Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: First Indications of ATV Corona Virus imits in NH

  1. #16
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,801
    Quote Originally Posted by OldEric View Post
    As long as your trip proceeds on the happy path that you describe you're right - you are relatively safe (a little boring and maybe tedious avoiding people, but safe) It's when the unexpected occurs - someone gets sick/injured, the car breaks down - that all of a sudden you are thrown into an interaction with the local community. No natter how great you think your car is or what a skilled healthy hiker you are - statistically something is going to happen if you roll the dice enough.
    “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero,” author Chuck Palahniuk

    In 2018 in the United States there were 1.13 auto fatalities per 100 MILLION miles driven. So what are we talking about here? Yah, if you get in an accident you'll interact with at least a cop, maybe a tow truck driver and EMT's. But we're talking about such an absurdly small percentage incident. Is that really the yardstick we're going to use to determine recklessness?
    Last edited by DayTrip; 05-14-2020 at 12:54 PM.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  2. #17
    Senior Member Mike P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Colchester, CT
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by OldEric View Post
    As long as your trip proceeds on the happy path that you describe you're right - you are relatively safe (a little boring and maybe tedious avoiding people, but safe) It's when the unexpected occurs - someone gets sick/injured, the car breaks down - that all of a sudden you are thrown into an interaction with the local community. No natter how great you think your car is or what a skilled healthy hiker you are - statistically something is going to happen if you roll the dice enough.
    People are over rated (myself included). My car is a POS these days and if you roll the dice enough doing anything, something will happen.
    Last edited by Mike P.; 05-14-2020 at 08:33 PM.
    Have fun & be safe
    Mike P.

  3. #18
    Senior Member TJsName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    'Springtime' on the Carters (Tamworth, NH)
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    I understand your point perfectly. You do not understand my point. All I am saying is that SAFE/UNSAFE has nothing to do with ESSENTIAL/NON ESSENTIAL. If after analyzing all the variables in a given activity we determine that Activity A has a 99% chance of a favorable outcome and Activity B has a 99% chance of a favorable outcome then Activity A has the same risk/level of safety as Activity B and either choice is "equal". The actual activity is irrelevant.

    Just because Activity A might be "non essential" (such as playing a round of golf at an out of state golf course or hiking a mountain 3 hours away) does not suddenly make it riskier/more dangerous/LESS SAFE just because Activity B is an "essential" activity (which might be going to my local grocery store and spending an hour getting food and essentials). If the probability of a favorable outcome is the same, the activities are "equal" in terms of the risk.

    I would further say that there are many "non-essential" activities that have a significantly higher probability of a favorable outcome (i.e. are SAFER) than many "essential" activities. In my opinion I am taking far less risk to myself or others driving 2 hours to go for a hike, encountering a minimal amount of people (at a 6' distance), possibly stopping for gas and driving home versus going to the Price Chopper in my local town to get groceries, touching door handles, produce, groceries, the ATM buttons and all while hundreds of people with varying levels of concern, health status and hygiene (i.e. some have PPE and some don't) walk around shopping, and while counting on low income and tired workers to maintain a standard of sanitation and hygiene that prevents transmission. And then I would further say that the consequences of an unfavorable outcome would also be worse in the above "essential" activity versus the "non essential" hike. If I am sick or contagious I am likely to impact far more people in the grocery store than I am maybe brushing up against someone on the trail or possibly touching the door handle of an outhouse door. I impact far more people in the grocery store than I do out in the woods.

    So in my opinion, we are deeming things as "SAFE" because they are "essential" when in fact they are far riskier and have more severe consequences than many non-essential activities. But of course we need to eat, etc so we are engaging in these higher risk activities anyway because we have to in order to survive. And then we are further perpetuating that distorted position by calling these "SAFE" activities dangerous and irresponsible, which in many cases they are clearly not. I think that is the source of what you labeled as "irritation" by certain people (i.e. me).

    Your statements and "exercise" are changing the premise of what I am saying. You're adding Activity C, Activity D, etc to my Activity A, which alters the variables and the probability of a favorable outcome and is an entirely different conversation and analysis. Obviously the things you mentioned add risk. To reiterate my point, SAFE/UNSAFE is not a product of ESSENTIAL/NON ESSENTIAL. It is a product of all the risk factors that go into said activity. A lightning strike doesn't care if I'm on my way to the grocery store or a strip club, the drunk driver who plows into my car didn't do so because I just snuck in 9 holes at a golf course across the state line, and COVID 19 doesn't care if I'm a nurse giving someone kidney dialysis or making out with a girl I just met at the beach. Risk is risk. Intent is irrelevant.
    This is certainly an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thought and effort! I think we're in agreement and your point. The thumbnail that sparked this was conflating 'safe' with 'essential'. I agree that there is no inherent causality between the two; however, they are (or maybe should be) connected when considering an activity.

    Imagine a chart with 'Is it safe' on the X axis and 'Is it essential' on the Y axis ('essential' here means helps keep you alive, but can also be phrased as 'if I don't do this, there will be a negative consequence); positive values are safer/most essential and negative values are more dangerous/non-essential. Items on the top right (safe and essential) might be things like eating a home cooked meal, or sleeping in one's bed. Items on the bottom left (dangerous and non-essential) might include things like playing Russian roulette. There doesn't seem to be much debate around these two quadrants.

    The issue appears to be around the top left ('Dangerous/Essential') and the bottom right ('Safe/Non-Essential'). It has some people asking "why am I allowed to do something that is dangerous, but not allowed to do something that is safe? It seems like a paradox, and without the context of a pandemic, it would be. Normally grocery shopping would be 'Safe/Essential', but due to the high rate of potential interactions and transmission, the activity has been augmented to become 'Dangerous/Essential' due to the pandemic. I think every activity with interactions has become more dangerous resulting in a paradigm shift - while how essential something is has remained fairly constant.

    Activities such as day hiking might have only shifted slightly, and probably still fall in the 'safe' category. Whereas my flag football and ultimate frisbee sports leagues shifted significantly onto the 'dangerous' side of the spectrum, and thus were canceled; the extremely high rate of interactions combined with it being a non-essential activity meant the risks outweighed the benefits. And that's fine - not playing sports doesn't have the same consequences as not eating. Camping at a campground has become more dangerous right now due to the likelihood of interactions among groups from a wide range of geographies and I argue it is likely unsafe, but I don't think it's obvious.
    Last edited by TJsName; 05-14-2020 at 05:37 PM. Reason: I sometimes have issues telling the difference between tops and bottoms
    | 64.5% W48: 19/48
    Trail Adopter of the Guinea Pond Trail

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,344
    Jumping back to ATVs, the Berlin Sun today had an article about the many options for reopening ATV traffic. Its not simple.

  5. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    ďOn a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero,Ē author Chuck Palahniuk

    In 2018 in the United States there were 1.13 auto fatalities per 100 MILLION miles driven. So what are we talking about here? Yah, if you get in an accident you'll interact with at least a cop, maybe a tow truck driver and EMT's. But we're talking about such an absurdly small percentage incident. Is that really the yardstick we're going to use to determine recklessness?
    Citation please. A flat tire is not an accident and certainly not a fatality - but its likely to trigger an interaction. Learn the meaning of phrases like "medical catchment area". Its easy to rationalize....

  6. #21
    Senior Member Mike P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Colchester, CT
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by TJsName View Post
    This is certainly an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thought and effort! I think we're in agreement and your point. The thumbnail that sparked this was conflating 'safe' with 'essential'. I agree that there is no inherent causality between the two; however, they are (or maybe should be) connected when considering an activity.

    Imagine a chart with 'Is it safe' on the X axis and 'Is it essential' on the Y axis ('essential' here means helps keep you alive, but can also be phrased as 'if I don't do this, there will be a negative consequence); positive values are safer/most essential and negative values are more dangerous/non-essential. Items on the top right (safe and essential) might be things like eating a home cooked meal, or sleeping in one's bed. Items on the bottom left (dangerous and non-essential) might include things like playing Russian roulette. There doesn't seem to be much debate around these two quadrants.

    The issue appears to be around the top left ('Dangerous/Essential') and the bottom right ('Safe/Non-Essential'). It has some people asking "why am I allowed to do something that is dangerous, but not allowed to do something that is safe? It seems like a paradox, and without the context of a pandemic, it would be. Normally grocery shopping would be 'Safe/Essential', but due to the high rate of potential interactions and transmission, the activity has been augmented to become 'Dangerous/Essential' due to the pandemic. I think every activity with interactions has become more dangerous resulting in a paradigm shift - while how essential something is has remained fairly constant.

    Activities such as day hiking might have only shifted slightly, and probably still fall in the 'safe' category. Whereas my flag football and ultimate frisbee sports leagues shifted significantly onto the 'dangerous' side of the spectrum, and thus were canceled; the extremely high rate of interactions combined with it being a non-essential activity meant the risks outweighed the benefits. And that's fine - not playing sports doesn't have the same consequences as not eating. Camping at a campground has become more dangerous right now due to the likelihood of interactions among groups from a wide range of geographies and I argue it is likely unsafe, but I don't think it's obvious.
    Who's cooking this meal? It may be essential and dangerous Part of living in America is that no one person gets to draw the quadrants and it's subjective where things go. If I lived in a studio apartment, being trapped in that kind of space would be hazardous to my mental health.

    For those people in high rise buildings, elevator buttons, malls, the escalator handrails, any building with many occupants and door handle or manual revolving doors need to be rethought or automated. Until (if) there is a vaccine, the idea of attending a game, a race or any other event with an audience has to be second guessed. Compared to any of these, even crowded trailheads aren't very crowded.
    Have fun & be safe
    Mike P.

  7. #22
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,764
    Quote Originally Posted by OldEric View Post
    Citation please. A flat tire is not an accident and certainly not a fatality - but its likely to trigger an interaction. Learn the meaning of phrases like "medical catchment area". Its easy to rationalize....
    In 2018 in the United States there were 1.13 auto fatalities per 100 MILLION miles driven
    Select the second quote using your mouse, right click, and search in google (or however you do). You will get several sources, including:

    https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality...state-by-state
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases...ties-2018-fars

    Even easier: Google Search

    Tim
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  8. #23
    Senior Member TEO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    786
    WBUR's On Point discussed quarantine fatigue and harm reduction on yesterday's show. One of the primary points was that strict abstinence-based safety protocols in an epidemic only work in the short term. They are not sustainable on the long-term, so we have to come up with harm-reduction strategies, whether it is the use of condoms for the HIV/AIDS epidemic, or needle exchanges for the heroin epidemic.

    We will be dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for at least a couple of years, maybe even permanently. While I think social distancing is a necessity, it is neither healthy nor realistic to expect us to limit our travel for a sustained period of time. Nor is it really necessary. Hiking, and I would argue camping, is a great social distancing activity, but as DayTrip and Mike P. point out, we need to take steps to mitigate unnecessary risks. These include making sure your vehicle is in good working order; filling up your gas tank before your trip; packing enough food and fluids; avoiding public restrooms; keeping a mask with you at all times and using it when necessary; keeping rubber gloves, sanitizing wipes, and hand sanitizer in your vehicle; avoiding crowded trailheads and summits. For popular trailheads, such as the Adirondac Loj, Lincoln Woods, Pinkham, etc., parking capacity should be grossly restricted.

    For camping, the high-risk points are the communal areas. Require people to bring their own toilets¬óeither pack-in-and-out bags like those used on high-use peaks in the western U.S. or DIY toilets made out of a toilet seat, 5 gal. bucket, and trash bags¬óand close the showers, stores, and other communal areas. Is that a pain? Yes, indeed, but it's better than no camping at all.

    There should be public education campaigns and where people don't follow the restrictions, such as parking, there should be severe penalties. Destination states such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Upstate New York should be targeting Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc. residents with ads saying if you want to visit, we expect you to do X.

    Will there be added risks? Yes. People will always have accidents. One way to mitigate the risk of spread is to require that anyone who needs to be helped by SAR or paramedics or healthcare facility or even auto-repair service be tested.

  9. #24
    Senior Member JustJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ipswich, Ma.
    Posts
    544
    Probably won't be seeing this this, I wouldn't think. Although it is a month out.

    https://mtwashingtonautoroad.com/events/nh-atv-day

    Joe

  10. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    MA & NH
    Posts
    280
    I donít really have a dog in the hunt (meaning I donít feel strongly either way). I donít think anyone can say that going to price chopper is on the safer side of the spectrum. But going grocery shopping is essential. Hiking simply isnít. So there are those that argue that hiking presents, at a minimum, incremental risk for an activity that is non-essential. So then the question becomes where in the risk spectrum non-essential activities should be permitted or condoned. No activity is safe given the potential for it to involve many people as articulated above. I donít think itís worth arguing over because as is the case for most things these days, each side digs in and feels strongly about their respective position. As such, there is never going to be consensus. So I just do what Iím comfortable with and otherwise keep to myself, enjoying Peakbaggerís long posts on developments throughout northern New England!

  11. #26
    Senior Member Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NH Seacoast
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    A lightning strike doesn't care if I'm on my way to the grocery store or a strip club, the drunk driver who plows into my car didn't do so because I just snuck in 9 holes at a golf course across the state line, and COVID 19 doesn't care if I'm a nurse giving someone kidney dialysis or making out with a girl I just met at the beach. Risk is risk. Intent is irrelevant.
    I have found myself making this point on a few occasions. There are people who are considering things safe because they are labelled essential. As if the virus has pity on those getting groceries. The universe is cold.
    Humankind has not woven the web of life.
    We are but one thread within it.
    Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
    All things are bound together.
    All things connect.
    ~ Chief Seattle, 1854 ~

Similar Threads

  1. New Virus Isolated
    By Tom Rankin in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 07:51 AM
  2. West Nile Virus
    By Clown in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2005, 05:02 PM
  3. Virus infected or not?
    By paul ron in forum Site Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 06:33 PM
  4. Nat. Geo. TOPO! virus attack
    By buddy in forum General Backcountry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 02:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •