• 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!

Vail considering cutting back on announced improvements- beginning of the end for VR?

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
479
Points
28
The timing of all of this was pretty fortunate for the ski industry. Imagine if this thing landed in mid November keeping resorts closed through February. That would’ve really hurt.


We'll get to live that scenario in the fall when the virus comes back for cycle 2. Hopefully we have a vaccine or an effective treatment protocol by then
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
479
Points
28
You seem convinced. I'm not. Neither of us really know about all that. I guess we will see.

It seems more probable than it just magically disappearing with no vaccine and no/minimal herd immunity.
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,388
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
You seem convinced. I'm not. Neither of us really know about all that. I guess we will see.

Every expert I have seen is expecting a second wave in the fall. The only question is just how bad it will be.
 

ss20

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
2,708
Points
48
Location
CT
Every expert I have seen is expecting a second wave in the fall. The only question is just how bad it will be.

I'm also not sold on the second wave given we don't know the extent of this first wave. If 20% of the population can get sick and have immunity to the next wave than theoretically wouldn't wave 2 be 20% less contagious? They say this thing mutates much much slower than the flu so I'm hoping I'm right but there are many many smarter people working on this than me.
 

urungus

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
654
Points
18
Location
Western Mass
Every expert I have seen is expecting a second wave in the fall. The only question is just how bad it will be.

And the experts are also saying it will be 12-18 months before a vaccine can be developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed. There’s a good chance the entire 20-21 season could be lost.
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
479
Points
28
And the experts are also saying it will be 12-18 months before a vaccine can be developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed. There’s a good chance the entire 20-21 season could be lost.

really depends on how much herd immunity we have and whether or not there ends up being an effective treatment. Hopefully some of the drugs currently in trial end up working on a large scale because we really can't afford to wait 12-18 months for a vaccine before we start returning back to (semi) normal. Also if we can develop testing to see who has been sick and who hasn't and can test more people quickly and backtrace infections, we shouldn't have to stay in lockdown forever
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
And the experts are also saying it will be 12-18 months before a vaccine can be developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed. There’s a good chance the entire 20-21 season could be lost.

This is not going to happen, because it literally cannot happen financially.

Businesses cannot all stay closed another year. Now you're talking about 100% the "fix" being worse than the actual "problem" with talk like that; not even debatable.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,714
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
really depends on how much herd immunity we have and whether or not there ends up being an effective treatment. Hopefully some of the drugs currently in trial end up working on a large scale because we really can't afford to wait 12-18 months for a vaccine before we start returning back to (semi) normal. Also if we can develop testing to see who has been sick and who hasn't and can test more people quickly and backtrace infections, we shouldn't have to stay in lockdown forever

Isn’t the test to see if people have antibodies from having it just a few weeks away. I know we won’t have 30 million of them right off the bat but and seems like a good thing to see who can get out of lockdown.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
479
Points
28
Isn’t the test to see if people have antibodies from having it just a few weeks away. I know we won’t have 30 million of them right off the bat but and seems like a good thing to see who can get out of lockdown.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


thats what the news is saying. Might be too late to make a huge impact this time around, but at least we'd have it for round 2 so we don't have to go through all of this again
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,714
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
thats what the news is saying. Might be too late to make a huge impact this time around, but at least we'd have it for round 2 so we don't have to go through all of this again

Well if they could test people then they can get back to living life and not worry about infected others or getting sick themselves if they test positive for the antibodies. They can even give out certificates of antibodies. They maybe doing this in Germany already.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,388
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
Well if they could test people then they can get back to living life and not worry about infected others or getting sick themselves if they test positive for the antibodies. They can even give out certificates of antibodies. They maybe doing this in Germany already.

And if only 20% of the population could meaningfully participate in the economy, it would still be an economic disaster.
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
479
Points
28
And if only 20% of the population could meaningfully participate in the economy, it would still be an economic disaster.

Not as much of a disaster as all of us staying in our homes for 12-18 months while we wait for a vaccine
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Nowhere near 20% of Americans have has COVID19 already, we know that from the testing data we currently have.
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,388
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
Not as much of a disaster as all of us staying in our homes for 12-18 months while we wait for a vaccine

No argument from me. My point is that at some point they are going to have to let people out of their homes - whether or not there is a vaccine.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,765
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Hard to say when only a little over a million have been tested. We would get a better idea if we tested for antibodies.

It's not possible for 2 reasons, one obvious, one not so obvious.

The obvious reason is that were you to assume a possible >= 20% pop COVID19+ infection rate already, that's 66M infected Americans. Were 66M infected, even if COVID19 were 1/2 as deadly as the common flu, you'd already be at several hundred thousand deaths.

The not obvious reason is that our current testing at > 1M tests isnt even at 20% positive, and that's with the data set being massively skewed towards positive results given you need to present a known COVID19 symptom to even get a test in the first place.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,714
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
It's not possible for 2 reasons, one obvious, one not so obvious.

The obvious reason is that were you to assume a possible >= 20% pop COVID19+ infection rate already, that's 66M infected Americans. Were 66M infected, even if COVID19 were 1/2 as deadly as the common flu, you'd already be at several hundred thousand deaths.

The not obvious reason is that our current testing at > 1M tests isnt even at 20% positive, and that's with the data set being massively skewed towards positive results given you need to present a known COVID19 symptom to even get a test in the first place.

Actually they said 1.3 million tests have been run but a lot of labs run 2 tests per subject so the number tested could be well below 1.3.
Also at this point how many people who have tested positive have shown no symptoms what so ever. All I am saying is we don't know how many people may have had it and didn't know and/or never got tested.
 
Top