 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
An R-Rate of 27 is questionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Ryunis wrote: |
Can I just remind everyone that we are in the midst of a global pandemic. 12 December is not a long time ago and everyone knew that it was a bad and irresponsible idea to travel at that time. People looking for loopholes and exceptions to exploit so they can meet their selfish needs are the lowest of the low for me. Especially if they then try and claim that the law was at fault for allowing them to do it. Grow up. Take some responsibility and stop deflecting blame on to others. The effect of contracting and passing the virus on to someone could lead to a death! To me this is a worse offense than stealing from a shop or plenty of other petty crimes as the consequence to society is so much worse.
This virus does not have legs. It only travels via people and so those who are mixing, especially those bending the rules to do so, are the reason why the situation is getting worse. |
I think the key word is global i.e. the virus is already everywhere. So actually people travelling within the confines of the law are not automatically evil. I didn't actually take a holiday despite having a lot of vacation days to burn because I didn't fancy exposing myself to a European wide mixing pot of people in a Swiss ski resort and I thought there was still the arbitrary chance that the plug got pulled at any time. But my travelling there in and of itself would have been very low risk because I'd likely have driven in my own vehicle and I hadn't mixed with anyone beyond occasional isolated supermarket situations for quite some time.
I think you're fighting a losing battle with your moral high horse as to be successful you need to get everyone to buy into it and the idea of going above and beyond actual law. Which won't ever happen not least because there is a good slice of the population everywhere that believes more in their own liberties or that the risk to themselves personally is low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Gämsbock wrote: |
| telford_mike wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, I agree that it was bound to happen to some extent, but one person infecting 27 others? I think that speaks for itself. |
Did he definitely directly infect 27? I read that 27 of the infections could be traced back to him - which could have started with him infecting only a few people and the chain very quickly accelarating from there. Especially if all these people were attending Schneebars and church services and getting in cable cars. That’s not quite the same. |
Seems quite plausible that once one member of hotel staff had acquired it they would spread it to colleagues. I think its also possible to question the behaviours of the 27 - clearly they weren't able to exercise the utmost in self protection either but no social shaming of them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, quite - I was also wondering if the Court of Wengen had a list of all those who had disobeyed the unwritten rules but not turned out to be carrying the virus - are they being similarly abused in the street?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I may be opposed to lockdown policy, but I wouldn't dream of contravening it when it can have such an instant bad outcome.
|
I puzzled over that statement @Headengel2020. We know that where there are people gathered together in moderate proximity, indoors (e.g. in a hotel) the virus, especially the new varieties, can find new victims. Ordinary masks might help to reduce the risk but nobody with any sense would believe they eliminate it. Why are you opposed to lockdown policy when you KNOW it can have such a bad outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
I may be opposed to lockdown policy, but I wouldn't dream of contravening it when it can have such an instant bad outcome.
|
I puzzled over that statement @Headengel2020. We know that where there are people gathered together in moderate proximity, indoors (e.g. in a hotel) the virus, especially the new varieties, can find new victims. Ordinary masks might help to reduce the risk but nobody with any sense would believe they eliminate it. Why are you opposed to lockdown policy when you KNOW it can have such a bad outcome? |
@pam w
"Why are you opposed to lockdown policy when you know it can have such a bad outcome?" I will overlook the ambiguous wording, because I am opposed to lockdown policy on the grounds it has such a bad outcome.
I had to puzzle over what I'd written again, and your reply, to answer properly. I was tiptoeing when I wrote the original, but what I wrote is an accurate representation of my view. I am saying I disagree with these restrictive policies, but I would not disobey them. If, when I was in Switzerland, someone had said "Quarantine." I'd have done it pronto and be on the phone to the resort and cantonal authorities about getting a test done and getting on the next plane home as safely as possible. If I don't, I am immediately risking causing a great inconvenience (I am understating it here) to a whole resort, which is unacceptable behavior in any guest. Plenty of time to ask questions about it later.
On the matter of lockdown policy: I do not believe the government restrictions have been proportionate to the hazard the virus poses to the population. The vast majority of cases are mild. The policy, while well intentioned, has caused significant collateral damage. Some of this damage was unavoidable, but much of it was. We've also had it for so long that it now seems to be the only option, an inevitability, and this is not the case. Lockdown is not the only answer to the problem of COVID-19
The virus is real, it is a problem, and it will not be eliminated. Wherever people gather it will spread. Whatever, however, wherever. Lockdown or no lockdown. It will become endemic, and the strategy has consistently failed to take this into account. Nonetheless, the law is the law and I will not contravene it. I will continue to act according to my own assessments of risk and moral judgement, as I always have. Others before self, but not masters of self (That is some Boris-esque guff there...sorry)
TL:DR : I am an opponent of lockdown policy on the grounds that the benefit to infection control is dubious and the harms resulting from restrictions exceed possible benefit. However, I will be dutiful and obey the restrictions. Hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gämsbock wrote: |
| telford_mike wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, I agree that it was bound to happen to some extent, but one person infecting 27 others? I think that speaks for itself. |
Did he definitely directly infect 27? I read that 27 of the infections could be traced back to him - which could have started with him infecting only a few people and the chain very quickly accelarating from there. Especially if all these people were attending Schneebars and church services and getting in cable cars. That’s not quite the same. |
That's a good question. The newspapers have phrased their reports in a manner that suggests one man directly infected 27 others. However, I don't see how anyone can actually know this for sure. The press here (particularly the tabloids and online sites) are certainly prone to 'sexing-up' a story if it means a better headline. I suspect we'll never know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| telford_mike wrote: |
@DCG, remorse? I'm absolutely sure he feels remorse, but whether that remorse is public I don't know.
@Dave of the Marmottes, I agree that it was bound to happen to some extent, but one person infecting 27 others? I think that speaks for itself. |
The unwritten rules thing is intriguing. Did the tourist office website announce it as a recommendation - "visitors are asked to self isolate for x days before skiing or visiting bars and restaurants" or even say "while the ski area is open we would really prefer if tourists didn't come"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might as well blame someone but not;
Swiss Gov for saying we are open
Border control for letting him in
The hotel for taking his booking
The lift pass company for selling him a ticket
The other hotel bars for serving him a beer and not washing the empty glass
The chap in the lift queue not wearing a mask and getting too close
If you accept visitors eventually someone will catch the virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| telford_mike wrote: |
| The newspapers have phrased their reports in a manner that suggests one man directly infected 27 others. However, I don't see how anyone can actually know this for sure. |
Actually, the track and trace might have better idea.
For example, if 10 of the 27 had never been in that hotel, but was household member of an infected hotel worker, that would be clear he wasn't infected by the Brit but by one of the hotel workers.
The wording to me, sounds like that's entirely possible being such a scenario. "27 cases TRACED BACK to 1 individual".
However, if all those 27 work in the same hotel, or attended the same church as the Brit, it would be easier to conclude, HE INFECTED ALL 27!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| telford_mike wrote: |
There won't be any formal sanctions, since no laws were broken. Informally however the guy is derided (in the street) at every opportunity, which in a small village like ours is probably worse than a fine. |
You're not painting the community in Wengen in a very positive light. Kangaroo court based on no actual law broken. Wengen opened for business therefore they opened themselves up to a risk from someone.Either that or there is an extremely naive view of human nature. |
Doesn't surprise me, it was the most unwelcoming place I have ever been skiing. Sorry Wengen regulars, I enjoyed the bash, but there was very little that would have persuaded me to go back. Hotel Victoria Lauberhorn being a big one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree @hells bells, wasn't a friendly feeling place at the best of times. Wonderful landscape and sense of escape, but my god it's stuffy compared to the Austrian competition.
Hugely naive of the Swiss to think they could open for business and not have an incident like this. That it's happened in the location of their highest profile event is just unlucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
Nor us. 2 negative C19 tests at the SchnellTestZentrum Lauterbrunnen today, after negative tests 24 Dec, UK PCR, and 31 Dec, CH Schnell Test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
