gad198

@RollerColt A couple of things here: While I appreciate your desire for added safety, this completely disregards the preceeding facts. The events around this event are so shocking simply because to my knowlege (1) there have been no rider ejections from a B&M coaster until this incident, and (2) there are no recorded instances of a B&M restraint returning to the station in the fully open position. You cannot simply ignore the millions of rides these coasters have given without incident. The ride ejection that took place on Superman: The Ride at Six Flags New England back in 2004 involved someone who was wearing a seat belt. From the ride accident report: "Mordarsky's belt was still latched when he was ejected from his seat" From the Boston Herald article written shortly after the incident: "Mordarsky slipped out of his belt, which state officials criticized as giving a ``false sense of security." We simply don't know whether seat belts would have saved this rider given the forces at work. There's a reason seat belts aren't the primary ride restraint on most roller coasters.

@WoodVengeance I think the steps that Hersheypark took to do this is going to copy & paste with the other US & Canadian B&M hypers. Getting approvals from all of the various regulatory people, insurance companies, and B&M will take a little bit of time in each circumstance. Once those boxes are checked I would imagine you'll see these coasters open shortly thereafter. My current understanding is that the international B&M hypers are still operating (Silver Star, Hollywood Dream, etc.). B&M - or any regulatory agency - would NEVER agree to allow these coasters to remain open if there was any suspicion of a larger issue.

@disco2000 B&M coasters have given millions of rides on their hyper coasters without an incident like this happening. While this news is incredibly sad, we also don't know the full story as far as what actually happened that caused this situation. I think the prudent thing to do right now is allow the investigation to unfold before anyone starts jumping to rash conclusions about what did or didn't happen or what needs to happen to B&M hyper coaster restraints moving forward. I'm willing to give B&M the benefit of the doubt at this point given their track record.

I sympathize with food service when it comes to the rotisserie chicken. The largest portion of the meat is white (breast) meat. It's really hard to get both crispy skin and really moist white meat together in the same chicken because the window when both are right together is about 5 degrees in temperature wide. I'm sure the skin issue will be addressed.

100% agree with the above regarding the rotisserie chicken. It looks like the chicken is cooked to a safe temperature and looks juicy, but it has very little eye appeal without the crisp skin.

Boulder Dash is an absolutely phenomenal coaster when it is running well. That said, it's a ride that most of the time is only palatable in the first 4 rows. I didn't see from the info above which parts are being worked on, but ideally it would be the bottom of the first two drops as well as the bottom of the drops on the return leg. I'm all for anything that makes this coaster smoother.

Just a couple of quick notes for those interested: The Voyage is running pretty well this season. One train is running better than the other (not sure which is which as I didn't take notice of the train numbers). One train is giving rides that are good but a little bumpy. The other train is giving rides where you can feel like an immediate re-ride is on the table even in the back rows. It's also not completely braking on the mid-course which is nice. I have twelve (12) quick access passes I was unable to use on my earlier visits. One access pass can be used for one ride on any ride at either the dry side or waterpark. The access passes expire on October 31, 2021 and I don't plan on going back this year. Please DM me if you're interested in the passes and I'll make arrangements to get them to you.

Just wanted to mention that the Diamondback crew right now is absolutely amazing. The average dispatch time is under 90 seconds. Outstanding work by this crew so far this season!

Fast Lane and the like are only what I would consider to be negatively impactful to the average guest at a few parks around the country - Cedar Point and the Disney parks leading the way. I would argue on the "average" Kings Island day Fast Lane is really more of a nuisance. The problem is that when the park is moderately busy or busier then it becomes a real impediment to the standby line at the popular rides, particularly at Orion, Diamondback and The Beast. The reason that it's an issue at those rides is because they're allowing half of each train to be filled with Fast Lane guests (I'll leave aside the issue of them receiving the first choice of seats, as that's a separate issue). It's clear that management is trying to artificially suppress the Fast Lane waits at the popular rides to make the Fast Laners happy. The problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of Fast Lane usage is at a handful of rides, which creates even more demand for the stuff everyone wants to ride. I would argue that the best thing for everyone involved would be for Kings Island to raise the price of Fast Lane on weekends ($75 FL/$90 FLP is too inexpensive for weekends, and especially Saturdays IMO) and/or limit the volume of Fast Laners allowed on each train to a more reasonable number. Cutting that Fast Lane allotment each train from half down to a third would make a significant difference to standby waits.

This 100%. I was down in Pigeon Forge last week. Their mask mandate expired on April 15, and very few of the businesses decided to keep their mask protocols in place there. Walking into an establishment with no mask requirement for the first time in ages was one of the most refreshing things I've done in years. The difference in mood at the park will be palpable, and it will be MUCH more fun this year than most can imagine. I just hope that employees aren't required to masks so that everyone can breathe freely!

Absolutely agree on all counts. Posts that have been on either extreme have been challenged and refuted with reasonable and rational replies. I think one of the reasons why the post quantity in this particular thread has come down is because most now know the rules of engagement; i.e., that if you post something you should be prepared to defend that position with clear reasoning. There's a check-and-balance system here that seems to be working well. That is the very definition of healthy discussion!

I think we would agree that "flattening the curve" has a definition of "hospitals not being overwhelmed"; i.e., that sick people wouldn't overrun the hospital resulting in some people not being able to get treated. I want to make sure we quantify this so that we get an accurate picture. You'll find the link to the data here, which contains information from the CDC about US hospital capacity in three areas for each state (figures through July 14): Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds being occupied right now Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds with COVID patients right now Estimates for the percentage of ICU beds being occupied right now The state of Ohio is about average overall as far as the states go. The Ohio percentages are as follows: Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds being occupied right now in Ohio - 55.6% Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds with COVID patients right now - 4.4% Estimates for the percentage of ICU beds being occupied right now - 40.2% Based on those figures, would anyone reasonably conclude that hospitals are being overwhelmed in Ohio? Let's take the worst looking state right now, Arizona: Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds being occupied right now - 72.1% Estimates for the percentage of inpatient beds with COVID patients right now - 25.2% Estimates for the percentage of ICU beds being occupied right now - 71.7% Based on those figures, would anyone reasonably conclude that hospitals are being overwhelmed in Arizona?

Here's the exact verbiage from that study: What that study is inferring is that there were likely 7 times as many cases in that area than were reported during that time (math: 20,141 deaths divided by .0145 fatality rate = 1,389,034 cases. Divide 20,141 into 1,389,034 and you get =0.0145, or 1.45%). Testing figures in that area during the height of the action in that area also bear that out (13.9% infection rate in New York State, 21% with antibodies in New York City - Source). That area is also the absolute worse-case in the entirety of the US. For reference, New York and New Jersey together have one-third of the US COVID deaths thus far, more than the next seven states combined. The point is that there is a close to zero percent chance that the IFR is more than 1.45% across the US. I'll grant you this. I'm sure some of the numbers will be adjusted. But I hardly think it's realistic that the reported number of deaths due to COVID is going to be adjusted upwards by a factor of 1.5, 2 or 3. I will take exception to this. Have any statements I've made in this or in any other recent post been misleading or without facts to support? Most every post I've made in the last couple of weeks on this topic has included some kind of tangible information from credible sources; charts, graphs, information from studies that have been done, etc. Many other posters have done the same thing to reinforce their statements. The post I made on Sunday indicated that a total of 188 people aged 24 and younger have died with COVID in the US. I linked to a CDC chart which clearly shows those numbers in chart 2/2 under "Age and Sex" (Source). The future of approximately 80-100 million school-age children is being impacted right now because of decisions that are being made against the data and not with it. What is the end game here? The original stated goal was to flatten the curve. We did that - so well in fact that now hospitals lost $160 billion in revenue from March to June 2020 and are expected to lose over $320 billion through the end of the year (Source). What is the goal now?

There is no credible source that list infection mortality rates (IFR) that high in the US. The highest estimate I saw for any individual location was the City of New York - at 1.45% (Source), and we all know how poorly things went there. Nearly all IFR estimates for COVID in the US are between 0.2% and 1%. Right now the total COVID cases in the US is just under 4 million. The US population is around 330 million. Doesn't it seem strange that only 1% of the US population has contracted the virus given the positive test and antibody numbers that we've seen - 5% to 25% depending on location? The percentage of people who are symptomatic from the seasonal flu is around 8% annually (Source). The lowest percentages I've seen for asymptomatic range from 30%-50%, with some estimates as high as 77%. That puts you at 11%-20% of the US population contracting the seasonal flu each year. Here's the point - one simply cannot say that COVID is way more contagious than seasonal flu, see that the reported COVID case numbers are 8 times fewer than seasonal flu, and continue to defend that position rationally. If the virus is as or more contagious than seasonal flu, one must by definition accept that there are more cases out there than have been reported. We know that cases are being under-counted. From CDC director Robert Redfield in late June: If there are more cases, then that by definition means that the IFR must go down with it, as the denominator - the number of cases - is much larger. This the reason why every credible source has an IFR of under 1%, even the CDC as another poster mentioned earlier today.

There's some interesting info in that study. What that study doesn't clarify is - what are the consequences? The mortality numbers are more concrete, and we already know from the numbers that this is simply not deadly for younger people. Per the CDC, here are the total number of deaths thus far in the US in various age groups due to the virus: under age 1: 9 age 1-4: 8 age 5-14: 14 age 15-24: 157 So through middle school age a total of 31 children have died. Add in the high school and college age children and we have a total of 188. For comparison, in the 2017-2018 seasonal flu season a total of 643 people under the age of 18 died. (Source) 188 out of approximately 80 million under age 18 children. Think about that for just a moment. What about schoolteachers? The median age of a US schoolteacher is 42. The odds of hospitalization from the virus in that group is just over 1 in 1,000 (Source). So even if they are infected, the odds of any individual in that group having major consequences is really low. We can't look at one side - that kids can potentially spread the virus - without looking at the other side; i.e,, what the associated consequences are. The data shouldn't be scaring people.