 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
If I assume an effective vaccine is still a way off we have to face up to the reality that we can't continue playing hokey cokey indefinitely and therefore the population least at risk has to get on with life "as normal" either for economic reasons or to develop herd immunity. |
That ASSUMPTION is the basis of what people choose to do!
| Quote: |
I tend to symphathise with my mum's view who is absolutely in the bracket most vulnerable who doesn't want to spend the rest of her life hampered with no prospect of a foreign holiday, unable to see her grandchildern to the extent she would wish etc etc
|
Her life would only be hampered until a vaccine is available! Or for that matter, a few more effective therapeutic treatment became available.
But if you assume both are "a long ways off", yes, you may rightly conclude it's not practical to wait FOREVER!
Frankly, if I share that same assumption, I would do likewise. However, there're plenty of reasons to assume the opposite, that a vaccine will become available as soon as "some time" in 2021. I consider putting MY life on hold till then well worth it.
I will adjust my decision when and if new evidence become available to validate/invalidate my basic assumption (of vaccine/drugs become available "shortly"). I wonder how many others do the same (adjust their decision on the face of new evidence)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| robs1 wrote: |
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@robs1 then you say history is littered with cases where they were wrong
No, my point was that uninformed people made what they thought were 'common sense' and 'obvious' conclusions from the information they had, only to be contradicted by statistical analysis and scientific research. Sometimes the truth was counter-intuitive.
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables
I can only disagree: a systematic scientific experiment will yield more data than we have currently and on which we are all having to make our risk analysis. However imperfect, any systematic experiment will tell us more than we know now, and make our decision-making better. Why decide in ignorance when we could judge with knowledge?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 12-10-20 21:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
....
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
So your 'calculated risk' is based on data that cannot (according to you) sensibly be produced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
....
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
So your 'calculated risk' is based on data that cannot (according to you) sensibly be produced. |
Calculation based on the incalculable... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
....
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
So your 'calculated risk' is based on data that cannot (according to you) sensibly be produced. |
How can you base data on testing people in either a gondola or navette when each load of people will be different, conditions will be different .
If either is crowded then the risk is higher IF you are the one close to an infected person, if it has only one person and they arent then there is no risk. If there is good ventilation then lower risk than no ventilation, add in the variable of how many people are infected , there stage of infection etc etc and it's a lottery, I don't need data sets to tell me that. So my calculation is based on the premise of a crowded ventilated navette is a higher risk than a uncrowded ventilated gondola, of course there will be an exemption. The only way to avoid risk is to stay at home
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
....
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
So your 'calculated risk' is based on data that cannot (according to you) sensibly be produced. |
How can you base data on testing people in either a gondola or navette when each load of people will be different, conditions will be different . |
I agree. Yet you said you would be taking a calculated risk. Calculations are based on data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
....
No body can produce sensible data on the risk of catching it in a gondola compared to a navette, there are far too many variables,
Each time you measure it you would get a different result so any risk projection would be completely useless or rather inaccurate so pointless. |
So your 'calculated risk' is based on data that cannot (according to you) sensibly be produced. |
How can you base data on testing people in either a gondola or navette when each load of people will be different, conditions will be different . |
I agree. Yet you said you would be taking a calculated risk. Calculations are based on data. |
The calculation is based on the fact that a crowded navette is "likely" to be a greater risk than an uncrowded gondola, similarly a crowded sweaty bar is "likely " to be more risky than a near empty mountain cafe.
More people, poorer air flow are data but very basic and raw and too variable to produce a percentage of risk figure that could be repeated with accuracy but still gives me an answer that I can make a decision on, ie avoid hot crowded places
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@robs1, let’s assume you knew someone with Covid was going to be on the same cable car as you, or 6 man bubble etc. just for one of your rides on it during a week at a resort, would you still take those multiple trips on the lifts during your (let’s assume week) skiing ?
How would you consider or calculate the risk ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you do a risk analysis your decision is based on weighing various factors to which you are - consciously or unconsciously - assigning values. Ideally, they're based on empirical data but the world is imperfect and sometimes the data isn't complete and sometimes it's simply not available. The problem comes with assigning vales to risks and probabilities incorrectly, despite it seeming 'logical' or 'common sense'. The scientific process - and why scientists are important when lives are at risk - is to take nothing for granted; test any assumptions and models; and collect as much basic data as possible.
robs1 Your 'fact that a crowded navette is likely to be a greater risk than an uncrowded gondola' is not a 'fact' at all: it's an assumption, based on what you know. In reality, I might actually have to make such a choice in our resort, as we wait outside the gondola station: do we share a 6-person télécabine for 9 minutes or take the navette that's pulling up but which looks fairly full and takes 18 minutes? But your assumption could well be wrong, albeit entirely logical. It could be that the bus turns out to be statistically safer than the gondola:
Why? Perhaps younger people - who are more likely to be infected - prefer the gondola and so the odds of the other 4 people in it including a carrier is 2x higher. And young people are also more likely to be asymptomatic, so that doubles the probability again. Perhaps the bus driver insists on all the windows and doors being open, while gondola occupants often only ventilate poorly, halving the probability of infection in the bus. Perhaps the occasional halts as people stumble in/out of the gondola extend the average travel time from 9 mins to 11 - increasing the exposure time by 22%. And so on.
I think that it's entirely feasible for the lift companies to do some useful work in analysing the risks more consistently and to help independent researchers gather better data, so that as I stand outside the gondola station and see the bus drawing up, I've got something more than nothing on which to make my decision. And back to my original point: a bit more insight into this is in their own interests, and would reassure the many people who are considering not bothering to ski at all this year. Yes, epidemiology is not particle physics - uncertainty and incompleteness is intrinsic, but research and analysis is still better than nothing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
couldn't see that anyone had posted this.
Current rules for Sud Tirol ie Dolimiti Superski area https://www.suedtirol.info/en/information/coronavirus/Safety-measures there is quite a bit of general info on that page.
Generally as you might expect but a little ambiguous re space in cable cars hence the reason I put the general public transport rules as well as I'd assume these must apply to cable cars.
Cable cars
Closed cable cars must operate at a maximum of two thirds of their standard maximum capacity. This restriction does not apply to members of the same household.
A minimum distance of one metre must be maintained in the waiting areas of lifts and cable cars.
Passengers must wear personal protective equipment (PPE).
Passengers whose body temperature exceeds 37.5° C will not be permitted on the cable cars.
Disinfectants are available in the station area at the entrances, at the counters and at the access area for the cable car cabins. Please regularly disinfect your hands.
All cabins are disinfected and aired regularly.
For chairlifts with protective hoods, the hoods must be opened.
Public transport in general
All passengers must wear face masks covering their mouth and nose on public transport and at stops and stations. A safe distance of at least one metre must be maintained at all times.
All seats may be occupied. Passengers sitting opposite each other must keep one metre apart. If they are sitting facing in the same direction and next to each other, the one-metre distance does not need to be maintained.
Passengers are required to embark and disembark in an orderly fashion, using the designated doors.
Tickets are only available from machines and designated points of sale; they are not sold on board.
All public-transport vehicles are cleaned and disinfected at least once a day.
Also looked at Madonna di Campiglio, basically the same but also mentions they will be running more ski buses to reduce crowding, timetable for winter not online yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
@robs1, let’s assume you knew someone with Covid was going to be on the same cable car as you, or 6 man bubble etc. just for one of your rides on it during a week at a resort, would you still take those multiple trips on the lifts during your (let’s assume week) skiing ?
How would you consider or calculate the risk ? |
Yes we would be happy to ride them, we were in les contamines last year when it kicked off and carried on without masks etc even the day before France went into lockdown, we have both worked through out since returning, Mrs is a nhs worker, several colleagues of hers have had it, 2 of the three without symptoms.
I dont see the risk on a ski lift to be any greater than shopping or working, mine is outside so not that close to my customers.
We all make decisions everyday that could have life changing consequences, what will be will be, sensible precautions of course just as I do everyday handling potentially dangerous chemicals working with highly dangerous machinery and for many years animals, perhaps that makes me more aware of things. The machine I am using today could pick up a piece of wire or break a flail and easily put an end to me. Life is too short to hide away.
If others take a different view then that's absolutely fine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@robs1 'Life is too short to hide away.'
Who is suggesting this? No one. People who are interested in knowing more about risk aren't cowards, afraid to venture out for fear of the unknown. They just want to understand more about the choices they're making. There's no virtue in ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| ster wrote: |
https://www.the-ski-guru.com/2020/10/13/demaclenko-launching-clean-cablecars/#more-82093
|
That is interesting - get a spray in before the doors close on the downward journey - coupled with open windows, reduced capacity and masks that could work nicely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@robs1 'Life is too short to hide away.'
Who is suggesting this? No one. People who are interested in knowing more about risk aren't cowards, afraid to venture out for fear of the unknown. They just want to understand more about the choices they're making. There's no virtue in ignorance. |
"Better safe than sorry".
I'm "man enough" to be called coward if my assessment of risk keeps me home (or on piste, or turning back on a windy day on the water etc...). The grave is full of "brave" man who did not turn back (as well as those who never ventured out).
One makes the bed and one sleeps on it. Whatever the factors taken into account to reach a decision of safety vs risk, insults and name calling MUST NOT be part of it!
I'm also rather proud to say I'm frequently the one who FIRST turn back, only to be followed by others who were too afraid to be the first (to turn back). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| extremerob wrote: |
| ster wrote: |
https://www.the-ski-guru.com/2020/10/13/demaclenko-launching-clean-cablecars/#more-82093
|
That is interesting - get a spray in before the doors close on the downward journey - coupled with open windows, reduced capacity and masks that could work nicely! |
Except that ... is contact a proper vector? not convinced...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
