Ski Resort Response to COVID-19

[machski]

We're red now for VT. Anyone else notice 3 counties in VT would be yellow now too? Such hypocrisy.

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

We're red now for VT. Anyone else notice 3 counties in VT would be yellow now too? Such hypocrisy.

Addison in VT would be red, not just yellow. Addison's "active cases per million" count is higher than all but 2 NJ counties...

 

[ss20]

Shouldn't the quarantine threshold for VT increase if the number of cases WITHIN THE STATE is increasing?

 

[machski]

Shouldn't the quarantine threshold for VT increase if the number of cases WITHIN THE STATE is increasing?

Nope, but that is why this has always been a hypocrisy.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[flakeydog]

My thinking here is that the goal in VT is to keep cases as low as possible. If there is a hot spot, we deal with it an put it out and reduce caseload back to where it was.

I would submit to you the "hypocrisy" would be to open the floodgates when Vermont's rate rises to levels that match other surrounding areas that were previously not allowed in. It would be ludicrous to relax the standards on cross-state travel so that we may bring Vermont's caseload in line with our neighbors. This is not the kind of wealth we are interested in sharing at the moment.

 

[Edd]

My thinking here is that the goal in VT is to keep cases as low as possible. If there is a hot spot, we deal with it an put it out and reduce caseload back to where it was.

I would submit to you the "hypocrisy" would be to open the floodgates when Vermont's rate rises to levels that match other surrounding areas that were previously not allowed in. It would be ludicrous to relax the standards on cross-state travel so that we may bring Vermont's caseload in line with our neighbors. This is not the kind of wealth we are interested in sharing at the moment.

Good post.

 

[Smellytele]

I know it was discussed before but will ski areas be policing who comes from which county or was it said just hotels?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[zoomzoom]

addison is a relatively sparsely populated county of 37k people, that had an outbreak at champlain orchards monday. 26 new cases that they boxed in w/contact tracing and quarantining. gov doing a great job.

edit: i know someone that works on k-tron's patrol. at a meeting last sat, management said they're hoping to break even this year. so, best case is no profits this FY and likely no investments next year.

 

[drjeff]

My thinking here is that the goal in VT is to keep cases as low as possible. If there is a hot spot, we deal with it an put it out and reduce caseload back to where it was.

I would submit to you the "hypocrisy" would be to open the floodgates when Vermont's rate rises to levels that match other surrounding areas that were previously not allowed in. It would be ludicrous to relax the standards on cross-state travel so that we may bring Vermont's caseload in line with our neighbors. This is not the kind of wealth we are interested in sharing at the moment.

I wonder then if part of VT's strategy will be to require mandatory vaccination of it's residents if/when a vaccine hits the market? Since to some extent, even with vaccination of others who may travel to VT, it's not like this virus will be going away anytime soon, and when you look at the effects that it is without a doubt having on the economic livelihood of VT, at some point, VT is going to have alter their policies to allow a more tourism, which is and always has been for a longtime, a key tenant of a significant portion of the overall VT economy on a year round basis

 

[cdskier]

addison is a relatively sparsely populated county of 37k people, that had an outbreak at champlain orchards monday. 26 new cases that they boxed in w/contact tracing and quarantining. gov doing a great job.

Addison is a great example of just how flawed the formula VT uses to generate the map is and determine what counties are "safe". Overall data shows 27 cases in Addison in the past 7 days and 28 cases in the past 14 days (so apparently 2 cases outside of the apple orchard outbreak). Yet VT's own calculation that they use in the creation of the map says they should have 66 active cases in that county. This shows how VT's calculation is significantly overestimating the number of active cases (unless you truly believe there are more undetected cases in Addison than there are actual detected cases).

 

[Edd]

This shows how VT's calculation is significantly overestimating the number of active cases (unless you truly believe there are more undetected cases in Addison than there are actual detected cases).

Wouldn’t there be, though? Aren’t there always going to be undetected cases that are a risk for further spread? If that is the case, I think it makes sense to assume a certain percentage of those and proceed accordingly.

 

[drjeff]

Wouldn’t there be, though? Aren’t there always going to be undetected cases that are a risk for further spread? If that is the case, I think it makes sense to assume a certain percentage of those and proceed accordingly.

Most certainly there are undetected cases. One could probably make the argument that maybe even a majority of cases are either asymptomatic and/or minimal symptoms at best.

That certainly brings up the question and dilemma of how much of a societal restriction do we place on essentially everyone, when the reality is that societal restrictions are probably too aggressive for many, but certainly warranted for some specific demographics. Given the difference in personal risk that we all have, and the ability (for some at least) to objectively look at the data and formulate what their own personal risk situation is, are we heading towards the time when there may very well be the realization that this "one size fits all" approach that is being taken in each state, may not be the "best" approach for the majority of society? I'm sure that you could ask 100 people and get 100 different answers for that question, none of which would be right for all and none of which would be wrong for all

 

[cdskier]

Wouldn’t there be, though? Aren’t there always going to be undetected cases that are a risk for further spread? If that is the case, I think it makes sense to assume a certain percentage of those and proceed accordingly.

To some degree, yes, but 26 of the 28 are isolated cases. Those other 2 aren't causing 38 other hidden cases. And before someone says "well Addison is unique because there was an isolated outbreak in a contained area"...that happens quite often. There have been numerous examples on this board alone of people saying things like "my county numbers went up this week due to an outbreak at a prison or nursing home in the county".

There's just very little point in using a methodology that tries to predict something that is really quite unknown. The methodology VT uses makes the assumption that every infected person automatically infects X number of other people which is a flawed assumption. A methodology that is based on purely actual known data would be much better (i.e. testing positivity rates and 7/14 day rolling averages of reporting new cases like most other states use). VT has instead chosen to use a methodology that it is quite impossible to prove how accurate it is and that just causes people to ignore the rules because they make little sense and everyone simply says "that data doesn't seem right".

 

[ScottySkis]

Platty officaly virus plan on the website
No surprise

Those who love Plattekill. Their season pass and Covid guidelines are out. Pretty reasonable with lodge and outside heated food court available. No advance reservations needed. Pass holders have priority. They are going ahead with some alpine and kids programs although with some limitations.
They are selling season parking pass as well, is this the upper parking lot?
https://www.plattekill.com/covid-19e

 

[dlague]

Wouldn’t there be, though? Aren’t there always going to be undetected cases that are a risk for further spread? If that is the case, I think it makes sense to assume a certain percentage of those and proceed accordingly.

CDC estimates that the current number of people affected by COVID-19 is actually 10 times the actual number they have since many were either asymptomatic or had minor symptoms and never were tested!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skef]

I find this somewhat encouraging (for skiing).
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/business/disney-world-coronavirus.html

As tumultuous as the three months since the reopening have been, however, public health officials and Disney World’s unions say there have been no coronavirus outbreaks among workers or guests. So far, Disney’s wide-ranging safety measures appear to be working.

 

[Edd]

To some degree, yes, but 26 of the 28 are isolated cases. Those other 2 aren't causing 38 other hidden cases. And before someone says "well Addison is unique because there was an isolated outbreak in a contained area"...that happens quite often. There have been numerous examples on this board alone of people saying things like "my county numbers went up this week due to an outbreak at a prison or nursing home in the county".

There's just very little point in using a methodology that tries to predict something that is really quite unknown. The methodology VT uses makes the assumption that every infected person automatically infects X number of other people which is a flawed assumption. A methodology that is based on purely actual known data would be much better (i.e. testing positivity rates and 7/14 day rolling averages of reporting new cases like most other states use). VT has instead chosen to use a methodology that it is quite impossible to prove how accurate it is and that just causes people to ignore the rules because they make little sense and everyone simply says "that data doesn't seem right".

Not sure about “very little point”. I’d say it’s better to predict a number of unknowns (within reason), than to bury your head and act as if there’re no unknown cases.

I doubt we disagree much on this issue, but I do not envy the officials that have to make these decisions. It’s difficult for me to critique their reasoning when I don’t think I’d do any better.

 

[cdskier]

Not sure about “very little point”. I’d say it’s better to predict a number of unknowns (within reason), than to bury your head and act as if there’re no unknown cases.

I doubt we disagree much on this issue, but I do not envy the officials that have to make these decisions. It’s difficult for me to critique their reasoning when I don’t think I’d do any better.

I agree that we probably agree. I'm certainly not saying there's no unknown cases. I'm simply saying there's no point in using a number you don't accurately know as the basis for your determination on whether a given county is "safe". The problem is you're using numbers people don't understand and that they're not seeing in any other data reported by anyone else. Therefore it leads people to believe it is inaccurate data (maybe they're accurately calculating undetected cases, but maybe they aren't...either way you have no idea).

You can both be cautious/conservative (as VT wants to do) and use only real actual data such as test positivity rates and the actual number of positive cases over a given time-frame. To be cautious, you simply adjust the threshold. So for example NY/NJ/CT typically use an average of 10 cases per day per 100K over a 7 day period as their basis for which states should have quarantines. VT could use 5. My point is simply at least people would see data matching the numbers they're seeing everywhere else (NY Times, Johns Hopkins, local/state Health Departments, etc) and would be less likely to say "VT's map/numbers are wrong. My county isn't really as high as they're saying so I'm going to just go to VT anyway".

 

[dlague]

Well this is interesting! Hopefully no more shut downs!


https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...s-as-primary-virus-control-method/ar-BB19TBUo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BenedictGomez]

My favorite part of the Vermont map is the fact they use a shade of blue for Vermont counties, not matter how bad the COVID19 gets there.

As if Vermonters wouldn't know where they live if they used the same colors they did for the rest of the northeast?
No, likely because someone at State of Vermont had a Psychology of Color unit in their marketing classes.