High Sierra Topix

That's an interesting question. Why so many casualties in NYC but not California? Could it be because so many people flew back to NYC from Europe in March? I saw pictures of terminals where people were crammed in like sardines. They probably spread the virus to each other. Then they continued to spread it around the city. The mayor of NYC encouraged people to go to the movies and broadway plays which most likely increased the spread. I don't think that happened in California. There was no stampede to the airports. Also, events with overseas participants were canceled back in February and workplaces stopped letting their employess travel abroad. Then cities and counties started shutting down. That probably had something to do with it.

franklin41 wrote:

Stanford is doing a study right now. Their hypothesis?

Coronavirus arrived in California with Chinese tourists in November 2019. Many of us got it in Dec/January as "the flu," and now we have a pretty well-established immunity base. That's why California's numbers have been way below NY, and that's why the state of California recently lent 500 ventilators to New York City.  

Fascinating and very good news if first Giselle, then me, and then my wife Lizzie are all examples of Californians who contracted corona virus early on, as suggested in the Stanford hypotheses. Remember Giselle's description of her nasty cold from our recent January ski tour:

Gazelle wrote:

I had a great trip with Harlen! Although I was sick even before we started- a really nice cough, lung capacity was severely diminished!...

I wrote this caption in the TR:

The fleet Gazelle, pulling far ahead per usual. The only reason I could keep close was the fact that she was suffering from a serious URI.

As soon as I returned from that ski trip I came down with the flu-like sickness Kristine/Gazelle suffered from, and it stuck with me and Lizzie for quite awhile.  Did we three have corona virus and get right through it?  I sure hope so, and I hope this holds true for many others as well.

However interesting such a study would be, I doubt the Stanford hypothesis. If the virus were traveling around in November unsuspected, no reason New York (a much more international city than any in California) would escape exposure.

As for us, I doubt "many of us" got coronavirus in November and thought it was the flu. Flu cases in California surged a bit over expected in December-Feb, but not exponentially, as it would have if it were simply misdiagnosed coronavirus. We then would have seen a dramatic number of cases by early March.

California "socially isolated" early and that is one reason we are not seeing per-capita numbers as is New York. A large majority of cases in New York, are in New York City due to its dense population. Once the virus got a foothold there, it could spread faster. And New York seriously "social isolated" much farther up the exponential curve.

I doubt "most of us" got the virus. We now have about 18,000 cases for a population of 39.5 million! Even all cases were 100 times more than verified, that would be 1.8 million or about 4.5% of California population. That is not nearly enough to get "herd immunity".

What keeps me grounded is to convert the statistics into per-capita cases and deaths. Although the reported numbers sound big, given our size, it is only now .045% cases .00115 deaths with 2.6% deaths per case. New York per-capita rate is .77% cases, .03% deaths with 4.2 deaths per case. However, there are more and longer hospitalizations than with the flu and THAT could overwhelm the health care system.

The question then becomes one of how much economic damage can be sustained for how long? Obviously we cannot hunker down for a year. Obviously we cannot ALL go out and party once we "flatten" the curve. Even when a quick, cheap and widespread antibody test is available, the number of those with immunity would likely be a small part of the population. Unfortunately, we backpackers do not add much to the economy (yes, we are cheap!) so likely will get low priority. Kind of hard for me to convince anyone that my summer's backpack plans are "essential" or even adds much to the economy.

I think that outdoor recreation is absolutely an essential source of money for the communities in Owens Valley. So, I'll be happy to go up there and give them some of my money whenever they decide to welcome us city folk back. I'm really hoping that we're there by June.

schmalz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:15 pm I'm really hoping that we're there by June.

Hell, I will settle for July or August.

The coronavirus test is only capable of detecting active infections. It can't test for infections that have cleared.

Also, California and Washington are both considerably nearer to China than New York City. LAX and SFO are two of the main ports of entry from Asia, and there are sizable mainland Chinese populations on the West Coast. So it's not surprising that Corona would get to LA before NYC.

A quick read on the Stanford study:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/0 ... antibodies

A longer video with details on herd-immunity and alternate strategy/thinking:

https://youtu.be/lGC5sGdz4kg

The data should guide us...

I do not know about all the others on this forum, but when I backpack, I drive to the trailhead (do NOT buy gas along the way because it is too expensive all along Hwy 395), do the trip, may stay in a campground (senior rate about $12), get a first come permit ($0), do the trip, get out and may buy one meal ($10), and drive home. Not much income for the community. A regular tourist will stay in motels several days, buy more meals, buy trinkets, buy gas if they have an RV, attend local events. I think these are the kind of people who support the community. Sport climbers add more since they eat in town more and drink a lot more beer. But, I will happily ride along on their coattails! Open for them and by default, it will be open for me.

Thank you commonloon and franklin411 for being the voices of sanity and reason. Please keep posting the infomative and enlightening links!

There are different levels of "science" and "data". Finding "studies" to confirm a opinion is not that hard to do today.

The Stanford study did not say that it will be based on a random sample, but on volunteers. I would expect that those who volunteer would more likely be those who thought they had a mild or asymptomatic case of the virus and would overestimate the mild cases in the population as a whole. The Colorado study, unfortunately, hit a snag today. The lab doing the testing is short staffed and backlogged terribly with doing the tests. They think they may not be able to do the second round of tests, let alone get the first ones done. Whole project may be dead on arrival. It was privately funded.

The U-tube video struck me as odd, almost "fake"? Pretty much an opinion. One take on things, but hardly a "THE data". Perhaps valid for a small isolated community in Germany, but not for a very interconnected world and large populations and rampant poverty.

I personally lean towards the "quarantine the vulnerable, let others get on with life", BUT, who defines vulnerable? A third of American adults 30-60 have health issues, high obesity, diabetes, lung problems. Quite a few children, particularly in low income areas, have asthma due to air pollution. My grandson has asthma because he was a premature baby. Who decides if the child goes to school- parent or school? Parents are legally required to send their kids to school. Will the vulnerable kids be provided a tutor? And what about the condensed "peak" instead of the "flattened curve" with respect to health workers and the medical system. Perhaps if we had a health care system prepared for an epidemic. We do not; we just stuck our heads in the sand for decades. I do not think that really is a choice for us now. It is a strategy that would require pre-planning.

I will agree that there is a lot of over-hype of the doom.