No more Mount Washington avalanche forecasts; possible Tucks closure

[NHClimber]

For years climbers and hikers have been down-playing the risks involved with their behavior by quoting the (somewhat made up) statistic that the most dangerous part of their day is the drive to/from. Now with everyone tying to justify their behavior that is never mentioned. The odds of having an accident or breakdown increase the more you drive. You are going to have to refuel more often even if its at your corner station. When you get hurt in the car or hiking you won't be going to your local hospital and putting a strain on the one you do go to.

I don't care if you decide to go anyway after making an informed cost/benefits analysis. Bit I think saying"I find this no different" is just...trying to be polite here... conveniently ignoring a lot of the message that has been pounded out in the past month.

Agree. Well said. We all have our methods for justifying what we do. The only way to truly quarantine is to totally embrace physical isolation other than the occasional trip to get groceries. I happen to be good at staying at home and interacting solely through audio/video with colleagues and friends, but understandably most people probably aren't good at that. Rather than judge others, I agree that it's best to just acknowledge that we aren't good at physical isolation and that many people will simply not do it to the same extreme degree that would be ideal in a pandemic. I don't have any good answers.

[skiguy]

Agree. Well said. We all have our methods for justifying what we do. The only way to truly quarantine is to totally embrace physical isolation other than the occasional trip to get groceries. I happen to be good at staying at home and interacting solely through audio/video with colleagues and friends, but understandably most people probably aren't good at that. Rather than judge others, I agree that it's best to just acknowledge that we aren't good at physical isolation and that many people will simply not do it to the same extreme degree that would be ideal in a pandemic. I don't have any good answers.

Being good or not at physical isolation is certainly going to vary from one individual to another. Coupled to that is individual risk assessment. Which certainly varies from one individual to the next. What might not seem risky to one may be extremely risky to another. Being hikers, climbers and skiers folks here some more than others more than likely have a higher threshold to risk tolerance. Unfortunately right now that could lead to a very slippery slope. Thinking that one may be able to fly in under the radar is IMO very selfish and completely ignorant to the fact that they are potentially endangering others.

[Mike P.]

I can think of logic chains that point either way, but I don't have the knowledge or evidence to favor either. (While my reading on the topic may be more technical than that of most (non-medical) people, I have only have a layman's knowledge of the transmissibility of corona viruses and even the experts haven't had much time to learn about this particular one.)

Remember too, that one needs to factor in not only the direct exposure in the store (which might be proportional to time in the store), but indirect exposures due to pickup on clothing, shoes, the interior of one's car, etc. (Medical people often remove their outer clothing at their front doors and head directly to the shower to minimize the chance of bringing the virus in their homes.) The indirect exposures could be proportional to the number of visits.

I personally try to make my visits as infrequent as possible--it is less stressful to deal with the post-trip clean up once rather than 10 times. I quarantine or disinfect everything that comes into my house--according to one study, the virus can live up to 3 hrs in air, 4 hrs on copper*, 24hrs on cardboard, and 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel. https://www.technologyreview.com/202...nd-on-packages https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...217v1.full.pdf

* I have seen the suggestion that door handles, handrails, and counters in public places should be made of copper because of its germicidal properties.

Doug

Thank you. My first thought and from what I've seen, when I'm in the store just for a few minutes, I can avoid the person who thinks one way aisles do not apply to them & the one or two people I see every five minutes in the store who knows they are healthy and therefore don't need to cover their mouth and nose. If I'm and out, I may not change, while if I am there longer, I do. My local store has people wiping carts down. Droplets do fall on the floor eventually so staying on shoes may be an issue also.

[DayTrip]

For years climbers and hikers have been down-playing the risks involved with their behavior by quoting the (somewhat made up) statistic that the most dangerous part of their day is the drive to/from. Now with everyone tying to justify their behavior that is never mentioned. The odds of having an accident or breakdown increase the more you drive. You are going to have to refuel more often even if its at your corner station. When you get hurt in the car or hiking you won't be going to your local hospital and putting a strain on the one you do go to.

I don't care if you decide to go anyway after making an informed cost/benefits analysis. Bit I think saying"I find this no different" is just...trying to be polite here... conveniently ignoring a lot of the message that has been pounded out in the past month.

Just to be clear, I am NOT doing this. I get the reasons and despite my extreme boredom I am staying local and trying to honor the spirit of social distancing. I am just saying that a long, isolated drive is not necessarily the "threat" that is being perceived as in a lot of cases. We just in most cases don't have an opportunity to individually analyze each of these micro events to determine the risk.

And as someone who drives 40,000-45,000 miles a year for work and leisure I would say the logic that my risk increases as a function of distance for a drive is not terribly true. And if you are stating the increased amount of time is the issue, not distance, I agree. But I am doing a lot more local driving right now so statistically I'd wager my chances of a problem are going to happen right here in my back yard. If I do one 3 hour drive to NH versus 10 18 minute drives to my local hiking trails is my risk equal? Lower? Higher? I have had far more "close calls" near my house in city traffic with people running red lights, texting in heavy traffic, etc. I feel much safer driving 3 hours to NY on the MA pike than I do driving in Hartford, CT near my house. And I would presume your probability of a breakdown also has quite a bit to do with your commitment to proper maintenance, age of vehicle, driving habits, etc. so one person's 3 hour ride is not the same as another's and thus
I'd again say that time is not the primary factor but vehicle condition. I'm no actuary and don't have stats to support that opinion but I don't agree with the characterization that my drive to NH is the riskiest part of my hiking trip. I've had zero accidents in the roughly half a million miles I've driven in the past 10 years (not counting the incredible jinx I probably just put on myself - yikes) and have had two serious accidents hiking (a severely sprained ankle and a dislocated shoulder). I'll let an actuary or statistician debate how much of an anomaly my life has been. I am not conveniently ignoring anything about the "message". Driving is not the message.

And again I am not making these long drives but merely pushing back a bit and playing devil's advocate a little bit. Avoiding social contact with other humans is the primary thing we are trying to control here and I don't think arbitrarily labeling the act of driving in and of itself as harmful is accurate. So I in fact do not find it that different under the circumstances I described previously. Your illustration with hikers/climbers, to me at least, is people knowing hiking/climbing is inherently dangerous and downplaying the risk of hiking and climbing as being dangerous with the scape goat of driving being more dangerous rather than the other way around.

[egilbe]

The risk in driving to a trailhead is magnified by the number of cars on the road. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but there is not a lot of traffic on the road and the risk of accidents has dropped so much that insurance companies are giving back 15% of the premiums. No one is getting into accidents because barely anyone is driving. Kind of nice, actually. Maybe the Earth will cool off some.

[DougPaul]

Thank you. My first thought and from what I've seen, when I'm in the store just for a few minutes, I can avoid the person who thinks one way aisles do not apply to them & the one or two people I see every five minutes in the store who knows they are healthy and therefore don't need to cover their mouth and nose. If I'm and out, I may not change, while if I am there longer, I do. My local store has people wiping carts down. Droplets do fall on the floor eventually so staying on shoes may be an issue also.

I would expect that the number of troublemakers that you will meet is approximately proportional to time spent in the store times the number of customers in the store so 9x10min or 1x90min would probably have similar risks. (I aim for times with fewer people in the store if possible.) And one can take evasive actions/routes with either short or long visits.

Droplets collect on the floor since the last cleaning so 10 visits would probably pick up far more residue than 1 visit.

A friend wore an industrial mask (one of those that covers eyes and has external filters) to the store and she had no problems--people moved away from her...

Doug

[bikehikeskifish]

Riding (solo of course) my bicycle has been much more enjoyable thanks to the reduce number of cars on the road.

Tim

[Mike P.]

I would expect that the number of troublemakers that you will meet is approximately proportional to time spent in the store times the number of customers in the store so 9x10min or 1x90min would probably have similar risks. (I aim for times with fewer people in the store if possible.) And one can take evasive actions/routes with either short or long visits.

Droplets collect on the floor since the last cleaning so 10 visits would probably pick up far more residue than 1 visit.

A friend wore an industrial mask (one of those that covers eyes and has external filters) to the store and she had no problems--people moved away from her...

Doug

Can I wear a mask under and over a old Cheevers hockey mask? I did see in the news someone wearing ski goggles while wearing a mask, and considering your eyes are a point that a virus could enter, it makes sense.

And Daytrip, Hartford isn't close to Woodstock, maybe Putnam & Danielson might be considered close. For distance to Hartford, you could be in either RI or MA from where you are. Time of day and traffic are considerations, whether driving or grocery shopping.

[DayTrip]

The risk in driving to a trailhead is magnified by the number of cars on the road. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but there is not a lot of traffic on the road and the risk of accidents has dropped so much that insurance companies are giving back 15% of the premiums. No one is getting into accidents because barely anyone is driving. Kind of nice, actually. Maybe the Earth will cool off some.

If there is a silver lining in this mess there has been a big drop off in emissions world wide. Hopefully when all this is over companies reevaluate their operations given the success of working from home for so many people. Less emissions and more personal time not spent traveling is definitely a win/win outcome if it holds up.

[DayTrip]

And Daytrip, Hartford isn't close to Woodstock, maybe Putnam & Danielson might be considered close. For distance to Hartford, you could be in either RI or MA from where you are. Time of day and traffic are considerations, whether driving or grocery shopping.

Guess that depends what you consider close. Only a 45 minute ride and under 50 miles (about 46 actually). Worcester, Providence even Boston in good traffic is only an hour from my house. Traffic is everywhere. Trust me. There's plenty of cars and idiots in Putnam to increase my risk.

[bikehikeskifish]

If there is a silver lining in this mess there has been a big drop off in emissions world wide. Hopefully when all this is over companies reevaluate their operations given the success of working from home for so many people. Less emissions and more personal time not spent traveling is definitely a win/win outcome if it holds up.

Along with an increase in disposables and a decrease in recycling

Tim

[DougPaul]

Can I wear a mask under and over a old Cheevers hockey mask? I did see in the news someone wearing ski goggles while wearing a mask, and considering your eyes are a point that a virus could enter, it makes sense.

A hockey mask probably is probably more effective at scaring other people than at filtering out the virus. On the other hand, enough people around here are sufficiently familiar with hockey masks that it might not work...

Ski goggles are in demand by medical personnel so I guess they are useful. https://gogglesfordocs.com/

Doug

[DayTrip]

I had not seen this mentioned here...

Baxter Park is now closed to camping and above tree line hiking until at least July 1.

Some day hiking will be allowed, but only walk-in access is possible. Gates are closed to vech traffic. (Now that will limit hiking for sure!)

New Park director does not want to expose staff and/or rescue personnel to Covid brought in by out of state guests.

Full article here...

There is a separate thread started in this forum on the topic, which you probably already figured out by now.

[Mohamed Ellozy]

(I aim for times with fewer people in the store if possible.)

I think that is the most important factor. Both supermarkets in my area open at 6 for senior citizens (and I am very senior ) and I have found them practically empty at that time. Not only fewer people in store, but also has been deep cleaned overnight.

[Mike P.]

A hockey mask probably is probably more effective at scaring other people than at filtering out the virus. On the other hand, enough people around here are sufficiently familiar with hockey masks that it might not work...

Ski goggles are in demand by medical personnel so I guess they are useful. https://gogglesfordocs.com/

Doug

If I had to ride Mass Transit, I'd be wearing goggles also. Wonder if they are allowed on a plane?