Anyone else going to sit this one out?

[givethepigeye]

I have to rhetorically ask why, if close contact is the primary cause of transmission, are the airports, trains, busses, and interstate highways still open?
I haven't been to an airport since March 16, but every day many thousands of people fly. Each state maintains at least one airport, a sometimes congested public place, where people from all over the country and world disembark from a sealed cramped fuselage, without having quarantined.
I realize the question is loaded.
But it feels a little like Prohibition, except that the bars are allowed to stock booze, but, if you crossed a state border, you can press your face to the glass but not go in.
Common sense would treat mass transit the same, actually more restrictive, as bars and restaurants. But sometimes it seems like common sense got up and left the room.

As someone who went to CO to ski the week before and during Christmas - ^this 100x. You can judge my choice anyway you want. Skiing (and frankly the whole week) never felt unsafe at the Evil Empire - but this part of the trip really shook my confidence in the ability to go again this year. And this is coming from someone who has 2 million miles on AA, traveled every week prior to mid-March 2020, has a few perks left ie. big seats, and had not been to the airport in 9 months. Shocking actually, talk about a super spreader event. Whatever the airlines tell you, "caveat emptor" - and the random "outrage" videos of people getting kicked off of flights for non-mask wearing - I can tell you in my limited sample size of 2 flights + 2 airport visits - 30 percent of the people either don't know that a mask covers your nose or are eating/drinking 100% of the time, so they "get out" of wearing one.

Wear a mask. Don't gather indoors in large numbers. Maintain a reasonable distance from people you don't live with.
That's a pretty good start, and it's just not that hard.
Unfortunately, those unwilling to take even the most basic steps are legion.

^QFT.

 

[crgildart]

As someone who went to CO to ski the week before and during Christmas - ^this 100x. You can judge my choice anyway you want. Skiing (and frankly the whole week) never felt unsafe at the Evil Empire - but this part of the trip really shook my confidence in the ability to go again this year. And this is coming from someone who has 2 million miles on AA, traveled every week prior to mid-March 2020, has a few perks left ie. big seats, and had not been to the airport in 9 months. Shocking actually, talk about a super spreader event. Whatever the airlines tell you, "caveat emptor" - and the random "outrage" videos of people getting kicked off of flights for non-mask wearing - I can tell you in my limited sample size of 2 flights + 2 airport visits - 30 percent of the people either don't know that a mask covers your nose or are eating/drinking 100% of the time, so they "get out" of wearing one.

The more people there are traveling, the sketchier those hubs and transit vehicles will be. This is why limiting things to TRULY ESSENTIAL travel only would make it safer for everyone who REALLY NEEDS to travel and those working in the industry. Legit family emergencies, critical business that has to happen face to face or at least in the same building and isn't possible online stuff like that would be top level travel restrictions. Ski trips certainly shouldn't be adding to that cluster at travel centers and companies if we're truly in a fully out of control pandemic. More people playing by the rules and doing their best is still MORE PEOPLE causing congestion at choke points..

Full disclosure. I very well may have driven up for a few more ski laps over the break had I not been on CDC/Health Department household stay home isolated orders. If there is a legal way for me to go take a ski day I'll probably do it even though my gut tells me we probably shouldn't be allowed to do that right now the way things are blowing up. I admit it, I'm selfish that way and justify it by telling myself I'm more careful that that guy so I should be OK. But, if they shut it all down at this point to protet the people who really need to travel better and protect those who have to work frontline regardless I won't fuss about it much..

 

[skix]

So far...I'm sitting it out.
Live too far away from the mountains to be able to "legally" go there.
Government here is constantly changing rules and colours to the regions plus constantly pushing into the future a possible opening date (it was 01.07 now is 01.18) with the added possiblity that the whole of Italy could be declared "Red Zone" each week end...
And in the days I would be able to (legally) go there, I'd be the only one in the family to ski(n) up and ski down...all others not being in a condition to do so.
On top of that, pandemic numbers&stats are still very worrisome, and vaccination progresses are slow...
Never say never but...

Similar situation here. We live far from the mountains and haven't skied since January 2020. All of us came home from that trip sick as it turned out. We still wonder if it was corona that got us because two of us had chest congestion and coughing. By the time we had another opportunity the virus stay at home orders were just getting underway and deaths were skyrocketing. Now, the virus is widespread, hospitals are struggling, and we'd have to negotiate several state borders to get to the alpine. Staying home for now. Still hoping for a spring trip though.

 

[Max Capacity]

Thought you all might enjoy this, it kind of fits...

We can all agree that in 2015 not a single person got the answer correct to, ‘Where do you see yourself 5 years from now?’

 

[crgildart]

Thought you all might enjoy this, it kind of fits...

Couple weeks ago SNL did a skit where they went to a fortune teller January 2020.. "You are washing a bag of Doritos".. "You are driving across the country and peeing in a bag.. " All kinds of stuff like that and the customer are all WFT????

 

[Goose]

And what about people who have already had it or have been fully vaccinated?? In your world they should be allowed to go wherever they want whenever they want because they are no threat to anyone else right? However, that pizza place can still only allow two people inside at a time. People counting capacity still have to count everybody. Police still have to enforce curfews.. By people using legit common sense to decide the rules don't apply to them that still jacks up everyone else's efforts to enforce the ones that do make sense.. People crossing borders that were told not to add to the total amount of work for those managing crowds and so forth. because there are additional people there who shouldn't be.

Your point/s are valid. But I never said quite what your stating. Its a bit disconnected in thought.

firstly I dont have a world that Im suggesting we live in. What I have implied is that we cant stand firm behind a model to limit moving and interacting while we also then head out with the fam for a ski day.
Because when it comes to any of us deciding to go skiing we are at that moment no longer following the model which proclaims the need to limit movements/interactions. The very nature of it is not consistent with that and in fact works against it. And we are placing unnecessary risk to society and ourselves.
That act is what jacks up efforts and transmission rates and weather you crossed a border or not to do it matters not. Its the principle of the model (if we want to stand by it) in my view that applies , not the border cross.

Discussing whether or not those who cant get nor transmit it should be allowed to rome freely? Is a whole other separate discussion. We here are/were discussing going skiing and my recent discussion/debate with some of you its been about going skiing vs doing so with a line crossing. Im not suggest the kind of world we should be nor live in . Only that we cant imo stand on a model to make any point yet while we at the same time are doing something that works against the very same one.

 

[crgildart]

Your point/s are valid. But I never said quite what your stating. Its a bit disconnected in thought.

firstly I dont have a world that Im suggesting we live in. What I have implied is that we cant stand firm behind a model to limit moving and interacting while we also then head out with the fam for a ski day.
Because when it comes to any of us deciding to go skiing we are at that moment no longer following the model which proclaims the need to limit movements/interactions. The very nature of it is not consistent with that and in fact works against it. And we are placing unnecessary risk to society and ourselves.
That act is what jacks up efforts and transmission rates and weather you crossed a border or not to do it matters not. Its the principle of the model (if we want to stand by it) in my view that applies , not the border cross.

Discussing whether or not those who cant get nor transmit it should be allowed to rome freely? Is a whole other separate discussion. We here are/were discussing going skiing and my recent discussion/debate with some of you its been about going skiing vs doing so with a line crossing. Im not suggest the kind of world we should be nor live in . Only that we cant imo stand on a model to make any point yet while we at the same time are doing something that works against the very same one.

So you say skiing or traveling to ski is no more or less dangerous depending on what borders are crossed. That point is valid only to the degree that the number of people at the resort is the same relative to the number of people who WANT to access the resort. The resort has limited capacity, supposedly further limited. If we allow people from beyond that border (near or far) to enter the pool competing for those limited ski sessions we're either increasing the crowd size or allowing non residents to bump out residents for those ski sessions.. and roadways used to access those resorts.. and businesses along the way to and from those resorts along those roadways, etc. Also is the factor that it's justified to exclude the visitors if they are coming from a region with much higher rates of infection. No matter how careful they say they'll be, the risk of increased spread where they go still gets higher.

So. locals only or shut it all down.. A line has to be drawn somewhere during peak demand periods.

 

[Wendy]

Your point/s are valid. But I never said quite what your stating. Its a bit disconnected in thought.

firstly I dont have a world that Im suggesting we live in. What I have implied is that we cant stand firm behind a model to limit moving and interacting while we also then head out with the fam for a ski day.
Because when it comes to any of us deciding to go skiing we are at that moment no longer following the model which proclaims the need to limit movements/interactions. The very nature of it is not consistent with that and in fact works against it. And we are placing unnecessary risk to society and ourselves.
That act is what jacks up efforts and transmission rates and weather you crossed a border or not to do it matters not. Its the principle of the model (if we want to stand by it) in my view that applies , not the border cross.

Discussing whether or not those who cant get nor transmit it should be allowed to rome freely? Is a whole other separate discussion. We here are/were discussing going skiing and my recent discussion/debate with some of you its been about going skiing vs doing so with a line crossing. Im not suggest the kind of world we should be nor live in . Only that we cant imo stand on a model to make any point yet while we at the same time are doing something that works against the very same one.

So you say skiing or traveling to ski is no more or less dangerous depending on what borders are crossed. That point is valid only to the degree that the number of people at the resort is the same relative to the number of people who WANT to access the resort. The resort has limited capacity, supposedly further limited. If we allow people from beyond that border (near or far) to enter the pool competing for those limited ski sessions we're either increasing the crowd size or allowing non residents to bump out residents for those ski sessions.. and roadways used to access those resorts.. and businesses along the way to and from those resorts along those roadways, etc. Also is the factor that it's justified to exclude the visitors if they are coming from a region with much higher rates of infection. No matter how careful they say they'll be, the risk of increased spread where they go still gets higher.

So. locals only or shut it all down.. A line has to be drawn somewhere during peak demand periods.

At Blue Mountain, those from NJ/NY are mostly day ticket holders. They have to reserve a ticket online in advance to go ski. And yes, tickets do sell out. So, your point here is a good one; if my neighbor can’t go ski with me because she couldn’t reserve a ticket, and that ticket went to a person from out of state who is choosing to ignore the travel restrictions, then yes, that’s unfair.

 

[Goose]

So you say skiing or traveling to ski is no more or less dangerous depending on what borders are crossed. That point is valid only to the degree that the number of people at the resort is the same relative to the number of people who WANT to access the resort. The resort has limited capacity, supposedly further limited. If we allow people from beyond that border (near or far) to enter the pool competing for those limited ski sessions we're either increasing the crowd size or allowing non residents to bump out residents for those ski sessions.. and roadways used to access those resorts.. and businesses along the way to and from those resorts along those roadways, etc. Also is the factor that it's justified to exclude the visitors if they are coming from a region with much higher rates of infection. No matter how careful they say they'll be, the risk of increased spread where they go still gets higher.

So. locals only or shut it all down.. A line has to be drawn somewhere during peak demand periods.

Validating my point only due to the resorts capacity vs the numbers who want to go has nothing to do with my point at all. Your now talking about fairness. Thats a whole different subject talk. And nothing at all about the whole covid thing is fair. And even in normal times so many (maybe even majority) the things we do are often unfair and filled with unfair scenarios. Life itself isnt fair.

The higher infection rate scenario which is yet another topic. But Id rather be next to someone (or a fam) who lives thier life more covid aware vs one who lives their life more covid reckless even if that person is from the lower rate area. The covid reckless person from the lower risk area still presents the higher risk of spread via their daily reckless actions.

 

[crgildart]

Validating my point only due to the resorts capacity vs the numbers who want to go has nothing to do with my point at all. Your now talking about fairness. Thats a whole different subject talk. And nothing at all about the whole covid thing is fair. And even in normal times so many (maybe even majority) the things we do are often unfair and filled with unfair scenarios. Life itself isnt fair.

So, locals only amirite??

The higher infection rate scenario which is yet another topic. But Id rather be next to someone (or a fam) who lives thier life more covid aware vs one who lives their life more covid reckless even if that person is from the lower rate area. The covid reckless person from the lower risk area still presents the higher risk of spread via their daily reckless actions.

Science and data at play here. Odds are that most people from much higher infection areas will be riskier than most people from lower infection areas. You wanna have a COVID awareness and mask protocol check for everyone everywhere? Let's go all in with that and require a properly fitted full medical grade N95 or you're not allowed. Can't get those?? Life isn't fair.. amirite??

 

[Varmintmist]

nope. Out of state trips are put off, not because of a pandemic that is 99.85% survivable even if you include the octogenarians who no longer die from heart problems, flu, pneumonia, or old age, but because where I was going to go has been changing their standards every 2 weeks.

 

[Wendy]

Validating my point only due to the resorts capacity vs the numbers who want to go has nothing to do with my point at all. Your now talking about fairness. Thats a whole different subject talk. And nothing at all about the whole covid thing is fair. And even in normal times so many (maybe even majority) the things we do are often unfair and filled with unfair scenarios. Life itself isnt fair.

Life isn’t fair. I know that axiom well. But refusing to following rules, laws, regulations because they don’t suit oneself isn‘t fair to others.

You’re going to keep arguing with yourself. This whole situation sucks, we all can agree upon that. And none of us want ourselves or our loved ones, or each other here, to get sick. We can agree upon that, too!

 

[crgildart]

nope. Out of state trips are put off, not because of a pandemic that is 99.85% survivable even if you include the octogenarians who no longer die from heart problems, flu, pneumonia, or old age, but because where I was going to go has been changing their standards every 2 weeks.

But accident victims and people with minor heart attacks will die because the hospitals are filling up with careless idiots and their collateral damage.. And a fair percentage of the survivors will have lifelong chronic complications. Sometimes survivable isn't preferable..

 

[Goose]

Life isn’t fair. I know that axiom well. But refusing to following rules, laws, regulations because they don’t suit oneself isn‘t fair to others.

You’re going to keep arguing with yourself. This whole situation sucks, we all can agree upon that. And none of us don‘t want ourselves or our loved ones, or each other here, to get sick. We can agree upon that, too!

I can argue with myself...lol but currently Im not arguing with myself at all
crgildart has been quoting me and debating different points of mine with his own views on them for me to read and I am simply responding accordingly in return . Thats not at self argument but is discussion (or debate) with others. And thats all perfectly fine. At least I think. Thats part of why we are on a talk forum, isnt that sort of how some of it works? Its all good stuff imo

And even here you quote me (which is great) and in your first sentences make a point to me in discussion/debate regarding my post you quoted (which is also great). But then I guess if i respond to that Im arguing with myself? Ok, just is what it is I guess.
But yes of course the main thing here, ...may we all be safe from this frustrating life threatening mess. Kind of figure those feelings are a given but always good to mention at 3foot each arms lengths.

 

[Goose]

On another note and also in line with the topic. This current rising wave which is everywhere is disturbing. I know less % folks are dying vs the infection rate and also less % are seriously ill vs that rate as well. But thats only because there was far less testing early on and they also do now know better how to treat and which meds to help. But the amount catching this thing is still incredible. I now am not even sure i want to partake in a ski day. I know its outdoors and all that but I just dont know...crowded lift lines, bathrooms, I know I probably cant even make the drive without stopping to hit a bathroom. I mean Im just not sure.

I played golf all summer but there are no lift lines in golf. I been more disturbed by this now than I was earlier on. I think its just so frustrating nearly a year has almost past and we are basically in the same place.

Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines,.......I ask, where the heck are the darn therapeutic medicine that will treat/cure a person from it. Ok you get covid, so the doc prescribes "X" medicine and 3 days later you fell better and 2 days more your free. I mean where a year later is that freaking medicine? I not sure if I wish we had that instead the darn vaccines which is not even known how long they last. Just sayin. IDK folks, Its frustrating to us all. Everything about it just sucks.

With the scientific knowledge we have nowadays that this is even a thing is so very hard to swallow. Sometimes i just think its a matter of time before nature throws another major population control disaster at us (for lack of a better word and as sick as that sounds) like it has in the past but I just hope this isnt that. Now Im getting too deep. Step back Goose. take a breather, lets all get through this well.

 

[dbostedo]

Step back Goose. take a breather, lets all get through this well.

And please, again, stay on the topic of whether or not people are skiing.

 

[OldJeep]

But accident victims and people with minor heart attacks will die because the hospitals are filling up with careless idiots and their collateral damage.. And a fair percentage of the survivors will have lifelong chronic complications. Sometimes survivable isn't preferable..

Every day people make decisions based on their personal risk profiles, I drive too fast, I ride motorcycles, ride in small aircraft, have jumped out of them, go up on my roof to work on it, risk drowning by waterskiing and swimming in lakes, risk tree impacts by skiing.
If people's individual risk profile has them extremely concerned about covid at ski areas, staying at home and not leaving is a great option to get rid of nearly 100 percent of their risk.

 

[skix]

If people's individual risk profile has them extremely concerned about covid at ski areas, staying at home and not leaving is a great option to get rid of nearly 100 percent of their risk.

You ignored what I see as the bigger point when you tell me to stay home to protect myself and my family. Whether you are concerned about your own personal safety when you go out you increase the risk for everyone.

As the Pope said just recently:

"They are good people, but they didn't think about those who were staying at home, of the economic problems of many people who have been hit hard by the lockdown, of the sick people," Pope Francis said Sunday.

"[They thought] only about going on holiday and having fun. This pained me a lot," the Pope said at the end of his Sunday Angelus prayer.

Renewing his best wishes for the New Year, Pope Francis said: "What each of us -- and all of us together -- can do is commit ourselves a little more to take care of each other and of what was created, our common home."

In the past, the Pope has also criticized people who refuse to wear masks or who protest against coronavirus restrictions, commenting that they move in "their own little world of interests."

Pope criticizes people going on holiday to avoid Covid-19 lockdowns | CNN

Pope Francis has condemned people who traveled abroad for a vacation and avoid Covid-19 lockdowns, adding that holidaymakers were not considering the effect of their actions on others.

www.cnn.com

 

[lisamamot]

The resort has limited capacity, supposedly further limited. If we allow people from beyond that border (near or far) to enter the pool competing for those limited ski sessions we're either increasing the crowd size or allowing non residents to bump out residents for those ski sessions

Skiing is unnecessary movement for all of us; as long as you are following guidelines, it shouldn’t matter where you reside. Our home mountain does not limit pass holders, just daily ticket sales, and you clearly don’t need to be a state resident to be a pass holder. Perhaps this approach works in larger more western states; in New England, where states are small, relying on residents for capacity would likely not keep the resorts and surrounding towns churning.

I would much rather be near a non-resident who followed the testing/quarantine guidelines than a resident, who arrives at the mountain from a higher incidence area in-state, and does not need to test or quarantine.

 

[crgildart]

Skiing is unnecessary movement for all of us; as long as you are following guidelines, it shouldn’t matter where you reside. Our home mountain does not limit pass holders, just daily ticket sales, and you clearly don’t need to be a state resident to be a pass holder. Perhaps this approach works in larger more western states; in New England, where states are small, relying on residents for capacity would likely not keep the resorts and surrounding towns churning.

I would much rather be near a non-resident who followed the testing/quarantine guidelines than a resident, who arrives at the mountain from a higher incidence area in-state, and does not need to test or quarantine.

I'd rather be 4 feet away from a careful person in a good mask than 8 feet away from someone who doesn't have their nose covered. However, we can't monitor things at the individual level so easily so those dots on the floor are 6 feet apart for everyone. Same theory that we can't say only good people from far away over not good people from across the street. Higher level strategy is to just reduce the total number of people by excluding across state lines.. So you don't get to ski if the state excluded you. .. because they don't have the bandwidth to determine at the individual level who is safe and who isn't.

The rules that determine our options and whether or not we ski, or at least where have to be broadstroked for everyone, not who is careful and who isn't.. at least until we get to the resort where they can kick people out for not masking properly. So, where you can or can't travel to ski is definitely a factor in the "it's complicated" poll option.