COVID-19 - Climbing in Jeffco Open Space

SinRopa wrote:

There are a lot of people out there that are not fortunate enough to be able to make this statement so easily.

Amen! 

teece303 wrote:

It has nothing to do with: “It boggles my mind how climbing right now- with a bandana over your face, using hand sanitizer between routes and in small intimate groups is considered wrong or bad.“

It’s about keeping people out of small communities, getting gas, buying food, maybe getting hurt, congregating at parking lots and the base of climbs, etc.

Yeah, yeah, “I’d do it right.” We are humans. Enough people will NOT do it right that they're  just saying: “don’t do it.“ It’s not that important right now.

Miss the part where I said I wasn’t climbing? Also- I’m still working everyday... getting gas as needed etc... some of us blue collar essentials gotta do what we gotta do to keep the white collar types at home. 

Kyle Taylor wrote:

Miss the part where I said I wasn’t climbing? Also- I’m still working everyday... getting gas as needed etc... some of us blue collar essentials gotta do what we gotta do to keep the white collar types at home. 

I didn’t miss anything, I explained to you why you were a little off in the mind being boggled.

teece303 wrote:

I didn’t miss anything, I explained to you why you were a little off in the mind being boggled.

Thx for your help. I feel much better now 

Think beyond yourself... what if you catch the V at a climbing area.  You go to the hospital and now endanger a nurse, doctor, or any health care worker that’s treating you.
You’ve just put this person’s life at risk, all because you made a choice to go climbing.  
Now is not the time to feed that climber ego...

SinRopa wrote:

There are a lot of people out there that are not fortunate enough to be able to make this statement so easily.

Yes.

But as a society, if you have 2 trillions dollars to throw at a problem, you could easily choose to support these people for the duration of the crisis. Your government, which to an extent if a reflection of your society, has decided not to. But that's a choice. Should that mean that we should start promoting shopping around to "support small businesses"? Well, the problem is that if you bring that reasoning to scale, you're boosting the effect of the pandemic part of things.

Economic damages from pausing most of the economy == pretty possible to estimate the bounds of this damages. We could (if we cared) mitigate the damages this causes to people.

The other option is half-assed effort to stop the spread, which your previous comment is a good example. We do not know the extent of the damage this would create at the moment. We do not know what happens to a population, both socially & economically, when hospital overflow & the it feels like the government is not in control anymore. We'll know about that when we see numbers from Spain & Italy, I guess (although they actually ended in a worst shutdown than you guys, and even worst than what we have here in Canada). But for now we don't know. It could be less than that of voluntary lockdowns. But it could also be way more. And that option NEEDS to involve numbers of people dying.

So essentially, you have a choice, both bad. One option of limited economic damage that you could choose to mitigate, one option of unknown (could be greater or lesser) economic damage where significant number of people will die.

Seems like an easy call me....

EDIT: sure, keep up the self-edifying memes. If that helps you, we all cope as best we can, I guess.

Don’t let your fear become more contagious than the virus.

What does that even mean? Is "no fear" supposed to be impressive?

My fear is being anywhere near people that don't believe the advice of basically every single health professional in the entire world, and decide that their unscientific opinion is being cautious is unnecessary.

Franck Vee wrote:

Yes.

But as a society, if you have 2 trillions dollars to throw at a problem, you could easily choose to support these people for the duration of the crisis. Your government, which to an extent if a reflection of your society, has decided not to. But that's a choice. Should that mean that we should start promoting shopping around to "support small businesses"? Well, the problem is that if you bring that reasoning to scale, you're boosting the effect of the pandemic part of things.

Economic damages from pausing most of the economy == pretty possible to estimate the bounds of this damages. We could (if we cared) mitigate the damages this causes to people.

The other option is half-assed effort to stop the spread, which your previous comment is a good example. We do not know the extent of the damage this would create at the moment. We do not know what happens to a population, both socially & economically, when hospital overflow & the it feels like the government is not in control anymore. We'll know about that when we see numbers from Spain & Italy, I guess (although they actually ended in a worst shutdown than you guys, and even worst than what we have here in Canada). But for now we don't know. It could be less than that of voluntary lockdowns. But it could also be way more. And that option NEEDS to involve numbers of people dying.

So essentially, you have a choice, both bad. One option of limited economic damage that you could choose to mitigate, one option of unknown (could be greater or lesser) economic damage where significant number of people will die.

Seems like an easy call me....

EDIT: sure, keep up the self-edifying memes. If that helps you, we all cope as best we can, I guess.

I think the whole printing money and increasing debt ad nauseum is an experiment we don’t know how it ends either. To say it leads to limited economic damage is just a guess. At a certain point our current economic system fails. Will this be the cause? Probably not but who knows. The more stress the more likely. And when that happens I think the corona virus starts to look like a fun vacation. 

Trevor stuart wrote:

I think the whole printing money and increasing debt ad nauseum is an experiment we don’t know how it ends either. To say it leads to limited economic damage is just a guess. At a certain point our current economic system fails. Will this be the cause? Probably not but who knows. The more stress the more likely. And when that happens I think the corona virus starts to look like a fun vacation. 

But the point is that an uncontrolled pandemic can also lead to the same. But we don't know how deep that rabit hole goes. It may be deeper or slightly shallower. But we DO know it also includes significantly higher number of deaths.

Look I agree with you - printing money & increasing debt isn't viable in the long run. Regardless what we do, this whole thing is going to be fucking expensive. There is no choice between it being expensive and it being cheap. Rather, it's a question of how we want it to happen. If this was an infection, would you rather cut out the limb, or would you rather take no action, with on the one hand the possibility that the infection will resolve itself and not result in the loss of limb, but also perhaps degenerate into septicemia and bring bigger damages?

That's the question we should face. We've also made the choice - you guys voted TWO TRILLION dollars on this thing. That's already spent. You choose to spend it on a bunch of things including large corporation. Or you could have had ~10k$ per household for 200 millions household. So the economic victimization argument "but people are going to suffer from the lockdowns" makes no sense on those 2 fronts: first the money to prevent that is there, but it has simply been allocated somewhere else. Second that economic suffering is already built-into the crisis anyway, so it's not like the lockdown actually adds anything to it. 

evan h wrote: I vote that Jeffco starts putting in restrictions. 

they did this past weekend. JCOS started limiting access to parks if the TH was full...

Many of the trailheads are full from hikers and others.
Once people leave their cars, my experience (admittedly on Boulder area trails) is that they social distance reasonably well.

SinRopa wrote: Just don't let it consume your life.  Anyone worrying about catching COVID at a deserted climbing area is probably a little too fearful.

If you are climbing around the front range, it is highly unlikely wherever you are is deserted. If wherever you are is un-crowded enough to be able to main distance between people, all the climbers who are staying home are contributing to that.

Big ups to everyone who recognizes that going climbing is certainly riskier than not. And is sacrificing what they enjoy because there is a chance that will save lives and allow things to get back to normal more quickly.

Franck Vee wrote:

But the point is that an uncontrolled pandemic can also lead to the same. But we don't know how deep that rabit hole goes. It may be deeper or slightly shallower. But we DO know it also includes significantly higher number of deaths.

Look I agree with you - printing money & increasing debt isn't viable in the long run. Regardless what we do, this whole thing is going to be fucking expensive. There is no choice between it being expensive and it being cheap. Rather, it's a question of how we want it to happen. If this was an infection, would you rather cut out the limb, or would you rather take no action, with on the one hand the possibility that the infection will resolve itself and not result in the loss of limb, but also perhaps degenerate into septicemia and bring bigger damages?

That's the question we should face. We've also made the choice - you guys voted TWO TRILLION dollars on this thing. That's already spent. You choose to spend it on a bunch of things including large corporation. Or you could have had ~10k$ per household for 200 millions household. So the economic victimization argument "but people are going to suffer from the lockdowns" makes no sense on those 2 fronts: first the money to prevent that is there, but it has simply been allocated somewhere else. Second that economic suffering is already built-into the crisis anyway, so it's not like the lockdown actually adds anything to it. 

I do agree that an uncontrolled pandemic is a bad thing.

I don’t know if it’s as clear cut as amputate or don’t. There’s varying degrees of surgery/magical money/lockdown. All of which have varying degrees of death and economic damage. I certainly don’t know the correct answer but I don’t think it’s black and white.

here’s an example of a bad way to deal with this: we lockdown so well that the entire country has 1 new case per day. We then develop herd immunity in the year 3020. And everyone is dead. 

Trevor stuart wrote:

here’s an example of a bad way to deal with this: we lockdown so well that the entire country has 1 new case per day. We then develop herd immunity in the year 3020. And everyone is dead. 

Vaccines also build herd immunity.

Marc801 C wrote: Vaccines also build herd immunity.

Not when you have to lockdown that well. Everyone has their own room. And you’re not allowed out. You get shot if you do. By a robot.

Mark E Dixon wrote: After today the weather forecast is awful.
Likely to keep climbers inside and many of the hikers too.

Probably won’t stop the fishermen but it’s not like any of them cluster in groups.

Why in the world would the fishermen need to stay home?  

Well, sounds like surfaces are not the problem?

Researchers "could not find any evidence of 'living' viruses on surfaces. 

https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html?

Trevor stuart wrote:

I do agree that an uncontrolled pandemic is a bad thing.

I don’t know if it’s as clear cut as amputate or don’t. There’s varying degrees of surgery/magical money/lockdown. All of which have varying degrees of death and economic damage. I certainly don’t know the correct answer but I don’t think it’s black and white.

here’s an example of a bad way to deal with this: we lockdown so well that the entire country has 1 new case per day. We then develop herd immunity in the year 3020. And everyone is dead. 

Once we get things reasonably under control, we can consider doing contact tracing (e.g. see South-east asia). The point of the lockdown is not to pause everything until covid as a whole is magically gone - the point is to get a grip on it enough so that less drastic measures can be implemented in place of a lockdown. Of course in contact tracing, there is tracing. Dunno if people are down for that. I guess we'll see.

South Korea never really had a full lockdown, because they got their shit toghether fast enough that they never really got to the point where tracing every cases & potentially infected people from those cases wasn't practical anymore. China had to because they didn't get their shit toghether. Nor did the US, most of Europe, Canada...

Yeah amputation isn't a perfect parallele that's true, but the gist of it is pretty similar. Do you cut your losses now with a relatively known loss, or do you take a chance of no loosing anything put also risking loosing a lot more later on?

I guess bottom line for me is - until you can some semblance of control on things, better be more aggressive than less. Also factoring in that health care has more time to get supplies, reorganize, we get to understand better what helps prevent infections, how to best minimize complications from covid, etc....

Natalie M wrote: Well, sounds like surfaces are not the problem?

Researchers "could not find any evidence of 'living' viruses on surfaces.

https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html?

That's a really good news from a major university. If others can confirm those findings, it is really good. Then perhaps offices aren't that likely to spread it (assuming distancing can be achieved, perhaps people wearing masks to preven them from spreading droplets, etc.).

Jeff G wrote:

Why in the world would the fishermen need to stay home?  

What if they get a fish hook stuck in their thumb and have to go to the ER?

Thousands could die!