 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Let's add in all the sports injuries and driving accidents oh and the DIY ones too, . |
I did think those but decided some have some value to life. where as smoking and being over weight have non, |
Bit of a thread drift, but remember John Reid saying that people in lower socio-economic categories 'have very few pleasures in life and one of them they regard as smoking.'"
I'm pretty fat at the moment, largely as the result of the middle class equivalent, fine dining and wine. All those regional dishes cooked in butter and cream, the many local appellations, the odd Michelin star etc have helped a lot with certain other utterly miserable parts of our life in the last 1.5 years!
Life is of course a balance. And I should also stand on the balance a bit more 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
My take, for what it's worth, is that some people will get to ski. The way restrictions tighten and loosen, windows will probably appear, as they did over the summer. Alpine countries will get some resorts open some of the time due to economic pressure and the will of their population. It's going to be more luck than judgement and if you're the kind of skier who waits politely in a lift line, isn't rude to waiting staff and knows not to stop in the middle of the piste I hope you're one of the lucky ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It seems to me that the infection rates at both the point of departure and arrival are the key to international travel. Lower infection rates mean that airport testing, shorter quarantines, mass quick tests rolling out, vaccines (two more to report soon) etc could make skiing trips feasible and reasonably safe; the only question is when. I reckon it could be before the end of the 20/21 season, so long as everybody sticks to sensible precautions such as social distancing even when the current lockdown is relaxed.
They always say of the stock market that no bells ring at the top of the market, or the bottom; the turning points only become clear in retrospect. Well, in terms of Covid, some of the ski countries of continental Europe have been especially badly hit in this second wave (worse than the UK) but most of the stats I have seen show that the peak may have passed in France, and perhaps elsewhere. Here in the UK, the ONS figures show the same thing (although this will take weeks to show up in the death figures).
Prepare for the worst, by all means. But hope for the best.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sat 14-11-20 10:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Mother hucker wrote: |
My view is simple. Unless you have proper medical grounds for not having the vaccine, then if you don't have it when offered you become liable for the cost of any subsequent care on the NHS should it be necessary. Might make some of the anti-vax nutters think twice about refusing the vaccine if it might come with a very large bill. Personally I would extend that to all vaccines offered on the NHS.
Does this view still hold with smokers/over weight people/drinkers and the associated illnesses that are well documented? |
Looking at the flip side: What do you see then as fair recompense for any suffering, loss, etc from taking a vaccine that results in deleterious effects? Who pays? The taxpayer or the drug company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JamesHJ wrote: |
... Bit of a thread drift, but remember John Reid saying that people in lower socio-economic categories 'have very few pleasures in life and one of them they regard as smoking.'"
... I'm pretty fat at the moment, largely as the result of the middle class equivalent, fine dining and wine.... |
You're drifting into my line: I do some business in health care statistics.
Google will tell you that Reid's viewswere widely debunked years ago [BMJ]:
"“We found no evidence to support a claim that smoking is associated with heightened levels of pleasure,
either in low socioeconomic groups or in the general population. In fact, our results suggest the opposite..."
You could argue Trump-style that he was merely pointing out that misguided poor people regard smoking as a pleasure,
but Reid's actions and intent were clear. He defended the interests of tobacco companies whilst Health Minister.
They killed, he helped them with his lies and obstruction. A shameful episode.
Google also shows that obesity follows a similar pattern to tobacco, with poorer people broadly being fatter.
Low paid people do get fatter than unemployed people though, probably because they can't afford quite so much fast food.
As far as skiing's concerned, in my experience the more expensive the turns are,
the fewer smokers and fatties you'll find participating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| Mother hucker wrote: |
My view is simple. Unless you have proper medical grounds for not having the vaccine, then if you don't have it when offered you become liable for the cost of any subsequent care on the NHS should it be necessary. Might make some of the anti-vax nutters think twice about refusing the vaccine if it might come with a very large bill. Personally I would extend that to all vaccines offered on the NHS.
Does this view still hold with smokers/over weight people/drinkers and the associated illnesses that are well documented? |
Looking at the flip side: What do you see then as fair recompense for any suffering, loss, etc from taking a vaccine that results in deleterious effects? Who pays? The taxpayer or the drug company? |
Good point, that would be up to someone far more intelligent than me to make that decision. Perhaps the person who made the anti vax nutter statement, I quoted has the answers to that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Surely good quality fast testing at the Airport (or point of exit) would help solve the problem. A clear test before you fly (ferry/train etc) to allow entry, and then a test in resort just before you leave.
Of course there is always a small risk that it doesn’t yet show up in the test as you are still in the incubation period, but you run the risk of contracting it whenever you leave your home.
It may not stop the transfer of infection entirely but it surly would massively reduce the risks.
Most of the new insurance policy’s cover you for Covid if you come down with it whilst you are away, and they also cover you if you get it just before you go. It’s your own risk choice if you do go and und up having to quarantine because it develops whilst you are there.
I know that some resorts have already set up testing centres.
I appreciate that you would then be mixing with people from other countries who may already have the virus but if resorts only sell lift passes to those who can show a clear test document (perhaps done in resort) it would reduce the numbers in resorts who have the virus as you would know about it on day one and they would either have to leave or self isolate. Earlier this year when Austria required a clear test no older than 72 hours to enter Austria private tests Weren’t easily available and were very expensive. Things have changed on the testing front now.
I know there are snowHeads out there who will have many reasons why this won’t work. But as a principle it must be worth investigating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mother hucker, where have you found cheaper private tests and how much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@holidayloverxx, I aint found owt
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I was more looking at the speed of test now than the cost. But if done on a larger scale at airports etc the cost could be reduced.
Heathrow are already doing this for flights to Hong Kong but I heard this test isn’t acceptable to some countries. I think the test there is £80, but if it could get down to £50 I would be prepared to add £100 for the two tests to the cost of my holiday.
As I said I think the principle is a good idea but the practicality of doing it may not work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mother hucker, sorry...meant Eggfried
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
Seen on BBC News webpage that BioNTech co-founder Professor Ugur Sahin saying 'Back to normal next winter'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Kenzie, I watched that interview, Sahin (who seemed a nice chap as well as totally on the ball as you would expect) basically said next winter 2021-22 was the best that could be aimed for. He couldn't see enough vaccination to make a difference this coming winter. So he was looking at the optimistic scenario of a whole series of vaccines being approved over the next 6 months or so. That could create enough vaccine doses to be delivered by autumn 2021 stopping next year's winter surge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
^^This is what I think. My wife is a journalist and has been talking to various experts -- feeling is even with a vaccine this will hang around until 2021-22. Just like the 1918 flu pandemic. I suspect 2021 will be kind of similar to 2020, with rolling lockdowns etc the whole year. Would love to sneak out for a week's skiing at some point but more realistic is summer in the Alps/beach with family. Easier to distance b/c no gondolas etc.
But who really knows? The important thing is to stay optimistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Pasigal, gondolas in summer are fine – they’re much quieter than winter so you can get one just for your group, and coupled with lower summer infection rates, the risk is pretty insignificant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
What might be the chances of the high & glacier resorts (Hintertux, various others) being open & safely-useable by early summer, then? (Whenever early and summer are.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Grizzler, anyone’s guess. I’m not sure of their exact schedules, but my understanding is that the glaciers run a long season, then close for a few months before opening early for the next season. Glaciers here were open a fair while before the current closure, but they didn’t run in spring. Whether they do next year will depend on what happens over winter, but I’d expect the 21/22 opening to be normal-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Purely speculative, but to me it looks like a different cadence is in play rather than calender and temperature.
IF the reports are true of covid evidence in historical sewerage sample reportedly from spain and italy from May period 2019, then peak to peak occurrence would be something like 7 to 8 months. Overlay the again "reported" antibody lifetime observance of 3 to six months into this time frame, and you get a cadence of roughly:-
Peak infection followed shortly by peak-ing antibody in proportion to those just coming out of infection, as this diminishes out to 6 months post peak infection the population is then again most at risk of building toward peak occurrence again, which arrives at roughly 8 months after last peak infection.
In other words, is the antibody peak the largest "fire extinguishant" of the virus regardless of the actions taken? Or combination of the two which statistically can't be separately accounted for.
In which case, june into july would be the next expected European peak.
As indicated, speculative projection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ski3, as you say, speculative.
All the serious scientific analysis I have seen suggests the first Covid case initiating human-to-human infection was Sept/Oct 2019. To be honest I can't make sense of the alleged sewerage samples, even under sterile conditions RNA degrades very easily and it is difficult to imagine any signal a year or more later in excrement that would be expected to favour decay, unless it was artefact. But no doubt there are people looking into quite where those signals arose.
And while antibodies apparently decline, there have been reports that T-cell immunity (which may be the relevant branch of the immune system for Covid) remains some 17 years after the original SARS. But again that is unfolding science.
I agree that assuming countries get control of the current peak, the recurrence interval based on infection data or deaths looks like 7-8 months. But that does seem largely a consequence of the actions taken (lockdowns of different sorts, coupled with a lot of activity normally indoors moving outdoors over the summer). We don't know what would have happened if people had carried on with life as normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| j b wrote: |
@ski3, as you say, speculative.
I agree that assuming countries get control of the current peak, the recurrence interval based on infection data or deaths looks like 7-8 months. But that does seem largely a consequence of the actions taken (lockdowns of different sorts, coupled with a lot of activity normally indoors moving outdoors over the summer). We don't know what would have happened if people had carried on with life as normal. |
The variance and compliance to the lockdown restrictions on a nation by nation basis would seem to control the severity of the peak and not it's occurrence in terms of cadence. That does seem that it could be each nation's willingness to adhere to altered social norms has an effect on mortality rate.
If that's the case, wouldn't it appear logical to operate a more restrictive policy at month 6 after peak to target the reduction of numbers at peak occurrence.
In essence, more of a "process control" action as opposed to waiting for overwhelming the icu units coming into focus before restrictions are imposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Unfortunately it would never fly politically to impose restrictions with no impending doom on the horizon - people just wouldn't comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pastorius wrote: |
| Unfortunately it would never fly politically to impose restrictions with no impending doom on the horizon - people just wouldn't comply. |
In all probability right there Pastorius.
It seems that the "control" actions taken by each country just changes the amplitude and not the frequency on the event. A little like listening to music, in that you can turn the volume up or down but the performance remains on it's original time.
It could be viewed as proven, that with different actions to control it by region the frequency hasn't altered in any substantially observed way. Just the amplitude based on social norms of the citizens in that region as to the care they impart when asked to respond.
If that where to be accepted, then the short term view would not be a "prediction" but simply a rolling cadence extension. In that from December into January should see significant lowered numbers, and continued reductions throughout February, March, April and beginning of May. Then building again end of may into June and July. The relevance to the OP is this timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Suits me to get out in January!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I like the idea of the 8 month cadence..... but you're basically talking about the so-called herd immunity.... and from what I understand not enough people have caught COVID for this to have a meaningful impact yet (except in a few localised areas e.g. student halls?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| paulo wrote: |
| I like the idea of the 8 month cadence..... but you're basically talking about the so-called herd immunity.... |
Is it? ("basically talking about the so-called herd immunity")
I can't quite see the connection. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I can't see what would cause the cadence thing unless the same people were getting re-infected, which doesn't seem to be the case.
People we saying in the summer that cases would go down as we got into more careful habits, but that we should expect them to go up again when flu season hits, which is exactly what has happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| thelem wrote: |
| but that we should expect them to go up again when flu season hits, which is exactly what has happened. |
Covid isn't flu though!
The concern is coping with covid numbers AND flu numbers concurrently, isn't it? Flu doesn't cause it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
While I don't quite buy the cadence explanation, at least as a fixed rhyuthm, there does seem to be some sort of pattern. London which was badly hit first wave has had a very mild recurrence as the temperatures fell. Liverpool which hardly had a case until September had a scary rise but is bringing it under control. Hull, which saw trivial numbers until a couple of weeks' ago, is now going crazy.
While I don't think technical herd immunity happened anywhere, it seems credible that once a fraction of the population has had it (likely more than simple antibody tests reveal due to the T-cell effect) the effect of restrictions is going to be amplified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
After the current wave has passed sometime in december 30-50% of population in most parts of Europe would have had it already. That's not enough to stop the virus completely, but is plenty to guarantee no further waves of this amplitude. The next wave can be expected in february probably, as it takes 1-2 months to develop, but it will probably be less than a half of what is happening now. And some areas like Lombardy, that were hit hard in spring and now, should not really have a third wave at all, just a few cases here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@j b, I think it's much more about behavioural cadence than anything to do with immunity or weather.
Things get bad, people's behaviour changes, things get better, behaviour deteriorates/becomes more risky. Lockdowns amplify the effect but it's an effect that happens anyway (2 weeks before the first lockdown, some London banks had banned internal meetings, a week before, my firm was already working from home).
From mid-March to mid-May I don't recall meeting another person outside my household. Then when it was allowed, I started running with one friend again, outdoors, 2m+ apart.
Then when it was allowed, we started meeting friends indoors, went to a few restaurants, went on holiday, in cable cars etc. in France, stayed in a few hotels etc.
As numbers were rising again a few weeks ago, my wife and I had stopped meeting people indoors (pre lockdown).
London is a bit of a special case - I live in a commuter town, and I guess under 10% of people are going back commuting into London yet. I still haven't been in since mid-March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Weather IS a factor - transmission of any respiratory virus is very weak outdoors (or even indoors when the windows are open) and in the summer people spend a lot of time outdoors. Sunrays kill viruses, wind kills viruses, etc.
The rest is behaviour – but not as much due to restrictions. It's just that people that get sick usually stay at home and don't go to restaurants, because they feel bad. This is why you get "waves" – as more and more people get sick and stay at home the virus suddenly looses the ability to find more victims and dies out. Flu waves normally happen december - march, but it's not unusual to have it earlier like now, especially when it's a new mutated strain that noone has immunity for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@boyanr, where do you get 30-50% from? In Austria, since the beginning of the pandemic a total of 208,000 people have been infected. From a population of just under 9 million. And of course some of those infected are tourists who do not live in Austria. So a conservative estimate would suggest that less than 2% of the population has been infected so far. Which country has had infection rates of between 30 and 50%?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@boyanr, Israel's second wave in August was larger than its first wave in April, despite better weather.
The whole indoors/outdoors thing isn't that material unless you have a job that can move from inside to outside (maybe for painters). My own indoors/outdoors patterns, as a reasonably typical office worker, are that in winter I spend over 110 hours (our of 120 possible) indoors on weekdays and in summer that drops to about 105hrs as I'm more likely to walk between meetings or eat lunch outside. That <5% variance.
I see no evidence that we're close to 30-50% across most of Europe. Would you care to cite some sources on that? ONS data in the UK would suggest we might hit c. 15%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
| In Austria, since the beginning of the pandemic a total of 208,000 people have been infected. From a population of just under 9 million. And of course some of those infected are tourists who do not live in Austria. So a conservative estimate would suggest that less than 2% of the population has been infected so far. Which country has had infection rates of between 30 and 50%? |
I can't back up those 30-50% figures (not sure where that's from either), but some areas are certainly up there. 42% of residents in Ischgl were found to have antibodies earlier in the year, and other areas that had big outbreaks are likely to be similar. 208,000 is the number of known positives, and bears little resemblance to the real figure, but that's the same for all countries. In spring, they probably missed 70-80% of the positives due to restricted testing – number of people in hospital probably gives a better comparison of the wave sizes (fewer will die this time because of better treatments, but they will still need to attend the hospital). We will still not be catching all positives now, but a lot more than before.
In Tirol, 1-2% of the population is *currently* infected, so the overall number will be considerably higher. 30%? Maybe. More research required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/fines-given-to-blatant-rule-breakers-repeatedly-trying-to-leave-uk-237565/
well, you wont be driving |
When?
Certainly not before Dec 2 but after that? WHo knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mother hucker, I used to enjoy smoking & it added great value to my life. I gave it up because I couldn’t afford to smoke & ski, so something had to give. Also, don’t smokers pay a lot more tax on their hobby than it costs the NHS to treat subsequent problems? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
and the infrastructure for administering, just in the UK, 67 million people is mind-boggling and would take months if not years to give each person two doses each one two weeks apart. Useful and accessible article here: 
