 Poster: A snowHead
|
| DJL wrote: |
| thelem wrote: |
Imagine you were in a situation where there was a 0.1% chance of infection every minute (numbers made up to make the example simple).
If you're in that situation for 1 minute, there's a 0.1% chance that you were infected. You almost certainly haven't been infected, so there isn't much value in testing you or asking you to isolate.
If you're in the same situation for 10 minutes, it's a 1% chance that you were infected. Still pretty unlikely.
If you're in the same situation for 100 minutes, it's a 10% chance. Better play it safe and assume you're infected unless a test shows otherwise.
If you're in the same situation 10 times, for 10 minutes each time, it's a 10% chance. |
Don’t think that’s how it works. Would it be 100% chance if you spent 10 minutes 100 times? Don’t think so. |
No, I should have mentioned that bit but was trying to keep the example simple.
Only uninfected people can get infected, so:
* First gondola: 1% chance you will be infected
* Second gondola: 1% change you are already infected, (1 - 0.01) * 0.01 = 0.0099, so 0.99% chance you will be infected in that gondola
* Third gondola: 1.99% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.0199) * 0.01 = 0.0098, so 0.98% chance you will be infected in that gondola
It's basically the herd immunity argument, but as you can see from the numbers above it has very little impact when the number of infected/immune people is low. 1% vs 0.98% - who cares? (In the UK about 1% of the population have tested positive, plus an unknown percentage who have had the virus but not had a test. Nowhere near the numbers needed for herd immunity to be an effective strategy.)
As the number of infected/immune people rises, the effect becomes much bigger:
* Gondola x: 50% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.5) * 0.01 = 0.005, so a 0.5% chance you will be infected in that gondola
* Gondola y: 90% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.9) * 0.01 = 0.001, so a 0.1% chance you will be infected in that gondola
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| LaForet wrote: |
| ... it would be good if the Alpine lift companies commissioned something that would reassure prospective visitors: some research specific to 4/6-person télécabines. ... |
+1, particularly if done by independent researchers / academics.
But I suspect it is too early, and will only happen over this winter so be of benefit for 2021/22. Experience from the summer won't translate well (although it might give a lower bound). Not sure if there is any winter data from Aus/NZ/Argentina available?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
[quote="ecureuil" Not sure if there is any winter data from Aus/NZ/Argentina available?[/quote]
Not sure about Australia & Argentina, but there arent many gondolas in NZ. Whakapapa now has one but I didn’t think any other ski area has one, there may be the odd other non ski one about. Also with the NZ borders closed and the incidence of Covid being very low amongst the local populace then I imagine what data there may be, if any at all, may not be that useful for a European or US environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@abc, I think what you are describing is the heterogeneity of infectiousness. A choir belting out "Zadok, The Priest" is far more likely to spread virions than a sleepy traveller nodding off quietly in seat 23A.
I don't find the IATA/etc. data at all surprising. |
But not all passengers are quietly nodding off. The so called “data” includes pre-mask days. And trains aren’t known to have great ventilation.
Together, I’m inclined to be believe it’s more likely they MISS infection cluster than the infection did not happen.
After all, even in countries that has much better track and trace record, still large number of community spread were untraceable. So to conclude a particular venue is “safe” due to lack of evidence of infection needs to pass the “common sense filter”. And the lack of evidence of infection isn’t the result from lack of effort to gather such evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@ecuril I'm not sure that they need to do the research actually up a mountain. They could have put a cabin in an experimental chamber, say, and test out the airflow; windows open/shut; different types of occupants; different transit times etc. The singing/instrument research (of interest to me because I'm in a choir) wasn't done in a choir loft but a lab. and yielded some valuable, if discouraging, results. And with some R&D over the summer, they could have used positive results as PR for the coming season and actual data to reinforce any messaging and good practice. I think that rules and regulations about best practice would be a lot more convincing and more likely to elicit compliance, if there was some skiing-specific research to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Since I live in a resort that has the highest number of gondolas of any resort in the world, and I'm currently contemplating the purchase of seasonal annual lift passes for self and especially vulnerable Mrs TT (COPD), I have a particular interest in this subject. My current hazy strategy is to avoid peak times, and to lurk around gondola stations, masked up and distancing, and to get very slowly into any empty gondola, doing my utmost to block anyone who might entertain the idea of getting in with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps they are worried if they went and did the research then get negative results. Instead hoping that people consider skiing to be a healthy pursuit in the outdoors (except for that time you are sealed in a bubble with a group of strangers for the trip up the hill) and so will come not thinking of the possible negatives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
Actually, there’re more than just two options of just staying home vs getting into a gondola.
Choose a resort that has no gondolas, or so few gondola that one can ski all day without getting into one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
No. But gondolas may be the only way to get to the top of a resort area. Les Deux Alpes for example. What 'calculations' have gone into the risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@achilles, it may be the only way to access the pistes or perhaps the only way to access areas of a resort.
Understanding the arrangements regarding restrictions to the number of people using such lifts would certainly have an impact with regard to which resort I would visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
No. But gondolas may be the only way to get to the top of a resort area. Les Deux Alpes for example. What 'calculations' have gone into the risk? |
Several calcs, how much infection is in the local area what precautions are bring taken, ie reduced capacity in cabins, enforcement of face coverings availability of sanitiser which probably wouldnt be needed as csnt see any reason to touch anything unless in large cable cars and you needed to hold on . Probably the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| ....the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks |
So, basically your calculation is that if you catch the virus you will be the Angel of Death for the more elderly community when you get home, rather than a receiver of Death’s finger when you are in resort. Which is much the same attitude of the young in Britain as they booze down the High Street. Maybe it’s a sensible attitude to have for the overall well being in society, though as someone in my 8th decade I am still getting my head around it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
IF we can get there this year, I suspect I will be avoiding the telecabine as much as I can by driving further up to get on a chair lift. Suspect Les Carroz is now kicking itself for dismantling the old chair lift that took people up the side of the telecabine the 3/4 point. But if they limit the telecabine to 4 or family members only, and I can go later and avoid the Qs I will try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| ....the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks |
So, basically your calculation is that if you catch the virus you will be the Angel of Death for the more elderly community when you get home, rather than a receiver of Death’s finger when you are in resort. Which is much the same attitude of the young in Britain as they booze down the High Street. Maybe it’s a sensible attitude to have for the overall well being in society, though as someone in my 8th decade I am still getting my head around it. |
Why would we give it to anyone when we get home, even if we catch it under the current rules we have to self isolate on our return. Why are we any
More likely to catch it in france than here ? If you dont want catch it then you can avoid it very easily,
Like it or not almost everyone will either catch it it or need a vaccine, it isnt going away viruses dont the only point in lockdown is slowing infections to allow health services to cope
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
How do you know what the risk is, though? That's my point. It might be infinitesimal, and a lot less than some activity we'd be doing at home anyway. Or it might be high. Or it might be high but rendered much smaller if occupancy is 50% with the windows open. And so on. We've no metric to use in the calculation, so basically it's an uninformed guess.
What a lot of people would be reassured by is some sort of indication like 'We've commissioned independent tests of gondola transmission and if everyone wears a mask, doesn't talk, opens at least one window, and it's 50% occupancy, then the odds of catching from another infected person is 5% of that for someone sat opposite an infected person on a train for the same period.'. Or 'For a skiier spending an hour a day in gondolas, then a week's skiing is less risky than a week at home with one supermarket shop, a petrol station fill-up, and a session at the gym.' Or whatever.
My concern is not so much about 4-6 person télécabines, but about navettes. Where we are, a typical day's skiing involves 9 minutes in a 6-person gondola to get started, 15 minutes in an unshared small gondola en route home, but 15 minutes on a navette (unless we really want to take a very circuitous hike). The rest of the day would be on chairs, which don't worry me so much (but of course, I'm making an uninformed guess about this).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
What a lot of people would be reassured by is some sort of indication like 'We've commissioned independent tests of gondola transmission and if everyone wears a mask, doesn't talk, opens at least one window, and it's 50% occupancy, then the odds of catching from another infected person is 5% of that for someone sat opposite an infected person on a train for the same period.'. Or 'For a skiier spending an hour a day in gondolas, then a week's skiing is less risky than a week at home with one supermarket shop, a petrol station fill-up, and a session at the gym.' Or whatever.. |
I like the idea - it would be a really easy way for people to access risk or maybe illustrate what some consider to be an insignificant risk to be quite considerable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
How do you know what the risk is, though? That's my point. It might be infinitesimal, and a lot less than some activity we'd be doing at home anyway. Or it might be high. Or it might be high but rendered much smaller if occupancy is 50% with the windows open. And so on. We've no metric to use in the calculation, so basically it's an uninformed guess.
What a lot of people would be reassured by is some sort of indication like 'We've commissioned independent tests of gondola transmission and if everyone wears a mask, doesn't talk, opens at least one window, and it's 50% occupancy, then the odds of catching from another infected person is 5% of that for someone sat opposite an infected person on a train for the same period.'. Or 'For a skiier spending an hour a day in gondolas, then a week's skiing is less risky than a week at home with one supermarket shop, a petrol station fill-up, and a session at the gym.' Or whatever.
My concern is not so much about 4-6 person télécabines, but about navettes. Where we are, a typical day's skiing involves 9 minutes in a 6-person gondola to get started, 15 minutes in an unshared small gondola en route home, but 15 minutes on a navette (unless we really want to take a very circuitous hike). The rest of the day would be on chairs, which don't worry me so much (but of course, I'm making an uninformed guess about this). |
What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins  with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
We are all highly likely to catch it at some point the major decision we all need to make is are we in the higher risk groups if yes the it's up.to ourselves to protect ourselves not rely on others to do it for us.
If I was obese with diabetes and high blood pressure I would be keeping well away from others, I'm.not so I'm happy to make a risk assessment every time I go something, IE would I get in a crowded navette in a ski area with a high infection rate, probably not whereas I would be happy to get in a gondola that wasnt overcrowded in a area with reasonable levels of infection. Would I visit a vulnerable person after doing either NO.
I dont need someone to make my decisions for me I have a brain I can make my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
.....
Why would we give it to anyone when we get home, even if we catch it under the current rules we have to self isolate on our return. |
You'll forgive me for being sceptical.
| Quote: |
Across the UK, normally law-abiding people are harbouring a guilty secret.
They are the Covid holiday quarantine-breakers.
They travelled to holiday spots where the beaches were drenched in sun and where coronavirus infections were starting to surge.
When they came home, they didn't shut themselves away for a fortnight. Instead, they broke the law.
We don't know how many people have been ignoring the self-isolation law after coming back from a Covid-19 hotspot. But rates of infection from people who have recently travelled overseas, have been rising, says the Office for National Statistics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| ....the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks |
So, basically your calculation is that if you catch the virus you will be the Angel of Death for the more elderly community when you get home, rather than a receiver of Death’s finger when you are in resort. Which is much the same attitude of the young in Britain as they booze down the High Street. Maybe it’s a sensible attitude to have for the overall well being in society, though as someone in my 8th decade I am still getting my head around it. |
I think that is OTT.
It doesn't seem any more reasonable than saying - "everyone over 70 should stay at home until the virus is done rather than expect young people to commit economic hara-kiri".
Which for the avoidance of doubt would be unreasonable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| robs1 wrote: |
What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
|
Because not everyone has or wants to bother to research the level of the risk. Nor does everyone perceive the risk in the same way. If you were to apply this to the off-piste, its unfortunate when people take uninformed decisions or do not research the risk and lose their lives. When someone is an expert and takes a calculated risk, usually the loss of life is just theirs or their team (accepting the risk). Yes it is unfair to the family, and may put rescue workers at risk which I do not support, but the loss of life is limited to those directly involved. But those that believe Covid is a hoax, or believe they are fit enough to get over the virus and then infect a chain of other people who are not fortunate enough are the reason why we need some level of intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
.....
Why would we give it to anyone when we get home, even if we catch it under the current rules we have to self isolate on our return. |
You'll forgive me for being sceptical.
| Quote: |
Across the UK, normally law-abiding people are harbouring a guilty secret.
They are the Covid holiday quarantine-breakers.
They travelled to holiday spots where the beaches were drenched in sun and where coronavirus infections were starting to surge.
When they came home, they didn't shut themselves away for a fortnight. Instead, they broke the law.
We don't know how many people have been ignoring the self-isolation law after coming back from a Covid-19 hotspot. But rates of infection from people who have recently travelled overseas, have been rising, says the Office for National Statistics. |
|
Of course some wont do as asked but if you want to avoid coming into contact with it, it's in your own hands is it not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| extremerob wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
|
Because not everyone has or wants to bother to research the level of the risk. Nor does everyone perceive the risk in the same way. If you were to apply this to the off-piste, its unfortunate when people take uninformed decisions or do not research the risk and lose their lives. When someone is an expert and takes a calculated risk, usually the loss of life is just theirs or their team (accepting the risk). Yes it is unfair to the family, and may put rescue workers at risk which I do not support, but the loss of life is limited to those directly involved. But those that believe Covid is a hoax, or believe they are fit enough to get over the virus and then infect a chain of other people who are not fortunate enough are the reason why we need some level of intervention. |
But we have a level of intervention, it face hands space, it's the ski resorts putting measures in place and we have individuals taking their's and their loved ones circumstances into account, all these things build a picture as to what we as individuals think we can or cant do. If a person wants to reduce their risk to zero then it's not too hard, they stay in their own home 24/7 they get their food delivered, they sanitise every package wearing gloves, they see no one except through a closed window . The moment you vary that you are at an increased risk to yourself and every person you meet, the opposite extreme is to never use a mask or wash your hands and go into every crowded place you can, both are extremes and surely the humans can balance their own risk within those extremes while protecting those around them.in a sensible proportionate manner, or have we become so useless that we need telling how to look after ourselves. God help us if we had a natural disaster that meant we lost communication from above, it seems some couldn't tie their own skoe laces.
No one is being forced to do anything, we could all just lock our front door and wait three weeks for the infection to die out, How many thousands of dead people would we find, it's a balance and the government are doing it's best to find one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
.....
Why would we give it to anyone when we get home, even if we catch it under the current rules we have to self isolate on our return. |
You'll forgive me for being sceptical.
| Quote: |
Across the UK, normally law-abiding people are harbouring a guilty secret.
They are the Covid holiday quarantine-breakers.
They travelled to holiday spots where the beaches were drenched in sun and where coronavirus infections were starting to surge.
When they came home, they didn't shut themselves away for a fortnight. Instead, they broke the law.
We don't know how many people have been ignoring the self-isolation law after coming back from a Covid-19 hotspot. But rates of infection from people who have recently travelled overseas, have been rising, says the Office for National Statistics. |
|
Of course some wont do as asked but if you want to avoid coming into contact with it, it's in your own hands is it not. |
Not if I happen to be somewhere near you, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| ....the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks |
So, basically your calculation is that if you catch the virus you will be the Angel of Death for the more elderly community when you get home, rather than a receiver of Death’s finger when you are in resort. Which is much the same attitude of the young in Britain as they booze down the High Street. Maybe it’s a sensible attitude to have for the overall well being in society, though as someone in my 8th decade I am still getting my head around it. |
I think that is OTT.
It doesn't seem any more reasonable than saying - "everyone over 70 should stay at home until the virus is done rather than expect young people to commit economic hara-kiri".
Which for the avoidance of doubt would be unreasonable! |
It is impossible to shield those over 70, though they can take steps to reduce risk. And it's not just a question of the numbers don't add up if we lockdown excessively; I lived life well when I was young - I wouldn't want to deny today's youngsters being able to do the same. OTOH I am in the target zone, which is mildly spooky. And my eyebrows raise when I read about the 'calculated' risk of travelling in a gondola.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| ....the biggest issue is your own general health and the fact that serious illness for the under 60's is rare, average age for deaths in this country is over 82. I'm 60 but in very good health I have no great concerns about catching it but know some do and that's fine, if lots are worried and dont go then crowds will be less we always go early season this time from ebd dec to mid Feb, last year we hardly had to share a cabin except during the half term weeks |
So, basically your calculation is that if you catch the virus you will be the Angel of Death for the more elderly community when you get home, rather than a receiver of Death’s finger when you are in resort. Which is much the same attitude of the young in Britain as they booze down the High Street. Maybe it’s a sensible attitude to have for the overall well being in society, though as someone in my 8th decade I am still getting my head around it. |
So it's up to the wrinklies to take responsibility for their own safety rather than expecting or raging against others for endangering them surely? Your chosen flavour of government has failed in its mission to educate and shape behaviours among the lowest risk(as have many others around the world) so perhaps its now time to accept that the virus is something that won't follow a nice best endeavours playbook. And to be brutally honest giving granny an extra couple of years of life could well come at too high a cost for her grandchildren to bear.
The moralising around "I'm not going to take a holiday therefore you are reckless in doing so" is frankly disgusting (& I'm not saying you are particularly guilty of that)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
Of course some wont do as asked but if you want to avoid coming into contact with it, it's in your own hands is it not. |
Not if I happen to be somewhere near you, maybe. |
Unless he is a burglar coming into your home uninvited you still control the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, actually I don’t. I could come across him whilst shopping we minimise that with on line orders, but it is hard to eliminate it). More likely, one of the carers who comes into our house several times daily could could pick up the virus. Absolutely not totally controllable.
I don’t have sleepless nights over the situation. I do think anyone saying they are taking a ‘calculated’ risk stepping into a ski gondola is stretching credulity, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| And to be brutally honest giving granny an extra couple of years of life could well come at too high a cost for her grandchildren to bear. |
Dave not sure where you sit on this - but yes shutting down the whole economy and millions of people losing their livelihoods to extend grannies life for a few years is debatable, its not for me to decide the right to life or not, and yes in some ways our government have a view or decision on this.
But the virus does not only select grannies with a couple of extra years of life left, that have had a fulfilling life
Thinking about all of this its quite simple - there is another thread on this - https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=153494&highlight=covid&start=40 - resorts sell a neck warmer with built in mask, some of the big ones have already started advertising this, they cost €15, you wear them on a gondola or no entry.
Resorts enforce they have to be the resort branded neck/warmer mask or some other form of branded/approved mask that is identifiable- so that lifties can easily check and enforce - yes why should you pay - but its a small price to pay if it allows you to ski
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 12-10-20 16:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@robs1 What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins Madeye-Smiley with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
There's no 'obviously' in any of this. I like to make important decisions with as much factual data and independent analysis as possible. What's wrong with that?
The history of statistics and science is littered with examples of people making 'obvious' choices that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. And wrong if they'd looked at the data and applied objective analysis in the first place. So the more I know, the better decisions I can make.
I suspect it's a philosophical thing. I have a scientific approach, whereas some people don't. And I'm not one of the' British Public' who has 'had enough of so-called experts'. Bring 'em on, I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| thelem wrote: |
| DJL wrote: |
| thelem wrote: |
Imagine you were in a situation where there was a 0.1% chance of infection every minute (numbers made up to make the example simple).
If you're in that situation for 1 minute, there's a 0.1% chance that you were infected. You almost certainly haven't been infected, so there isn't much value in testing you or asking you to isolate.
If you're in the same situation for 10 minutes, it's a 1% chance that you were infected. Still pretty unlikely.
If you're in the same situation for 100 minutes, it's a 10% chance. Better play it safe and assume you're infected unless a test shows otherwise.
If you're in the same situation 10 times, for 10 minutes each time, it's a 10% chance. |
Don’t think that’s how it works. Would it be 100% chance if you spent 10 minutes 100 times? Don’t think so. |
No, I should have mentioned that bit but was trying to keep the example simple.
Only uninfected people can get infected, so:
* First gondola: 1% chance you will be infected
* Second gondola: 1% change you are already infected, (1 - 0.01) * 0.01 = 0.0099, so 0.99% chance you will be infected in that gondola
* Third gondola: 1.99% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.0199) * 0.01 = 0.0098, so 0.98% chance you will be infected in that gondola
It's basically the herd immunity argument, but as you can see from the numbers above it has very little impact when the number of infected/immune people is low. 1% vs 0.98% - who cares? (In the UK about 1% of the population have tested positive, plus an unknown percentage who have had the virus but not had a test. Nowhere near the numbers needed for herd immunity to be an effective strategy.)
As the number of infected/immune people rises, the effect becomes much bigger:
* Gondola x: 50% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.5) * 0.01 = 0.005, so a 0.5% chance you will be infected in that gondola
* Gondola y: 90% chance you are already infected, (1 - 0.9) * 0.01 = 0.001, so a 0.1% chance you will be infected in that gondola |
Hmm.........
Digging back into my memories of propability maths from school (now 35-40 years in the past).
Isn't the cumuative chance of something actually the reverse of the cumulative chance of the opposite? (I really am dredging the memory banks here)
So if the chance of something at a single occurence is say 10%
The cumulative chance of that something after 10 occurences is 100% minus the chance it doesn't happen (in this example 90%, to the power of 10)
So if the chance after one occurence is 10%
the chance after two occurences is 19% (100%-(90%x90%))
The chances after three occurences is 27.1% (100%-(90%x90%x90))
And so one, so that even if you do it several thousand times the outcome never becomes certain (100%)
Is that right?? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@midgetbiker, yep you're right
Its not the probability of the occurrence of getting infected every time, rather it is the probability of getting infected once in X gondolas.
Also need to recall some stats.
thelem, isn't wrong - but you need to add up the event's, 1st Gondola 1%, 2nd gondola 0.99%, 3rd gondola 0.98% - etc.. so 3gondolas in you're at 2.97% chance of being infected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| LaForet wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Are any skiers forced at gun point into a gondola etc ? It's a choice we can all make get in and take a pretty small calculated risk or stay home . |
How do you know what the risk is, though? That's my point. It might be infinitesimal, and a lot less than some activity we'd be doing at home anyway. Or it might be high. Or it might be high but rendered much smaller if occupancy is 50% with the windows open. And so on. We've no metric to use in the calculation, so basically it's an uninformed guess.
What a lot of people would be reassured by is some sort of indication like 'We've commissioned independent tests of gondola transmission and if everyone wears a mask, doesn't talk, opens at least one window, and it's 50% occupancy, then the odds of catching from another infected person is 5% of that for someone sat opposite an infected person on a train for the same period.'. Or 'For a skiier spending an hour a day in gondolas, then a week's skiing is less risky than a week at home with one supermarket shop, a petrol station fill-up, and a session at the gym.' Or whatever.
My concern is not so much about 4-6 person télécabines, but about navettes. Where we are, a typical day's skiing involves 9 minutes in a 6-person gondola to get started, 15 minutes in an unshared small gondola en route home, but 15 minutes on a navette (unless we really want to take a very circuitous hike). The rest of the day would be on chairs, which don't worry me so much (but of course, I'm making an uninformed guess about this). |
What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
We are all highly likely to catch it at some point the major decision we all need to make is are we in the higher risk groups if yes the it's up.to ourselves to protect ourselves not rely on others to do it for us. |
You totally missed his question.
Yes, he's made an assessment on the RELATIVE risk of navette over other uplift transports. But a "more risky" mode of transport isn't necessarily RISKY in the absolute sense. Doubling a 1% chance brings it to 2%, which is still quite tiny. But doubling a 10% risk brings it to 20% which is significant. Tripling that 10% will brings it to a totally unappetizing risk of 30%!!!
What do YOU use as the basis of the risk? 1% or 10%? Doubling or tripling? What do you use to base your NUMBERS on?
What he (and I and many others) would like is to get an "official" to get some DATA as to what the basis of those relative risk would be. It can be done. But you seem to think that's irrelevant? Because you're using some mysterious estimate that nobody has done any research on?
| ster wrote: |
| Perhaps they are worried if they went and did the research then get negative results. Instead hoping that people consider skiing to be a healthy pursuit in the outdoors (except for that time you are sealed in a bubble with a group of strangers for the trip up the hill) and so will come not thinking of the possible negatives? |
Perhaps that being the case! When one expect to see bad news, there's a strong urge NOT to look in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| LaForet wrote: |
The history of statistics and science is littered with examples of people making 'obvious' choices that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. And wrong if they'd looked at the data and applied objective analysis in the first place. So the more I know, the better decisions I can make.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LaForet wrote: |
@robs1 What you have done is to make that risk assessment, being in a crowded navettefor 15 mins Madeye-Smiley with shut windows and a steamy atmosphere is obviously more of a risk that a cabin with one other person wearing a mask for 5 mins, why do we need some "official" to tell us that ?
There's no 'obviously' in any of this. I like to make important decisions with as much factual data and independent analysis as possible. What's wrong with that?
The history of statistics and science is littered with examples of people making 'obvious' choices that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. And wrong if they'd looked at the data and applied objective analysis in the first place. So the more I know, the better decisions I can make.
I suspect it's a philosophical thing. I have a scientific approach, whereas some people don't. And I'm not one of the' British Public' who has 'had enough of so-called experts'. Bring 'em on, I say. |
It may be me but I'm confused by what your are saying here, you say you like factual data from experts and then say history is littered with cases where they were wrong, which is true. I'm not sure though that stats are wrong as long as they are collected properly but when those stats are used to create projections they are wrong far too often, usually because of the natural bias of the person making the projections or the bias ofcthe media interpreting the figures.
I question any and everything these days as so much is reported in an inaccurate way, I'm a problem solver by nature and will happily go skiing this winter whilst using common sense and my eyes to judge each situation.
As for having enough of experts good ones are good bad ones are too common
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| extremerob wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| And to be brutally honest giving granny an extra couple of years of life could well come at too high a cost for her grandchildren to bear. |
Dave not sure where you sit on this - but yes shutting down the whole economy and millions of people losing their livelihoods to extend grannies life for a few years is debatable, its not for me to decide the right to life or not, and yes in some ways our government have a view or decision on this.
|
I don't know where I sit on it absolutely - and fortunately I'm not the billy big bollux who cravenly wanted to the great PM taking all the big decisions before I found out they were all hard with no clear win available. 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
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. Too much of our strategy seems to be about massaging short term numbers and keeping fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, 100% correct, shield the old and vulnerable if they want to be shielded. My 90 year old Dad is still going about life fairly normal, his choice.
The rest of us get on with it mitigating risk as much as possible. The economic tsunami on its way is going to make COVID look tame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do YOU use as the basis of the risk? 1% or 10%? Doubling or tripling? What do you use to base your NUMBERS on?
What he (and I and many others) would like is to get an "official" to get some DATA as to what the basis of those relative risk would be. It can be done. But you seem to think that's irrelevant? Because you're using some mysterious estimate that nobody has done any research
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
