• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Poll: When will skiing return to the east?

When will we be able to ski again in the east?


  • Total voters
    39

ss20

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
2,697
Points
48
Location
CT
I think one of the by products of this upcoming season's start date will be less intensive snowmaking, especially early on.

I think we'll have a season starting sometime in November, but less man-made snow (cost control), since the skier numbers will probably be down, perhaps way down. I hope I'm wrong and it's business as usual, but if I had to bet....

It's an interesting question in regard to skier visits. I think visits will be down slightly, and that due to people's financials rather than staying put. But I also think this could be off-set by people seeing that skiing is one of the safest things you could be doing when it comes to avoiding contact with others.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
938
Points
18
I think one of the by products of this upcoming season's start date will be less intensive snowmaking, especially early on.

I think we'll have a season starting sometime in November, but less man-made snow (cost control), since the skier numbers will probably be down, perhaps way down. I hope I'm wrong and it's business as usual, but if I had to bet....

Just got around to logging my vote. I agree. Hard to see Killington or Sunday River feeling as compelled as normal to push the envelope for an October opening. If it happens to be a cold October, maybe, but my guess is they take it easy in the super early season.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,708
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
It's an interesting question in regard to skier visits. I think visits will be down slightly, and that due to people's financials rather than staying put. But I also think this could be off-set by people seeing that skiing is one of the safest things you could be doing when it comes to avoiding contact with others.

The lines are the issues and needs to be figured out before some will feel “safe”. Smaller less crowded places may benefit from this. The Mount Snows of the world will have a harder time as they sucked with crowd control before all this.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

boston_e

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
472
Points
16
It's an interesting question in regard to skier visits. I think visits will be down slightly, and that due to people's financials rather than staying put. But I also think this could be off-set by people seeing that skiing is one of the safest things you could be doing when it comes to avoiding contact with others.

It is largely easy to avoid others while on the slopes, but lift lines, in gondolas and inside lodges may be a different story.

The other wildcard is if states continue or re-implement a 14 day quarantine for out of state visitors.

Lots of potential changes, plus the unknown of where things will be with the virus come next winter.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
938
Points
18
It is largely easy to avoid others while on the slopes, but lift lines, in gondolas and inside lodges may be a different story.

The other wildcard is if states continue or re-implement a 14 day quarantine for out of state visitors.

Lots of potential changes, plus the unknown of where things will be with the virus come next winter.

The status of any new/imminent vaccines and therapeutics will also be a major wildcard.
 

gregnye

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
375
Points
18
The consensus is to not shut down the economy - rather manage the disease better! Better testing, protective measures and remedies as well as hoping a vaccination will be in place by the end of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

Wow who would have thought that listening to scientists, using modern medicine and not just ignoring the disease and hoping it goes away could be a viable plan to consider in 2020.

I keep telling people this. The economic shutdown wasn't the plan. There was no plan. The federal government failed.

If we had a plan, we would be like South Korea. They located and isolated those select few that got COVID, so that others could live their lives normally, and those that got covid could wait it out until the disease was gone.

I really really hope that for wave 2 we can plan. We know there's going to be a second wave. Let's plan now so that we don't have choose between human lives and the economy.

As for skiing, I'd say that we can expect fewer trips planned out of the country to places like Whistler. I doubt Canada will open the border to us in the next year. It too bad, I wanted to try Revelstoke and kicking horse
 
Last edited:

Edd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
5,443
Points
48
Location
Newmarket, NH
Wow who would have thought that listening to scientists, using modern medicine and not just ignoring the disease and hoping it goes away could be a viable plan to consider in 2020.

I keep telling people this. The economic shutdown wasn't the plan. There was no plan.

These guys are comfortable with no plan.

IMG_0074.jpg

Looks like a hellscape regardless of pandemics.
 

skiur

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
824
Points
18
Will the world cup be cancelled in November? If it is than will K have much incentive to open? Big crowds that weekend.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,254
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Will the world cup be cancelled in November? If it is than will K have much incentive to open? Big crowds that weekend.

Remains to be seen. I saw that the NFL is going forward right now with the intention of playing with full stadiums in the Fall (obviously remains to be seen in the coming months) but that will likely be somewhat of a barometer for what me may see at ski resorts next season, since if they can get 60-80k+ in a stadium for a football game, chances are that society won't have much of an issue with 10K or so, on a mountain skiing/riding....
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,254
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Wow who would have thought that listening to scientists, using modern medicine and not just ignoring the disease and hoping it goes away could be a viable plan to consider in 2020.

I keep telling people this. The economic shutdown wasn't the plan. There was no plan. The federal government failed.

If we had a plan, we would be like South Korea. They located and isolated those select few that got COVID, so that others could live their lives normally, and those that got covid could wait it out until the disease was gone.

I really really hope that for wave 2 we can plan. We know there's going to be a second wave. Let's plan now so that we don't have choose between human lives and the economy.

As for skiing, I'd say that we can expect fewer trips planned out of the country to places like Whistler. I doubt Canada will open the border to us in the next year. It too bad, I wanted to try Revelstoke and kicking horse

I think that you do have to have some skepticism over the predictions that the scientists used with this virus, heck, even Governor Cuomo yesterday admitted that they (the scientists) got it wrong in a significant way with their projections about the shear volume of COVID-19 deaths. In no way am I downplaying the deaths from COVID-19, I think though that there was plenty of initial fearmongering that wasn't based on solid science, and much of that could be attributed to the newness of the disease and frankly just not fully understanding it and how it's effects would be. The scientists had to make a quick decision, and they ended up erring on what was the side of caution to prevent a worst case scenario. I don't fault them for that.

What I do take issue of, is now that we do understand it more, and as a society have in general learned some relatively simple things that we can do to greatly reduce its spread (masks and plenty of hand washing) and also have learned to manage the disease process for those who do get severe cases, especially when they don't have multiple high risk comorbidities such as age 75-80+, obesity, other lung disease processes, etc, is that there seems to still be among some of our leaders and scientists as "one size fits all" approach to this disease process, when it's quite obvious that this isn't a uniform disease in how it effects everyone. In ski terms, so many of us subscribed to the multiple skis for various conditions theory over the 1 ski quiver, it's time for society to look at this not as a 1 ski quiver response mechanism
 
Last edited:

Pez

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
274
Points
18
Location
WMASS
I picked Jan '21. As someone else mentioned, It's going to be difficult to justify spending all that $$ on snow making if ski areas aren't turning a profit with food and beverages rentals and the rest of it.

I'm thinking resorts may have problems finding employees... I know a lot come from overseas to work the season.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Wow who would have thought that listening to scientists, using modern medicine and not just ignoring the disease and hoping it goes away could be a viable plan to consider in 2020.

The WHO scientists that in January told us COVID19 isn't transmissible from person to person?

The WHO scientists that in February told us blocking travelers from infected countries is silly?

The COVID19 task force scientist who in March told us there's no reason for the public to cover their face?

The scientists modeling ventilator shortages in April who told us Americans will die without intubation?

The CDC scientists who last week told us you're unlikely to get COVID19 from touching surfaces?

This is not to say we shouldn't "listen" to science, I find it absurd to put blind faith in them. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with another relevant example of when the "experts" were wrong so often & so repeatedly regarding something so immensely consequential.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
25,715
Points
48
Location
Southeast NH
Remains to be seen. I saw that the NFL is going forward right now with the intention of playing with full stadiums in the Fall (obviously remains to be seen in the coming months) but that will likely be somewhat of a barometer for what me may see at ski resorts next season, since if they can get 60-80k+ in a stadium for a football game, chances are that society won't have much of an issue with 10K or so, on a mountain skiing/riding....
I just don't see how professional sports will be allowed to have that volume of spectators. All the current information indicates large gatherings of people in close proximity to one another is of greatest concern for spikes in cases.

Maybe they back off that like they have so many other things such as surface infection probability. Certainly possible I suppose.

I guess a good test case is going to be what happens to infection rates once public transit starts seeing higher volumes. The MBTA is lowering their rates this fall. Clearly they're concerned with reduced ridership.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Put me down as the major contrarian in this thread. I think it's possible by the time the ski season is really in gear, let's say December 26th, we may be dang near 100% normal in virtually all facets of life. At least for those under 63'ish anyway.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,254
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn, CT
I just don't see how professional sports will be allowed to have that volume of spectators. All the current information indicates large gatherings of people in close proximity to one another is of greatest concern for spikes in cases.

Maybe they back off that like they have so many other things such as surface infection probability. Certainly possible I suppose.

I guess a good test case is going to be what happens to infection rates once public transit starts seeing higher volumes. The MBTA is lowering their rates this fall. Clearly they're concerned with reduced ridership.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

I tend to look at things from 2 points of view. #1 many of the suggestions that are being made now, are based on initial data (which while not totally wrong, also wasn't totally right) and much of that also involved a society at large that wasn't using masks, enhanced personal hygiene and some form of social distancing. Practices that seem to make a significant difference in controlling this disease process, and practices that for most now are relatively commonplace rather than new. I feel that that will make a difference for the majority of the population, with some minor demographic groups as the exception

#2 - what I do for a living and what I am not seeing happen within my profession with respect to COVID-19 transmission. No doubt about it, dentistry has the risk to be a COVID transmission nightmare for those of use who work in the field especially. We're often working within 2 feet of people's mouth's and generating with some of our instruments a fair amount of aerosol spray. I look at what happened, or more appropriately didn't happen, in the weeks leading up to the mid March shutdown as well as in counties like Sweden, Germany, Japan and South Korea where they never really shut my profession down, nor did they really change up the PPE that providers were wearing. To my knowledge, there are no documented cases of COVID-19 spread within a dental office, worldwide, as of now. Dental offices have certainly worked on COVID-19 positive patients, and in a way where the aerosol heavy nature of some parts of the profession likely would of made the risk of transmission fairly high. My profession, also benefits from many of the things that society as a whole is being asked to do right now, wear a mask, wash your hands often, don't touch your face without having washed your hands first, etc. When I look at real world data like that, I am encouraged that the safe extent to which society can be reopened for most, even without a vaccine, is quite good. Just my opinion
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
938
Points
18
This is not to say we shouldn't "listen" to science, I find it absurd to put blind faith in them.

Agreed. A healthy recognition that these people couldn't possibly have all the answers (and that we should expert consensus to evolve in most/all disciplines as more information is gathered/tested) would go a long way. Unfortunately, this runs counter to the prevailing sentiment that we look smart and virtuous when we regurgitate what the experts say.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,708
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
The WHO scientists that in January told us COVID19 isn't transmissible from person to person?

The WHO scientists that in February told us blocking travelers from infected countries is silly?

The COVID19 task force scientist who in March told us there's no reason for the public to cover their face?

The scientists modeling ventilator shortages in April who told us Americans will die without intubation?

The CDC scientists who last week told us you're unlikely to get COVID19 from touching surfaces?

This is not to say we shouldn't "listen" to science, I find it absurd to put blind faith in them. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with another relevant example of when the "experts" were wrong so often & so repeatedly regarding something so immensely consequential.

So from your posts your opinion is to trust “science” but not scientists?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
So from your posts your opinion is to trust “science” but not scientists?

Is that genuinely what you took from my post or are you simply trying to argue?

I'm a gonna' assume the latter because for the life of me I cant see how that's what you took from it as well as the fact E.P.B. seemed to have zero problem understanding exactly what I meant.
 

mister moose

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
970
Points
18
So from your posts your opinion is to trust “science” but not scientists?
There is a difference between Science, an understanding of basic foundational principles in nature, furthermore that understanding gives accurate, repeatable results as a result of testing that understanding, and Scientist, a human being with inevitable errors, motivations and deficiencies that affect their actions.
 
Top