The Ethics of Outdorr Recreation in Times of COVID-19

[anotherVTskibum]

I'm guessing TDI, loved my diesel VW wagon. Hell, my F150 will theoretically go over 600 if I'm getting at least 17mpg.

I've gone 603 miles on a tank and still had about three gallons left with my F-150, so it's definitely doable. I'd also argue that's a bit far to be traveling for recreation/exercise in the midst of a global pandemic, but that's a much more subjective issue and definitely variable depending on where you live (171 miles from here puts me in a major city two states away, with more people than the entire state of Wyoming; 171 miles in Montana usually means somewhere else in Montana and not a ton of people in the areas you've driven through to get there).

[3PinGrin]

I've gone 603 miles on a tank and still had about three gallons left with my F-150, so it's definitely doable. I'd also argue that's a bit far to be traveling for recreation/exercise in the midst of a global pandemic, but that's a much more subjective issue and definitely variable depending on where you live (171 miles from here puts me in a major city two states away, with more people than the entire state of Wyoming; 171 miles in Montana usually means somewhere else in Montana and not a ton of people in the areas you've driven through to get there).

I could drive 5 miles to Wallyworld and hang out with a gazillion people or I could drive 1500 miles, remote camp along the way, and have very limited contact with others. So yeah, very subjective.

[anotherVTskibum]

I could drive 5 miles to Wallyworld and hang out with a gazillion people or I could drive 1500 miles, remote camp along the way, and have very limited contact with others. So yeah, very subjective.

That's a bit of reductio ad aburdum, as you're comparing apples to horsecarts. The questions we should all be asking are pretty similar to travel in avalanche terrain:
1. How much risk is this benefit worth?
2. Are there any ways to get a similar (but different) benefit at lower risk?
3. If not, what are the risks inherent in getting this benefit, and how can I mitigate them?

Taking a 500-mile fuel range as an example, and assuming your remote camping sites haven't, and won't, see other people for weeks or months (long enough to make transmission a non-issue), that 1500 miles is going to require at least three fuel stops, maybe four. Can you get a similar benefit with zero fuel stops required in transit?

(no, the risk of transmission in stopping for fuel is probably not particularly high with a little attention to detail, but the cumulative risk—multiplied across all people who could choose to drive a little further and end up needing fuel—becomes very different if we each reduce our fuel stops, and particularly our away-from-home fuel stops, by 25%, or better yet by 75% or even 90%, plus there are all the other miscellaneous potential impacts that again become significant in a cumulative picture, e.g. mechanical failure, crashes, etc)

There may be times where the answer is "no" (I believe there was a multi-state RV trip mentioned above to meet up with an old girlfriend, hard to get the same benefit without the travel); but if we ask those questions about everything we do, the cumulative impact can be big. If we all say "eh, this one thing doesn't really matter, I'm not going to worry about it," then we end up with a mess.

Take grocery-shopping, for example. We all need food, and most of us aren't homesteading, so we have to buy it somewhere. If we each choose to minimize our trips to the store (and maybe live without that one item we ran out of the day after the shopping trip), we reduce not only our own contact time (and implied risk), but also those of everyone else working and shopping at the same store. If we all say "screw it, I'll run in for that extra pint of Ben & Jerry's, I really want Half-Baked tonight and I've only got Ice Cream Sammie", there are a lot more people in the store at any time, and the cumulative impact is significant.

[3PinGrin]

That's a bit of reductio ad aburdum, as you're comparing apples to horsecarts. The questions we should all be asking are pretty similar to travel in avalanche terrain:
1. How much risk is this benefit worth?
2. Are there any ways to get a similar (but different) benefit at lower risk?
3. If not, what are the risks inherent in getting this benefit, and how can I mitigate them?

Taking a 500-mile fuel range as an example, and assuming your remote camping sites haven't, and won't, see other people for weeks or months (long enough to make transmission a non-issue), that 1500 miles is going to require at least three fuel stops, maybe four. Can you get a similar benefit with zero fuel stops required in transit?

(no, the risk of transmission in stopping for fuel is probably not particularly high with a little attention to detail, but the cumulative risk—multiplied across all people who could choose to drive a little further and end up needing fuel—becomes very different if we each reduce our fuel stops, and particularly our away-from-home fuel stops, by 25%, or better yet by 75% or even 90%, plus there are all the other miscellaneous potential impacts that again become significant in a cumulative picture, e.g. mechanical failure, crashes, etc)

There may be times where the answer is "no" (I believe there was a multi-state RV trip mentioned above to meet up with an old girlfriend, hard to get the same benefit without the travel); but if we ask those questions about everything we do, the cumulative impact can be big. If we all say "eh, this one thing doesn't really matter, I'm not going to worry about it," then we end up with a mess.

Take grocery-shopping, for example. We all need food, and most of us aren't homesteading, so we have to buy it somewhere. If we each choose to minimize our trips to the store (and maybe live without that one item we ran out of the day after the shopping trip), we reduce not only our own contact time (and implied risk), but also those of everyone else working and shopping at the same store. If we all say "screw it, I'll run in for that extra pint of Ben & Jerry's, I really want Half-Baked tonight and I've only got Ice Cream Sammie", there are a lot more people in the store at any time, and the cumulative impact is significant.

Easy to avoid contact fueling and I always sanitize anything I'm going to touch (such as nozzle). Obviously aerial transport/inhalation are bigger risks and the mask helps mitigate that potential. I haven't been to the grocery store in weeks. I get the herd mentality/cumulative thing. But I'm not going to let it detract from what I want to do as long as I can do it relatively safely for myself and others. I will do it smartly, the problem is as you point out others may not. Given my background in microbial ecology, I feel pretty confident in my choices. If others strike out on their own in a stupid manner because they see me toodling down the road in my RV, that's not my problem. I'm very familiar with the approach to isolation anyone has taken that I will be coming into contact with, and it is worth the risk to ME and them.

Meanwhile, people have been flocking to the local stores sans masks, etc. That's the only point that I was making, mileage based restrictions are meaningless.

[AK47bp]

Look, we’re all infection control geniuses here so no problem for any of us to travel safe, obviously, duh.

Think of the average American with mixed information from the media, your aunt Diane and her husband Tom and their kids jumping in the Highlander for a 300 mile trip.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[::: :::]

cant tell if that's a trout or a shiner?? dem shiners can be pretty aggro!

rainbow

[anotherVTskibum]

...

Meanwhile, people have been flocking to the local stores sans masks, etc. That's the only point that I was making, mileage based restrictions are meaningless.

IMO, mileage guidelines/restrictions are beneficial because they localize the impact of the idiots. I saw someone pull up at the grocery store yesterday with gloves already on, as an illustration. So either she'd come straight from home and taken advantage of a presumed-clean home environment before driving directly to the store (possible but unlikely), or she's cross-contaminating with her gloves. Of course, the gloves might be moot, because at the store she was having a conversation with the curbside person from a small value for six feet.

And honestly, it's that part--thinking critically about every action, even normal ones like having a conversation as you pay for groceries--that seems to trip up even otherwise intelligent people. Anyone who's worked food service in an environment that actually follows the rules, and I'd expect people who work in medical environments, can tell you how hard it is to train yourself to always be thinking about clean/dirty status before touching things.

[3PinGrin]

IMO, mileage guidelines/restrictions are beneficial because they localize the impact of the idiots. I saw someone pull up at the grocery store yesterday with gloves already on, as an illustration. So either she'd come straight from home and taken advantage of a presumed-clean home environment before driving directly to the store (possible but unlikely), or she's cross-contaminating with her gloves. Of course, the gloves might be moot, because at the store she was having a conversation with the curbside person from a small value for six feet.

And honestly, it's that part--thinking critically about every action, even normal ones like having a conversation as you pay for groceries--that seems to trip up even otherwise intelligent people. Anyone who's worked food service in an environment that actually follows the rules, and I'd expect people who work in medical environments, can tell you how hard it is to train yourself to always be thinking about clean/dirty status before touching things.

Yeah, most people using gloves and masks aren't using good protocols (disposal/sanitizing).

When I studied drafting years ago, I was amazed at how grimy my hands were as evidenced by smudges on the paper if I didn't wash my hands first. Later, I spent three years using aseptic techniques in biological labs and always remembered the visual of that smudged paper as a good reminder.

edit to add: I do get your argument regarding localizing the idiots. But I have some pretty valid reasons for travel and I'm going to do that as long as I feel I can do it while reasonably mitigating risk to myself and others.

[paulster2626]

IMO, mileage guidelines/restrictions are beneficial because they localize the impact of the idiots. I saw someone pull up at the grocery store yesterday with gloves already on, as an illustration. So either she'd come straight from home and taken advantage of a presumed-clean home environment before driving directly to the store (possible but unlikely), or she's cross-contaminating with her gloves. Of course, the gloves might be moot, because at the store she was having a conversation with the curbside person from a small value for six feet.

And honestly, it's that part--thinking critically about every action, even normal ones like having a conversation as you pay for groceries--that seems to trip up even otherwise intelligent people. Anyone who's worked food service in an environment that actually follows the rules, and I'd expect people who work in medical environments, can tell you how hard it is to train yourself to always be thinking about clean/dirty status before touching things.

All that's needed though is to get the R0 below 1.0. If even people half-assing things helps to do that, then we win.

[PB]

I'm guessing TDI, loved my diesel VW wagon. Hell, my F150 will theoretically go over 600 if I'm getting at least 17mpg.

Well hell, I could get 800 miles ifn' I had a 35 gallon tank!

[3PinGrin]

lol, yeah the tank is huge (36 gallons)

[chaka]

But I have some pretty valid reasons for travel

have to agree with this based on your last TR

[3PinGrin]

have to agree with this based on your last TR

[old goat]

Yeah, most people using gloves and masks aren't using good protocols (disposal/sanitizing).

When I studied drafting years ago, I was amazed at how grimy my hands were as evidenced by smudges on the paper if I didn't wash my hands first. Later, I spent three years using aseptic techniques in biological labs and always remembered the visual of that smudged paper as a good reminder.

edit to add: I do get your argument regarding localizing the idiots. But I have some pretty valid reasons for travel and I'm going to do that as long as I feel I can do it while reasonably mitigating risk to myself and others.

Some of the best anti microbial technique I've seen was on a guided Grand Canyon raft trip--at least as far as toileting, food handling, and cleanup. The guides are all well trained in food handling techniques. Obviously an outbreak of gastroenteritis on a 2 week raft trip would not be pleasant. They'd run out of groovers pretty quick.

[Kinnikinnick]

Has it switched in mountain country yet to “please come spend your money” from “get the hell out of here outsiders we gotta look out for ourselves?”


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Danno]

You better be careful, you're gonna tweak your back on account of that giant chip on your shoulder.

[Name Redacted]

Has it switched in mountain country yet to “please come spend your money” from “get the hell out of here outsiders we gotta look out for ourselves?”

Nope, go ahead and stay in your lowland hell and fester on it for a few more months while we break in all the trails for you. Let us know when the temp hits triple digits!

[MakersTeleMark]

Yes, yes it has. Today was a complete shit show on the roads and everywhere. It's full on idiot tourist season again.

[Kinnikinnick]

Nope, go ahead and stay in your lowland hell and fester on it for a few more months while we break in all the trails for you. Let us know when the temp hits triple digits!

Sorry already went up for a tour last week. Ran right into Clear Creek County’s county roads closed to outsiders crock of unconstitutional bullshit though so had to abort to another trailhead.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Name Redacted]

Sorry already went up for a tour last week. Ran right into Clear Creek County’s county roads closed to outsiders crock of unconstitutional bullshit though so had to abort to another trailhead.

Careful, you lowlanders are more susceptible to the virus: https://www.summitdaily.com/news/peo...e-to-covid-19/

We are just trying to look out for your safety, please stay away.

[Kinnikinnick]

Careful, you lowlanders are more susceptible to the virus: https://www.summitdaily.com/news/peo...e-to-covid-19/

We are just trying to look out for your safety, please stay away.

Thanks!!!

Actually it looks like evidence that coming to high altitude to exercise vigorously is what would protect one.

I’ll be up to mountains as much as possible and let everyone else know too!!!

THANKS!!



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Kinnikinnick]

On a second read, their evidence only supports a protective effect for those that grew up at altitude, not you who grew up in Maine

[cmsummit]

On a second read, their evidence only supports a protective effect for those that grew up at altitude, not you who grew up in Maine

You should probably read the article. It could apply to those that have lived at high altitudes for a long period of time, not just people who "grew up" at high altitudes. It's all based on increased red blood cell counts and those who have lived at high altitudes for a significant amount of time, have that higher count.

[mall walker]

this thread has gotten weird

[simple]

People are looking for answers discussed as excuses to "go back to normal". Really it is just impatience.

No surprise. We have never experienced a pandemic before and spring fever is in full effect.