At MK now.....half of Main Street stores are closed

[serenitynow]

If people really become that concerned about their personal safety they should leave the area at once. Trust your instincts, if you don't feel safe, don't worry about what is going on behind closed doors, just leave.

 

[NS8VN]

Two generators, 10 gallons of gasoline, three 20 lb propane tanks, eight 1 lb propane tanks, extension cords and Christmas lights. Just like with the incident being discussed in this thread, the real answer is rarely as exciting as the drama surrounding it

 

[braggbeth]

hmm

 

[kamik86]

One point.... do the CMs even know what is going on themselves...

The way I see if you see a row of smiling college age CMs either:
1) There is no real safety concern
2) The CMs don't know there is a safety concern either and they think this is no big deal.

Why? Because if the CMs thought there was a bomb threat I highly doubt you would get a bunch of college students to stand there.

My first thought given the large area would be an issue with the buildings that they couldn't legally have anyone in the building during. Even a medical issue I woudl expect a smaller perimeter on. But again this is just a guess.

For example. It may be policy if a building has no power to not let guests in. Because if someone trips when there are no lights they are probably going to sue. so they want to make sure no one goes in.

 

[PerfessorZ]

Two generators, 10 gallons of gasoline, three 20 lb propane tanks, eight 1 lb propane tanks, extension cords and Christmas lights. Just like with the incident being discussed in this thread, the real answer is rarely as exciting as the drama surrounding it

True... but you'll notice nobody here cared what was in your shed until you made it seem like it wasn't their business to know.

 

[plumsiren]

This thread isn't as exciting now that I know what's in the shed

 

[JimmyV]

But guests don't NEED that information. If they are not in immediate danger, then there's no reason to tell them anything.

We're going around in circles. I need that information so that I can make informed decisions about whether action should be taken. And maybe (likely) that result will be "no change". One can always declare that "guests don't NEED that information", until they do. That is always a post hoc analysis. Would your opinion change if you found out a week from now that the incident in question involved the release of a hazardous material? All of a sudden, the desire for information changes.

Perhaps you operate differently and don't want to know anything about the situation. And that is fine. So you don't need to ask for the information and you can go along with your day. But someone who does ask for that information should be provided with the truth and not lies or deception. And that should be fine too. Everyone is different. But there isn't any good reason why the needs of the low information guest should trump the needs of the high information guest, especially when a very simple statement will suffice. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why "A guest fell ill and we need to keep this space clear" is a bad way to handle the situation. Perhaps that statement would mean nothing to you. Fine. But maybe that statement would mean a lot to someone else. So why deny them the information? Your argument, (like many on this Board), distills down to: "Not me, therefore no one." Just because you can't find a reason to have additional information doesn't mean that everyone shares that view. We can coexist with differing opinions, and with different levels of information.

 

[tsme]

Come, come, now. If there was real danger, they would have evacuated you as well.

Maybe. As long as the person assigned to knock on your door actually did it.

We did think the same thing & that's what we told our DD when she was scared & upset.

SOP in large hotels is to evacuate the floor where the alarm is, the one above and the one below. It is safer to wait to evacuate the rest of the hotel than it is to try to evac everyone at once which often produces panic. Especially when the fire is at the top, it's counter-intuitive but it really is safer. Most fires are small and easily contained.

If you stay at a Hyatt, a Marriott, a Double Tree... that's policy. It's what emergency services recommend.

Good to know

 

[geenerbell]

So what happened?

 

[redsbe]

So what happened?

most likely someone needed medical assistance, safety of their guests is top priority for WDW so if there was an immediate health or safety to the general public in the park WDW security would have addressed as needed and moved people out or closed larger areas, otherwise having people gather round and ask questions only creates more issues and takes away from the need for CM and EMS to focus on the issue needing to be dealt with.

 

[redsbe]

We're going around in circles. I need that information so that I can make informed decisions about whether action should be taken. And maybe (likely) that result will be "no change". One can always declare that "guests don't NEED that information", until they do. That is always a post hoc analysis. Would your opinion change if you found out a week from now that the incident in question involved the release of a hazardous material? All of a sudden, the desire for information changes.

Perhaps you operate differently and don't want to know anything about the situation. And that is fine. So you don't need to ask for the information and you can go along with your day. But someone who does ask for that information should be provided with the truth and not lies or deception. And that should be fine too. Everyone is different. But there isn't any good reason why the needs of the low information guest should trump the needs of the high information guest, especially when a very simple statement will suffice. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why "A guest fell ill and we need to keep this space clear" is a bad way to handle the situation. Perhaps that statement would mean nothing to you. Fine. But maybe that statement would mean a lot to someone else. So why deny them the information? Your argument, (like many on this Board), distills down to: "Not me, therefore no one." Just because you can't find a reason to have additional information doesn't mean that everyone shares that view. We can coexist with differing opinions, and with different levels of information.

We're going around in circles. I need that information so that I can make informed decisions about whether action should be taken. And maybe (likely) that result will be "no change". One can always declare that "guests don't NEED that information", until they do. That is always a post hoc analysis. Would your opinion change if you found out a week from now that the incident in question involved the release of a hazardous material? All of a sudden, the desire for information changes.

Perhaps you operate differently and don't want to know anything about the situation. And that is fine. So you don't need to ask for the information and you can go along with your day. But someone who does ask for that information should be provided with the truth and not lies or deception. And that should be fine too. Everyone is different. But there isn't any good reason why the needs of the low information guest should trump the needs of the high information guest, especially when a very simple statement will suffice. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why "A guest fell ill and we need to keep this space clear" is a bad way to handle the situation. Perhaps that statement would mean nothing to you. Fine. But maybe that statement would mean a lot to someone else. So why deny them the information? Your argument, (like many on this Board), distills down to: "Not me, therefore no one." Just because you can't find a reason to have additional information doesn't mean that everyone shares that view. We can coexist with differing opinions, and with different levels of information.

Because if there is no risk to you, there is no need to take the time and effort to provide you any explaination or information - doing so for multiple guest just creates a crowd issue and takes focus and effort of CM in dealing with the issue at hand. If it does not impact you there is no need to discuss with you. Again WDW security makes the determination of public risk and with focus on guest health and safety they would take actions as needed to ensure your safety. If not just move on and let CMs and EMS deal with the situation at hand, all you are doing is making their job harder.

 

[GPC0321]

We're going around in circles. I need that information so that I can make informed decisions about whether action should be taken. And maybe (likely) that result will be "no change". One can always declare that "guests don't NEED that information", until they do. That is always a post hoc analysis. Would your opinion change if you found out a week from now that the incident in question involved the release of a hazardous material? All of a sudden, the desire for information changes.

Perhaps you operate differently and don't want to know anything about the situation. And that is fine. So you don't need to ask for the information and you can go along with your day. But someone who does ask for that information should be provided with the truth and not lies or deception. And that should be fine too. Everyone is different. But there isn't any good reason why the needs of the low information guest should trump the needs of the high information guest, especially when a very simple statement will suffice. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why "A guest fell ill and we need to keep this space clear" is a bad way to handle the situation. Perhaps that statement would mean nothing to you. Fine. But maybe that statement would mean a lot to someone else. So why deny them the information? Your argument, (like many on this Board), distills down to: "Not me, therefore no one." Just because you can't find a reason to have additional information doesn't mean that everyone shares that view. We can coexist with differing opinions, and with different levels of information.

Because telling guests that someone has fallen ill is so vague that it could lead to more questions about the nature of the illness. According to you, if it's asked it should be answered truthfully, right? At what point do the CMs get to say, "You know what? It doesn't concern you. Please move along and enjoy the Magic Kingdom"?
All finding out someone got sick or injured does is pull people out of the experience of being in the park and make them feel bad for a few minutes. I think that's something Disney goes to great lengths to avoid if possible.

I wonder, if you'd asked and gotten the "Helping you enjoy Main Street" answer, would you have demanded more information? If you didn't get it, would you have left the park? Or would you have kept on doing your thing and left it alone?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

While that sounds great in theory, in application it could go very wrong. Someone could "claim" to be a nurse, doctor, EMT, etc. and if Disney let them in and the person made the situation even worse, Disney would be in big trouble. If someone was standing right by me when the medical emergency happened and immediately took steps to help me, I think that would be different than Disney giving permission to a random person in the crowd when EMT is on the way. And my guess is that it doesn't take a super-long time for medical personnel to arrive.

I have seen numerous times where anyone from a doctor, to an Army medic has saved lives before the official EMS arrived. I really doubt Disney would be responsible if someone introduced themselves as a doctor. No more so than someone keeling over in a restaurant and having a medic give CPR. I don't think the restaurant would be held responsible. On the other hand, if the guy died and the establishment denied a doctors medical attention....

MG

 

[Maistre Gracey]

When I take first aid for work, we are taught to alternate 5 back blows with 5 abdominal thrusts. Always try back blows first.

No kidding?? I thought back blows were out dated.
Learn something new every day!!

MG

 

[MommaBerd]

I have seen numerous times where anyone from a doctor, to an Army medic has saved lives before the official EMS arrived. I really doubt Disney would be responsible if someone introduced themselves as a doctor. No more so than someone keeling over in a restaurant and having a medic give CPR. I don't think the restaurant would be held responsible. On the other hand, if the guy died and the establishment denied a doctors medical attention....

MG

I guess we'd have to let the lawyers sort this one out... *I* would absolutely want someone to jump in and help, but DISNEY giving permission to help could be altogether a different story - especially if the person died.

 

[maxiesmom]

The people demanding they have a right to know kind of remind me of a 5 year old demanding an answer from their parent for something. 'Why mommy, why mommy?". Sometimes the answer is "Because mommy said so". At least, that is how it worked in my house.

Again, do you trust Disney to keep you safe or don't you? That is the bare bones of this. If you think they were hiding something that put you in danger, then you should by all means leave the park. But again, how do you trust them to keep you safe the rest of the time? By just being in the park you are saying you trust that Disney won't put purposely put you in danger. You trust the cars on Test Track won't shoot off the track. You trust the boats won't sink. If you don't trust that they wouldn't put you in danger then I have to question why you are in the park to begin with.

 

[MamaGT]

If there is no event which is directly affecting you or your safety, you are not entitled to know more than that. You don't get to hide behind nosey-ness in the guise of some fictitious freedom of information act: Disney edition. If you are concerned that a lack of information is leaving you in a vulnerable position, apply your logic to the information you do have - because you DO have some. CMs have formed a hedge. They are smiling. No one is providing info. Maybe you aren't being given all the information you *want* but there is No basis to say you need it- you are making an *assumption* about that. You can also make decisions based on assumptions in the absence of concrete information. Even small children are capable of doing so.

 

[GPC0321]

Bottom line, it's a slippery slope. If CMs give a little information, that can open up them up to all sorts of speculation and the rumor mill starts turning and next thing you know "A medical emergency" or "Someone has fallen ill" becomes, "Someone got food poisoning at [insert restaurant here] and threw up all over a display in the Confectionery," or "There are sick people spreading their germs all up and down Main Street, USA," or "Somebody dropped dead in the hat shop," or whatever. We all know how that works. By not divulging any specifics about WHY those shops are off-limits, the CMs at least leave it wide open enough that no one can start spinning such tales because they honestly don't know the nature of the situation beyond that line of people.

Ignorance is bliss sometimes, and Disney is trying to keep its guests as blissful as possible.

 

[lizabu]

The people demanding they have a right to know kind of remind me of a 5 year old demanding an answer from their parent for something. 'Why mommy, why mommy?". Sometimes the answer is "Because mommy said so". At least, that is how it worked in my house.

Again, do you trust Disney to keep you safe or don't you? That is the bare bones of this. If you think they were hiding something that put you in danger, then you should by all means leave the park. But again, how do you trust them to keep you safe the rest of the time? By just being in the park you are saying you trust that Disney won't put purposely put you in danger. You trust the cars on Test Track won't shoot off the track. You trust the boats won't sink. If you don't trust that they wouldn't put you in danger then I have to question why you are in the park to begin with.

I think this is key. Personally I don't feel like I need to know everything. I feel pretty good about going to Disney and I feel like they take guest safety seriously and they aren't going to knowingly expose guests to dangerous situations. They have a good track record of not killing or injuring guests so I'm ok with how they do things.

 

[zaccaglin]

Does WDW have scanners you can listen to? Maybe you can listen to Ready Creek. I know when I hear tons of sirens in my area I listen to the scanner on the computer.

I've been told they encrypt all their radio traffic.

Ready Creek Fire Resque and Paramedic units are open and not encrypted. I have those frequencies programmed into my scanner for when we stay at the fort and I'm off the clock but still want info. All in park radio systems used by cast are encrypted and private. No way to tune in. There is a lengthy thread on here somewhere about the radio systems here at WDW.