COVID 19 impact on skiing

endoftheline wrote

Checked out the Squaw website, 2 sets of fresh tracks down the Nose/Fingers on KT-22. Guess someone couldn't resist, employees or maybe patrollers?

Not sure I could enjoy it.

Harvey wrote

endoftheline wrote

Checked out the Squaw website, 2 sets of fresh tracks down the Nose/Fingers on KT-22. Guess someone couldn't resist, employees or maybe patrollers?

Not sure I could enjoy it.

Daron Rahlves was on Insta skiing at Tahoe

Someone took a shot at him for doing so

D set his ass straight

D.B. Cooper wrote

The susceptible demographic.

As we learn more about the extent of the virus and who it affects I suspect we’ll see more stories like these.  So much for a “susceptible demographic”?  I’m not a fear monger-er, but these are relevant data points for the “I’m young and healthy, it won’t happen to me” crowd.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5502501
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/politics/coronavirus-heaven-frilot-mark-frilot.amp.html

I know there are anecdotal instances of younger people who have gotten it bad (just like the seasonal flu), but the overall statistics are what they are:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

The "known" mortality rate for those under 40 is 0.2%.  And I would bet a ton of money that these numbers are vastly inflated due to the severe lack of testing, and even then most of that mortality rate amongst younger people are those with pre-existing conditions.  

I fully admit I'm not an expert in any of this, so feel free to rip me to shreds for the following thoughts - but perhaps there is a third option in all of this:  

The government should provide self isolation domiciles for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions with on-site food and medical care, or provide food and supplies for them to isolate in place.  The rest of us should just get on with it.  

The longer we prolong this thing for the young and healthy, the more chances there are of them passing it to those at high risk of needing hospitalization.  The whole point is supposed to be to get to a herd immunity - well why not get there as quick as possible by purposefully infecting those least likely to fall seriously ill, while those at risk are safely segregated?  Right now we are doing the worst of both worlds - no one is 100% quarantined and those least likely to fall ill are prolonging their time until exposure and immunity, thus prolonging the time to get to herd immunity, not to mention the economic impact.

If I'm wrong feel free to shout me down, but that's my thought on an alternative.

TheGreatAbyss wrote

If I'm wrong feel free to shout me down, but that's my thought on an alternative.

You're wrong. "Self Isolation" domiciles won't work because not enough people will avail themselves of them.

I think we're doing decently with the actions we're taking around here, but I don't think that's the case in the rest of the country. This thing is spreading (to the old, the young, etc.) and flattening the curve is the best chance we have to prevent a massive rush at hospitals (which would be bad, because that would mean that we couldn't save people who could survive with proper treatment).

Like, even if we accept the 0.2% kill rate among people under 40, there are about 10,000,000 people *just in NY State* under 40. You're okay with 20,000 people dying? (About five 9/11s?)

JTG4eva! wrote

Not everyone buys into social distancing.  For better or for worse, I get that.  

The idea that the young people moving through the community to stand in lift lines and ski (or party at Daytona Beach) is ok because they “aren’t susceptible” just seems to entirely miss the point, IMHO.

As to protecting older groups, they aren’t the ones generally circulating through the community and catching the virus that way, most likely.  Young people who think they “aren’t susceptible” (that doesn’t mean they may not be a carrier), and that it’s ok to stand in a lift line (or party at Daytona Beach), probably don’t think twice about being in close proximity to mom and grandpa (or the susceptible 7-11 clerk where they bought their microwaveable burrito and filled up on gas) on their return.  That’s the real problem.  That kind of thinking is what may draw this pandemic out, if anything.

You disagree?  I’m still formulating opinions, not trying to be an a$$.

Even if one thinks the “pandemic” is “overblown”, is that a chance people should be taking?  Honestly, I really don’t know, but on the side of caution we are laying low.   Everyone in our household is home now, working from home or distance learning.  We could all easily do that from our place on the Cape, and we’d love to ride things out up there.....but doing so would just feel a little bit irresponsible to me.

There are 3 groups:  those who are vulnerable, those who are much less so, and those in the latter group who interact with the former.  

Therefore, if I'm in the vulnerable group, I'm locking the door until this is done.  If I'm planning to see friends and family in the vulnerable group (which I do) I'm going to take all the precautions I can, e.g. go out for necessities only.  If I'm not vulnerable, I don't see why I can't engage in low risk activities, such as skiing, golf or dog walking.

I may think differently about this than most.  For instance, I'm of the opinion that if you have a peanut allergy, don't go to a peanut farm.  The whole world shouldn't cater to you.

If the trails were dry I would be running and biking in the woods. If I had snow at my house I would be skiing in the woods. Don't take a chance of getting hurt and putting a burden on the system is a personal opinion I don't subscribe to.

Yeah, I think the overall obligation is to avoid grouping up and spreading the virus. If you can stay local and do your shit safely, have at it. It’s not about individual vulnerability to the illness. We’re supposed to avoid spreading it so fast that the hospitals get overwhelmed.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Like, even if we accept the 0.2% kill rate among people under 40, there are about 10,000,000 people *just in NY State* under 40. You're okay with 20,000 people dying? (About five 9/11s?)

The death rate of the seasonal flu is 0.1% - we accept that every year.  We don't know what the actual death rate is for those under 40 with no underlying health issues, but 0.2% is the maximum .  The true number is almost certainly far far lower.

TheGreatAbyss wrote

The death rate of the seasonal flu is 0.1%...

Come on, man. You're smarter than this, right? This dumb talking point?

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-new-coronavirus-isn-t-like-the-flu-but-they-have-one-big-thing-in-common

Contagiousness
Disease experts estimate that each COVID-19 sufferer infects between two to 3 others.
That's a reproduction rate up to twice as high as seasonal flu, which typically infects 1.3 new people for each patient.
Vaccine/treatment
Salomon said that humans have lived with influenza for more than 100 years.
"We've studied it closely," he said. "This new virus resembles the flu in terms of physical symptoms but there are huge differences."
Number one is the lack of a vaccine against COVID-19, or even any treatment shown to be consistently effective.

tjf1967 wrote

  Don't take a chance of getting hurt and putting a burden on the system is a personal opinion I don't subscribe to.

All of a sudden I have some time on my hands.

You can bet your ass I won't be sitting inside. I'll be outside working, playing, doing whatever every chance I get.

Looks like this thing might drag out until April 1st when trout season opens.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Number one is the lack of a vaccine against COVID-19, or even any treatment shown to be consistently effective.

Well - maybe there is a treatment, looks promising so far
https://www.wcvb.com/article/drug-that-treats-malaria-being-used-by-boston-doctors-to-treat-covid-19/31803741#

TheGreatAbyss wrote

The death rate of the seasonal flu is 0.1% - we accept that every year.

That’s my brother’s point.  He’s a nurse, not that that means he knows squat about COVID-19.  But, in his opinion this is just another virus like Influenza A/B. I’m not saying he’s right (or wrong).  In the last influenza season reported by the CDC more than 66,000 people died, the death rate being .1%.  Once more widespread COVID-19 testing is done, it’s possible the death rate is no higher than the existing seasonal flu.  

He asks the question....is something that is new, but no more deadly than existing flu, really worth the current turmoil (social distancing, shuttered businesses, shattered markets, lost jobs, pending recession) that is causing irreparable harm to our nation?  He can be a little dramatic, but still.

The wildcard with COVID-19, unlike Influenza, is we don’t know how widespread this particular virus will become.  The transmission rate compared to flu is troubling, I have to hit my brother with that one.  In the last flu season it is estimated that 45 million people became ill (and 66,000 died).  If COVID-19 infects 150 million a year....would a .1% fatality rate (150,000 deaths a year) be as acceptable?

JTG4eva! wrote

TheGreatAbyss wrote

The death rate of the seasonal flu is 0.1% - we accept that every year.

That’s my brother’s point.  He’s a nurse, not that that means he knows squat about COVID-19.  But, in his opinion this is just another virus like Influenza A/B. I’m not saying he’s right (or wrong).  In the last influenza season reported by the CDC more than 66,000 people died, the death rate being .1%.  Once more widespread COVID-19 testing is done, it’s possible the death rate is no higher than the existing seasonal flu.  

He asks the question....is something that is new, but no more deadly than existing flu, really worth the current turmoil (social distancing, shuttered businesses, shattered markets, lost jobs, pending recession) that is causing irreparable harm to our nation?  He can be a little dramatic, but still.

The wildcard with COVID-19, unlike Influenza, is we don’t know how widespread this particular virus will become.  The transmission rate compared to flu is troubling, I have to hit my brother with that one.  In the last flu season it is estimated that 45 million people became ill (and 66,000 died).  If COVID-19 infects 150 million a year....would a .1% fatality rate (150,000 deaths a year) be as acceptable?

The medical community is very frightened by this one because the death rate could be much higher if they are overwhelmed and can't treat ones that could be saved and therefore die. The seasonal flu is still out there, didn't go away and the most severe of those need treatment as well, and this seems to spread like wild fire. So although under somewhat ideal conditions this virus could have a modest to low death rate, if the health care system is swamped with a tsunami of patients, that's when it gets ugly.

Good point, if the mortality rate increases when/if the healthcare system is overrun.

My brother works at Phelps.  They are waiting for the wave to overwhelm them.  Hasn’t happened yet, ER has been empty.

I'm thinking along the same lines as your brother. Be smart... Don't destroy everything. Andy is being such dicktator. He needs to get in touch with reality.

There are at least three differences I see immediately:

1-communication of the disease when you are asymptomatic;
2-10-20x increased mortality rate WHILE hospitals are dealing with flu (not enough ventilators)
3-Wider spread of the virus - somewhere between 40-80% of the population could get this virus.

That is about all I know about how this differs from flu. But some other points:

4-Younger folks who normally would be affected by the flu (and therefore perhaps more careful with a flu) will get this, and could pass it on;
5-Of course, no vaccine right now;
6-Captured above, but all those folks with the flu are already in the hospital.  

I don't think people need to panic - washing your hands, not touching your face/eyes/nose, and staying 6 feet from people will protect many, many people.

But as this gets into communities, and the communities get tests, the numbers will skyrocket.  

https://www.powder.com/stories/how-is-covid-19-affecting-the-ski-industry-listen-to-wintry-mix/

"All of a sudden I have some time on my hands. You can bet your ass I won't be sitting inside. I'll be outside working, playing, doing whatever every chance I get. "

For many years I've dreamed of having a month or so to get my life in order.  Well, here it is.  Double daily workouts, catching up on business related things, calling family/kids/friends.  Grandchildren escaping a virus hot spot (NJ) and coming up for a few weeks.  Buying pizza (take out) from our local pizza place to help him stay in business.  Can't wait for it to warm up so we can get the bikes on the road.  Rare opportunity IMHO.