Backing what up? The only mention of screaming in any of the documents referenced even implicitly in the article is in a non-industry-specific list of concerns to which the industry plan offers responses (which for screaming, etc., is “mitigate the risk with masks”.)
The actual state industry-specific guidance for reopening amusement parks doesn't mention screaming (but implicitly takes the same approach as the industry group plan, controlling any potential risk with a mask requirement.)
> And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
No, the non-industry-specific notes about that mean that an industry/activity where that regular occurs in groups that cannot effectively distance sufficiently or mitigate droplet spread by other means (e.g., masks) would be more of a concern for reopening conditions than if that were not the case, all other things being equal.
Backing what up? The only mention of screaming in any of the documents referenced even implicitly in the article is in a non-industry-specific list of concerns to which the industry plan offers responses (which for screaming, etc., is “mitigate the risk with masks”.)
The actual state industry-specific guidance for reopening amusement parks doesn't mention screaming (but implicitly takes the same approach as the industry group plan, controlling any potential risk with a mask requirement.)
> And finally: Raised voices? Does this mean arguing in public is now an offence?
No, the non-industry-specific notes about that mean that an industry/activity where that regular occurs in groups that cannot effectively distance sufficiently or mitigate droplet spread by other means (e.g., masks) would be more of a concern for reopening conditions than if that were not the case, all other things being equal.