedient.

This is common sense, people. Not time for weird semantics.

Rule:
“To practice social or physical distancing, stay at least 6 feet (about 2 arms' length) from other people who are not from your household in both indoor and outdoor spaces.”

I don’t find any provision for overriding this requirement for 6 ft. of separation; by using a form of shield that is open to the space all around it. The point arises with the discussion of distancing people by at least 6 ft. when seated in railroad passenger cars.

As I recall, it has been mentioned that shielding methods are being used by various recreational railroads to address the distancing requirement. I would assume they have to comply with the 6 ft. rule even if they are also using barriers or shields. I assume this shielding would not allow the railroads using it to seat passengers in the normal adjacent seat locations

Apparently Amtrak limits bookings to only allow one person seated on each side of the aisle; and leaving one empty row ahead of, and behind each row occupied by a seated passenger.

The one constant throughout this crisis is that any and all data/numbers are subject to manipulation, misuse, and challenge.

You are asking for hard data about a highly variable facet of human nature and psychology. I believe you know that damned well, and are just looking for an excuse to refute my statement through any means necessary.

I could point to the example provided by Brother PMC: Sweden.

I don't care if you're talking about the wee beastie virus from China, the common cold, flu, measles, AIDS or other STDs, anthrax, ebola, or even body odor. If literally every time you turn around you are being confronted by constant countermeasures, scolds, things being wiped down repeatedly just because you set a glass down there, facial expressions and spoken words being hidden behind masks, and--worst of all--the gradual impression that this is "the new normal" with no end in sight or even desired by some, then people are going to be unwilling, and literally afraid, to do anything that smacks of exposure that they aren't literally forced by law or survival to do. And nothing we do in rail preservation fits in that latter category.

After the race riots of 1968-1975, there were people in various U.S. city suburbs who quite literally refused to go "downtown" or through the affected cities.
FOR DECADES, not weeks.
(Not an exaggeration. I met them around Baltimore, Philly, and Chicago.)

And now we have people insisting that going to a museum with HUGE open spaces inside and out, with all appropriate counter-virus measures, is "too risky." Not a rave, not New Year's Eve crowds, not football stadiums........... just a museum. One that needs our support and help.

This mentality is what will kill millions of restaurants, businesses, churches, museums, and more. Not the virus, but human fright, heavily stoked by some.

I believe it is sincerely helpful to society that at least SOME of our institutions can at least TRY to allow something even vaguely close to "normal," with appropriate (as opposed to paranoid) counter-measures. Some of the compromises can cut it; others just don't work financially or psychologically (the function of a bar is not to pick up take-out beer).

The National Aquarium has been shut down for not following guidelines.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronaviru ... story.html

They're lucky there wasn't a fine.

In case anyone needed a warning to take his seriously.

Sandy, you deflected instead of answering my question, but I'll rephrase it for you: do you have any data that demonstrates potential visitors will be more turned off by more precautions being taken than by fewer?

I repeat for the hard-of-reading:
"The one constant throughout this crisis is that any and all data/numbers are subject to manipulation, misuse, and challenge."

Do you have data that shows more visitors will show up if you take whatever we're supposed to define as "more precautions" rather than "fewer"? Been talking with ATTRM or any of the "pro" operations?

About the only thing we might have would be to compare the potential adjusted-for-COVID ridership capacity of the few "professional" operations that normally operate through the winter--Grand Canyon Railway; McCormick-Stillman Rail Park in Scottsdale, Az.; Verde Canyon RR; operations in Florida, Texas, California, and Hawaii; etc., the state RR museums, and even the Strasburg--against their actual ridership/gate.

All of the ones in Arizona I track have been fastidiously doing what public officials would demand. Scottsdale seemed wide-open and lax by comparison, but IT'S AN OPEN PARK, fer cryin' out loud.
And in every case but probably Grand Canyon, there are distortions at work--adjusted schedules, reduced overall tourism (especially international), the Christmas lights extravaganza at Scottsdale, etc. Any rational analyst would call foul on attempting to compare such "apples and oranges." Verde Canyon is only running twice a week until February, for example.

I am personally aware of at least two museums that are so wide-open and lightly-attended (I'm told half their annual attendance comes on one day a year apiece) that applying anything other than basic common sense (don't touch what you don't have to, wear a mask if you go inside any building, etc.) would be overreaching.

What's probably driving a lot of this is for-profit versus non-profit--big operations or "the government" can be perceived as big targets for litigation about perceived COVID-19 exposure.

In considering what museums and recreational railroads could do to improve the situation, I too was thinking it would be something intended to bring back business that the pandemic had driven away. I think that might be accomplished by some type of marketing effort.

I did consider the idea of businesses making their cleaning more conspicuous to the customers. It would be reassuring to them, and I don’t see much of that cleaning activity when I am in stores. Logically, sanitizing surfaces in a store should be a continuous effort. So maybe more conspicuous cleaning activity would encourage more customers to come in.

However, I can also see that there may be no reassurance because all the cleaning is expected. But more importantly, the conspicuous cleaning would be just one more element of the existing massive national marketing that is selling the risk of entering any business right along with the cautionary measures of masks, distancing, hand washing, etc.

You can’t separate those two elements of caution and the risk that requires the caution.

Also, this Covid-protection marketing message is probably the most massive and costly marketing push in the history of civilization. And right along with it, we see a gigantic drop in store customers. Around here, the small stores are almost devoid of customers. Even without numerical data, such an unusual drop in customers over a whole year of the pandemic seems like empirical “proof” that Covid safety marketing is killing businesses because it promotes fear at the same time it promotes safety. That is just the reality of the pandemic.

Thus, it seems that any marketing that would help small businesses would be focused on reasons to come into stores that have nothing to do with Covid safety. Basically, it would be just more and stronger marketing added to normal marketing for the business products and services. Increase your normal advertising.

I've seen many local places, railroads included - one or two times, advertise their COVID-19 procedures and cleaning protocols, that was back when the pandemic was in its' early stages, or when they first re-opened for business. They then put their COVID-19 policies and procedures in a publicly accessible place, usually their own website, or (in the case of a railroad/attraction) on their ticket-purchasing page.

Since then, the marketing I've seen, to go along with what Ron mentioned, has been kind of normal marketing. "Come on out and see us, we're open!" - "Looking for something fun to do with the family, visit us!" - Etc etc. A few buzzwords or key phrases are usually thrown in regarding social distancing in place, or enhanced cleaning procedures, or wear your damn mask, etc etc... a link to their COVID-19 policies if people are interested, but otherwise - it's rather normal marketing.

I don't, but I'm also not advocating downplaying the threat to life of a pandemic that's now killed more Americans than WWII did.



Do you know if any of them have done visitor surveys? If so, it might be interesting to see what they have to say.



Yikes! I hope they're thinking about long term plans to assure the future of the objects in their care with other more viable organizations. I'm betting they're one super spreader meeting away from being the next Nobelsville.



Really? Come on now. That's really just spreading unhelpful FUD.

I gotta remember this the next time someone calls ME a "nattering nabob of negativity."

Rest assured that absent hosting some Thomas-style event, carnival, or massive outside-charter event--neither of which are going to happen in Arizona for the time being, for example (if ever again anywhere)--the odds of some "super-spreader" event affecting these museums are virtually zero. It would be about like expecting a "super spreader" event at one of those massively spread-out, drive through national parks like Petrified Forest or The Everglades. (Their annual "big attendance days," mobs all over the place, are another matter--and, yes, I question how they survive if what they told me about attendance is true, but they have other issues as well, such as the threat of being landlocked by a line abandonment in one case.)

The physical layout and the security measures of the places alone (car entry restricted, for example) keep people scattered about as widely as any authorities would want on any "normal" day. Now, granted, no wedding events, no school field trips, reduced ridership capacity, etc. will hurt their bottom lines in the long run, but I feel confident the planning is there to at least TRY to avoid the crisis you predict.

I mean, you're about one word away from literally WISHING doom and death upon such places.



Nothing wrong with acknowledging the reality of the mindset of the 21st-century U.S.A.--always blame others instead of accepting personal responsibility, the deeper their pockets the better.
But the "big professional" places also have the problem of no "sugar daddy" to lean back upon, and have to find ways to keep their businesses operating, lest their workers depart for other jobs, there's no money for routine maintenance or security, etc.



And I'm refusing to wish terminal doom upon these places and our hobby/avocation, either--no matter how much others seem to insist there's no other option.