Rumney Reopening?

There are a lot of people on this thread that don't seem to care about human life.  There is a majority aging population in Rumney who currently have minimial exposure to out of staters.  Rumney has gotten increasingly popular with no signs of slowing down.  In previous years at AAC campground, I'd say 5% or less of guests have NH tags.  Everyone else is from MA or further south, or Canada.  With that in mind, if there is any chance of a local contracting a fatal case of COVID, then it would be irresponsible to open Rumney to climbing.

Flu has an overall mortality rate of 0.1%.  CDC now says COVID is 0.4%. They were hyping 4% death and.millions of deaths before. I bet the rate goes even lower before it is over.   Yes, it is much more contagious than the flu, and it is serious,  but this ain't Ebola. 

Ward Smith wrote: Flu has an overall mortality rate of 0.1%.  CDC now says COVID is 0.4%. They were hyping 4% death and.millions of deaths before. I bet the rate goes even lower before it is over.   Yes, it is much more contagious than the flu, and it is serious,  but this ain't Ebola. 

Yet another person who recently received their degree in epidemiology from Facebook & Google University

Ward Smith wrote: Flu has an overall mortality rate of 0.1%.  CDC now says COVID is 0.4%. They were hyping 4% death and.millions of deaths before. I bet the rate goes even lower before it is over.   Yes, it is much more contagious than the flu, and it is serious,  but this ain't Ebola. 

Ok, and if every man woman and child in the US were infected, assuming 300 million (which is conservatively low) and no vaccine, that mean 1.2 million people would die. A whole hell of a lot of others would be laid up for weeks coughing their lungs out in a delirious fever dream.

I'm also pretty sure the 0.4% was from a scenario planning guide and is being taken out context, based on what I'm seeing on the CDC site. They also included a 0.8% scenario, which would mean 2.4 million deaths.

Meanwhile another study from just a few days ago is showing 1.3%
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200518144915.htm

So maybe the take away here for the moment is that nobody really knows for sure. And personally speaking, when a disease comes out and nobody knows a damn thing about it and people are dying, I'd prefer to stay on the 'better safe than sorry side' of the line.

Ward is just mad that his crag is shut down, you can't blame him for thinking the Corona is a PITA cause it kinda is. Especially in NY, NJ and MA. Maine too.

Marc801 C wrote:

Yet another person who recently received their degree in epidemiology from Facebook & Google University

Ward is directly and correctly quoting the CDC’s most recent estimate. There is some controversy over whether that estimate is reasonable (my own personal guess is that it’s a bit low...but I’m an ER doc, not an epidemiologist). Don’t shoot the messenger. 

"If you'd like some articles on COVID-19..."

A lot of people are saying a lot of things.  Having articles means nothing. In this age of mega-information, everyone feels substantiated in their opinion because support for any position can be found. 

Jimmy Downhillinthesnow wrote: Don’t shoot the messenger. 

It’s the denialist tone of his collective posts that’s the issue. 

Jimmy Downhillinthesnow wrote:

Ward is directly and correctly quoting the CDC’s most recent estimate. There is some controversy over whether that estimate is reasonable (my own personal guess is that it’s a bit low...but I’m an ER doc, not an epidemiologist). Don’t shoot the messenger. 

Its not their actual estimate though, it was the lowest (best case) of five planning scenarios/models developed for states and cities to judge their readiness to ease restrictions. 

I'm all for opening stuff up in a safe way, but at this point making any comparisons between flu and covid is ridiculous. All the estimates of fatality rates aside, simply looking at excess mortality rates in hard hit places makes it clear covid is a lot more deadly.
 
Will McFarland I hear your point about it not being worth opening rumney if it leads to even one death in the area. But that would mean closing the area off to visitors indefinitely, or at least until there is an effective vaccine or treatment. Obviously the socioeconomic damage of that would be tremendous. Unless I'm mistaken and places like rumney don't rely much on tourism. I think a middle ground can be found where risk can be minimized, though I'm not sure what that middle ground is.

Zach Swanson wrote:

Its not their actual estimate though, it was the lowest (best case) of five planning scenarios/models developed for states and cities to judge their readiness to ease restrictions. 

You’re correct that it comes from five different scenarios, but 0.4% mortality is the “best estimate” rather than the “best case.” There’s a table on the bottom here with all five: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

I think we are getting a bit sidetracked with some of our CoVID restrictions at this point. We have fairly good evidence that CoVID spreads in places with lots of people in close contact: congregate living, restaurants, gyms, bars, conventions, church services, etc. For most of the people advocating reopening, they are talking about these  situations, which I think is still reckless. Conversely, you don’t need to wipe down every piece of mail you get,  because that’s not really how this disease spreads. I think the same thing applies to outdoor recreation. 

Rumneys not a tourist town, and arguably isn't missing climber traffic. If the parking was limited to every other car (no aac overflow) and bathrooms shutdown it's feasible to open the place 75$ ticky and tow truck hanging out. The clientele can't adhere to the guidelines close da club, same policy works everywhere. My 2 cents.

I can’t read through all this crap, so sorry if it’s already been mentioned, but I think opening in a limited capacity would be doable. A limited number of day passes. I think it would keep people happy on both ends of the discussion. What say you, naysayers?

Oh, I guess the guy above me was saying something similar, I just can’t read his sentences... I think limited admission vs limited parking would make more sense, that way you don’t have people parking all over the town pissing off the locals. 

There's no such thing as "the flu", it's a cluster of coronaviruses and you can catch any one of them.  This is the newest one and will someday be managed by humans in the same way as the others.

Thus, it's "the new flu". 

Russ Keane wrote: There's no such thing as "the flu", it's a cluster of coronaviruses and you can catch any one of them.  This is the newest one and will someday be managed by humans in the same way as the others.

Thus, it's "the new flu". 

This is a mix of gross factual inaccuracy ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inf…) and baseless speculation. 

Russ Keane wrote: There's no such thing as "the flu", it's a cluster of coronaviruses and you can catch any one of them.  This is the newest one and will someday be managed by humans in the same way as the others.

Thus, it's "the new flu". 

Remember that time on our trip to the NRG I got drunk on NyQuil? Pretty sure it was the flu. Good times. 

"This is a mix of gross factual inaccuracy (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inf…) and baseless speculation."

Woah, ok then, I'll go sit in the corner!  I'm not trying to be a college professor, this is a climbing forum and I was being casual.   My point about the flu is correct, there are hundreds.  Covid is different at the cell level:   "Both influenza and coronaviruses have a single strand of RNA as their genome, but that is where the genomic similarity ends. The influenza virus genome comprises 7 or 8 segments, while the coronavirus has one long strand."  ( labnews.co.uk/article/20305…)

But someday after it's under control it will be another virus, along with the others.

Woah, ok then, I'll go sit in the corner!  I'm not trying to be a college professor, this is a climbing forum and I was being casual.   My point about the flu is correct, there are hundreds. 

Put on the dunce hat, too. As a healthcare provider, comparisons between the flu and CoVID make me pretty grumpy because they are very, very different in terms of how severe and contagious they are. There are only two different viruses that cause influenza in people, influenza A and influenza B.  There are many different flu-like illnesses, if that’s what you’re referring to. This Coronavirus may become endemic like others that cause the common cold, but it may not—we don’t know. 

"There are only two different viruses that cause influenza in people, influenza A and influenza B."

Sure, but hundreds of them within those categories.  I don't mind the dunce cap.  Sometimes there is truth to be found when you look at things from a simpler perspective: Mother nature contains many viruses that cause people to be sick.  People feel miserable, most get over it, some die.   Sometimes nature releases a new one.   99% of those who catch Cov19 will survice.  Most who have died are the elderly.