Ski Resort Response to COVID-19

[Puck it]

Here is another one that needs to explained with the science and not just hand waving from armchair virologists. The same type of graph hold true for US states.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Sounds like she believes in science.

I give 10:1 odds she's not a native Vermonter.

 

[Zermatt]

COVID In Aspen: Pitkin County Visitors Must Prove Negative Coronavirus Test

Pitkin County is in the process of finalizing a policy, which would require visitors to sign an affidavit to certify they will not only comply with the county's public health order, but that they have had a negative test result within 72 hours of traveling.

denver.cbslocal.com

Aspen (Pitkin County) requiring a negative Covid test.

 

[xlr8r]

Clearly both Alterra and Vail are not regulating capacity properly based on these reports. Lines and social distancing appears to be out of control.
Winter Park
Vail

 

[tnt1234]

its just about establishing some deterrence, there's no capacity or intention for enforcement, and it's working in deterring at least some people from travel

It worked on us. We are typically good for 3-4 VT trips a year. But are making alternate plans that are currently compliant with all state restrictions. Not ruling out a trip to VT at some point, but will certainly try to limit exposures and get tested before so as to honor the spirit of the guidelines.

 

[abc]

For better or worse, I've been dividing my (WFH) life into period of "clean" periods of 2~4 weeks each, separated by a few days of "un-clean" period when I need to break my self-imposed isolation.

It's mostly for my own benefit. I'm not taking unnecessary risk of catching the virus (one of my biking buddy caught it, working in hospital. It's now 4 months, she still can only walk, too out of breath to run or bike). And also to avoid ANY risk of infecting my 84 year old Mom.

Still, life has to be lived. I have to get medical treatments for on-going issues. I have to get work done in my house from recent flooding damages. Car needs snow tires put on etc. (though the last isn't too much a risk)... So I group my contact with the outside world into 1-2 week periods. Then self-quarantine for 2 weeks before spending time with my Mom. At that point, I'm also theoretically eligible to travel to VT/NH or even Maine (though I have no plan for the latter). So I could go skiing in VT if I so desired. Though currently, the condition doesn't warrant the trip.

But when the season really starts (I always define a "season start" as mountain having 75% terrain open), I will ski VT (or NH) after each 2-week "clean" period. It's not much change from my current schedule anyway. And if I end up missing a few storm due to not being in position to travel to VT "legally", I can always ski Hunter.

Having the luxury of working remotely does simplify things considerable. I can stay up north for easily 1 to 2 week a time.

 

[Puck it]

MA Data. I would like this explained like I said above with a scientific explanation.

 

[da-bum]

MA Data. I would like this explained like I said above with a scientific explanation.

Don't you see a flattening of the curve 2 weeks after the mandate?

And your prior chart is a straw man argument for the uninformed. If you don't know about the scandanavian culture vs the rest of europe, then you can swallow that is being presented.

 

[Puck it]

Don't you see a flattening of the curve 2 weeks after the mandate?

And your prior chart is a straw man argument for the uninformed. If you don't know about the scandanavian culture vs the rest of europe, then you can swallow that is being presented

That is real scientific. The curve was already coming down on the first mandate was going up on the second. I hope that was not arm chair virology.

Are you calling the rest of Europe dirty cultures vs the Norse cultures?

 

[da-bum]

That is real scientific. The curve was already coming down on the first mandate was going up on the second. I hope that was not arm chair virology.

Are you calling the rest of Europe dirty cultures vs the Norse cultures?

The usage of mask was discouraged despite prior research on the efficacy of masks on other resperatory virus. It came around only when research on covid-19 started appearing, that is why it started getting widely adopted, regardless of whether the cases in the state were going up or down.

According to scandanavians themselves, they put more trust in goverment, thus whatever was recommended for them, they will take upon themselves to follow the advice. It is also a much less densely populated than lower europe. Why not expand mask usage comparision to the rest to the rest of the world, and you see cases practically non-existent in Asia. Is it due to just the mask? Or is it obedient culture? Nobody will know until detailed studies are carried out.

 

[Puck it]

The usage of mask was discouraged despite prior research on the efficacy of masks on other resperatory virus. It came around only when research on covid-19 started appearing, that is why it started getting widely adopted, regardless of whether the cases in the state were going up or down.

According to Scandinavians themselves, they put more trust in goverment, thus whatever was recommended for them, they will take upon themselves to follow the advice. It is also a much less densely populated than lower europe. Why not expand mask usage comparision to the rest to the rest of the world, and you see cases practically non-existent in Asia. Is it due to just the mask? Or is it obedient culture? Nobody will know until detailed studies are carried out.

There still has been no peer reviewed paper that has proven the various types of mask work. The Danish is the most recent one that should no real difference. The Scandinavian theory could be true but their cities are pretty densely populated. In regards to the Asian, there has been some papers non peer reviewed about the Asians might be less likely to contract it or be asymptomatic then other cultures as they are more exposed to other coronaviruses.

 

[cdskier]

There still has been no peer reviewed paper that has proven the various types of mask work. The Danish is the most recent one that should no real difference.

We've been over the Danish study already. It proves very little one way or the other based on the very specific hypothesis that it was designed to test and based on various limitations of that study as a result. Simply saying it "showed no real difference" is misleading and out of context.

 

[abc]

Why not expand mask usage comparision to the rest to the rest of the world, and you see cases practically non-existent in Asia. Is it due to just the mask? Or is it obedient culture? Nobody will know until detailed studies are carried out.

How does obedient culture help curb the virus transmission (that's not related to mask use)?

 

[NYDB]

^They stay at home when they are sick

 

[Puck it]

We've been over the Danish study already. It proves very little one way or the other based on the very specific hypothesis that it was designed to test and based on various limitations of that study as a result. Simply saying it "showed no real difference" is misleading and out of context.

Most studies have a specific hypothesis to prove or disprove. I am not following your logic.

 

[Puck it]

How does obedient culture help curb the virus transmission (that's not related to mask use)?

There are some theories for the Asian cultures that it is not mask usage or social distancing that is keeping cases low. The Asian population might be more resisitant to the virus as they are more exposed to other coronaviruses thus giving more of an immunity for lack of a better word.

 

[abc]

There are some theories for the Asian cultures that it is not mask usage or social distancing that is keeping cases low. The Asian population might be more resisitant to the virus as they are more exposed to other coronaviruses thus giving more of an immunity for lack of a better word

So it's not obedience then?

Had any of those "theorist" had any data to verify their hypothesis? Anyone can roll out of bed and came up with a random "theory". It's worth about as much as the air it took to utter it.

 

[cdskier]

Most studies have a specific hypothesis to prove or disprove. I am not following your logic.

Many of your posts seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that masks aren't effective. You claimed "There still has been no peer reviewed paper that has proven the various types of mask work. The Danish is the most recent one that should no real difference." It is entirely misleading to even insinuate that the Danish study showed no difference in whether masks are used or not as people not familiar with the details of the study will start using it as "proof" that we shouldn't have mask mandates. It simply showed that there was no statistical proof that masks offered a 50% reduction in your chances of catching covid*. That study is practically useless in reality for using as any sort of basis to make any claims at all on the effectiveness of masks in today's real-world scenario with high case rates.

*There could have very well been a 10% difference, or 25%, etc, but the study simply wasn't large enough to be able to detect that from a statistical perspective. It also had numerous other flaws/limitations including relying on self-reporting of compliance by study participants, low case rates in the study environment to begin with, numerous social distancing and lockdown rules in place in the country, no accounting for where/how people that wore masks contracted covid, etc (for all we know, the "masked" people in the study that did catch covid caught it at home when they weren't wearing the masks. Even just a couple cases falling into that scenario would further illustrate the point on how little you can really learn about mask effectiveness from that study).

 

[Puck it]

Many of your posts seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that masks aren't effective. You claimed "There still has been no peer reviewed paper that has proven the various types of mask work. The Danish is the most recent one that should no real difference." It is entirely misleading to even insinuate that the Danish study showed no difference in whether masks are used or not as people not familiar with the details of the study will start using it as "proof" that we shouldn't have mask mandates. It simply showed that there was no statistical proof that masks offered a 50% reduction in your chances of catching covid*. That study is practically useless in reality for using as any sort of basis to make any claims at all on the effectiveness of masks in today's real-world scenario with high case rates.

*There could have very well been a 10% difference, or 25%, etc, but the study simply wasn't large enough to be able to detect that from a statistical perspective. It also had numerous other flaws/limitations including relying on self-reporting of compliance by study participants, low case rates in the study environment to begin with, numerous social distancing and lockdown rules in place in the country, no accounting for where/how people that wore masks contracted covid, etc (for all we know, the "masked" people in the study that did catch covid caught it at home when they weren't wearing the masks. Even just a couple cases falling into that scenario would further illustrate the point on how little you can really learn about mask effectiveness from that study).

No agenda. You may have one since you do not like the Danish findings. I am looking for scientific data that supports the use. I have numerous comparisons of with and without mandates from various states. Montana and Wyoming is good one. The Danish had some questions but not sure why you think the population study was not statistically valid. You can pick apart any study if you want that is part of the scientific review process.

 

[cdskier]

No agenda. You may have one since you do not like the Danish findings. I am looking for scientific data that supports the use. I have numerous comparisons of with and without mandates from various states. Montana and Wyoming is good one. The Danish had some questions but not sure why you think the population study was not statistically valid. You can pick apart any study if you want that is part of the scientific review process.

It isn't that I don't like the Danish findings. It is just that the study proves very little and too many people want it to represent things it doesn't. I didn't say it isn't statistically valid. It is valid specifically for the 50% reduction part (in self-protection). But it is incapable of determining whether there is a smaller degree of protection (the author point blank admits this, so it isn't really a debatable point). It also did not test mask usage in terms of source control (which is thought to be the primary benefit of mask usage anyway).

You can say you have no agenda if you want, but you keep questioning mask effectiveness and mandates in multiple threads and posts. That isn't the typical behavior of someone that has no agenda. I'm not going to sit here and say there's scientific data that explicitly supports the use of them. The problem is that by the time studies fully testing that are designed, carried out, analyzed, and published, the pandemic will be over.

I'll also say it again...mask mandates are one thing. Compliance is another. A politician can make all the rules and executive orders they want, but if people don't properly follow them, that doesn't mean the intent of the rule was misplaced.