No more Mount Washington avalanche forecasts; possible Tucks closure

[maineguy]

. I think that the terrain alone would be more dangerous especially if you’re not more careful. If you slip or trip, the chance of a more severe injury are much greater.

Of course the terrain is more dangerous. That is why you are more careful. In your front yard, you are not on guard looking for trip hazards, slippery rocks, etc. Ever read the accident reports in Appalachia? Although they do not list all accidents by any means, say that they list 1%, compare that to the thousands and thousands of hiker-miles compiled in the Whites each year.

 

[DayTrip]

Well at least then you might be able to crawl to your local Hospital rather then putting MRS at risk.

Because MRS are more worthy of protecting than the local hospital staff? I don't understand this line of thinking by everyone that somehow one group of people is somehow more worthy of protection, mode modified behavior and special treatment than others. What is the difference between 2 MRS people walking the Zealand Trail to get me when I have a freak ankle sprain versus an EMT crew picking me up on a local dirt road with the same freak ankle sprain? I'm not talking about ice climbing in Huntington Ravine. I'm talking about comparable activities. The geographic location of these comparable activities has a negligible difference in exposure risk.

 

[DayTrip]

Not quite as easily. I think it’s a lot more risky hiking in the mountains than it would be hiking across your front yard.

I think we're all just getting a little too caught up in our own bull**** here. Hiking on most trails in NH or anywhere is a pretty low risk activity. Really low. I mean how many accidents per thousand visits or whatever metric you want to use are there in NH? Are we saying that the probability of me spraining my ankle on the Lincoln Woods Trail is vastly higher than me walking the dirt road near my house? Gimme a break.

 

[jniehof]

Because MRS are more worthy of protecting than the local hospital staff? I don't understand this line of thinking by everyone that somehow one group of people is somehow more worthy of protection, mode modified behavior and special treatment than others. What is the difference between 2 MRS people walking the Zealand Trail to get me when I have a freak ankle sprain versus an EMT crew picking me up on a local dirt road with the same freak ankle sprain?

The local EMT crew can probably get you into the ambulance with two guys, who sit in a truck together all day long. You'll be going to a hospital where everybody who works on you normally works together. They'll all have something resembling adequate PPE. They might get takeout from the same places you do. Everything is completely within the same local risk pool.

If you do your ankle in on the Zealand Trail to the point where you can't put weight on it, you're going to need about 20 people: probably AVSAR, a few COs, and local EMS. They might not have seen each other in months. They'll be coming from a 50+ mile radius. They probably won't have adequate PPE. On a day-to-day and even week-to-week basis, they normally have no contact with each other and no contact with you. They're going to be up in each others' faces, touching each other, breathing hard, for several hours. Then when it's done they're going to go home and you'll probably spend some time in medical care up north, and then some more at home. Several different risk pools have mixed together on a massive scale.

This public health stuff is really counterintuitive. It's not about individual activities being "safe" or "dangerous". It's not about individuals being "clean" or "dirty", or certain states "having it" or "not having it." It's about minimizing contacts because every contact carries some small amount of risk, and minimizing mixing of populations so it doesn't spread.

 

[DayTrip]

. It doesn't inherently mean that those miles are more dangerous (though you could be). Instead, that statistic is heavily influenced by opportunities for a person to have an accident,.

Exactly. We're talking about the probability of a given outcome occurring that would involve interaction with others and thus potentially cause transmission of the virus to another person/group of people. So the probability of me getting into a driving accident that involves support/interaction with people, plus the probability of me getting into an injury of some sort and needing a rescue/interaction with people plus the probability of me stopping somewhere for gas/food/whatever and interacting with people. Whatever that percentage works out to is pretty low if we're talking about taking a sensible hike within a reasonable drive of my house in a fairly new well maintained vehicle. NH is not the Himalayas. Let's all stop portraying it as some wildly dangerous and remote corner of the globe that only the finest of mountaineers are capable of handling. Thousands and thousands of out of shape and poorly equipped "hikers" go up and down all of its mountains without incident every year. And the majority of accidents involve one or a series of very bad decisions made by an extreme minority of possible hikers. That obviously increases the probability of a social interaction and I am NOT saying that is sensible or should be encouraged right now.

Having said all that, there is also a legal side to this. Many states in our area have now instituted 14 day shelter-in-place restrictions for travel to other states, prohibited non-work interstate travel, etc. I honor these out of respect for the applicable laws, not because my actions doing this are inherently more risky or irresponsible. I guess that is an entirely separate conversation/argument.

 

[DayTrip]

The local EMT crew can probably get you into the ambulance with two guys, who sit in a truck together all day long. You'll be going to a hospital where everybody who works on you normally works together. They'll all have something resembling adequate PPE. They might get takeout from the same places you do. Everything is completely within the same local risk pool.

If you do your ankle in on the Zealand Trail to the point where you can't put weight on it, you're going to need about 20 people: probably AVSAR, a few COs, and local EMS. They might not have seen each other in months. They'll be coming from a 50+ mile radius. They probably won't have adequate PPE. On a day-to-day and even week-to-week basis, they normally have no contact with each other and no contact with you. They're going to be up in each others' faces, touching each other, breathing hard, for several hours. Then when it's done they're going to go home and you'll probably spend some time in medical care up north, and then some more at home. Several different risk pools have mixed together on a massive scale.

This public health stuff is really counterintuitive. It's not about individual activities being "safe" or "dangerous". It's not about individuals being "clean" or "dirty", or certain states "having it" or "not having it." It's about minimizing contacts because every contact carries some small amount of risk, and minimizing mixing of populations so it doesn't spread.

Fair point, although I'd push back slightly and say if their resources are spread so thin I wouldn't get the "normal" full cavalry response. And many hospitals and EMT crews are using inferior/ineffective equipment right now which may not be providing much more protection than no PPE. And social distancing in at-capacity hospitals is impossible. Lot of unavoidable interactions.

And I agree with the point about minimizing interactions. I was just actually making it in another post. We're trying to reduce/eliminate contact with other people, not risk of an activity's inherent purpose. i.e. if I fall and sprain my ankle on a sketchy trail but self rescue nobody cares.

 

[Mike P.]

If you sprain your ankle, you better be self rescuing. I had an X-Ray confirm chip fracture and 11 days later hobbled on the FW, F-Ridge, OBP loop. Took a couple more days off and then did the Osceola duo. (In hindsight, this was maybe dumber than my 22 hour Katahdin & back to CT Trip, the foot bothered me for a couple of years) Hobbled out with the Avulsion on Hurricane as the 11 year old boys I was with weren't going to carry me.

As other's mentioned, we do spend more time near our homes, OTOH, my wife would say I do spend more time in the woods than my yard, I have been spending 6-10 hours a week in the woods since I have been back from a March trip to NH before CT had shelter in place. That includes a 1.25 mile walk each way with more than half of that on a dirt road and then 3 - almost 5 miles in the woods. (Only thing that comes close is my time on VFTT on the couch!)

People tend not to be careful in situations they believe are benign. On my quiet street, I rarely look behind me when leaving the driveway, I seldom have my seatbelt on leaving my house for the first 100 feet but it's always on otherwise. Getting careless in places we are most comfortable is a bad habit.

Closest I've come to needing a rescue, (knock, knock, ) On my first state highpoint, years ago, I could see my car and the trail was wife and flat with a down tree of about 8" and maybe a foot off the ground. I was so excited to be back safely I ran to my car. I failed to clear the tree. There have been a couple of other times I've slipped and almost always near the car. I managed not to slip at all on a trip in 1998 to the trail in the pictures without any of the gear those in the pictures are wearing. Fear was a great motivator against carelessness.

 

[skiguy]

The local EMT crew can probably get you into the ambulance with two guys, who sit in a truck together all day long. You'll be going to a hospital where everybody who works on you normally works together. They'll all have something resembling adequate PPE. They might get takeout from the same places you do. Everything is completely within the same local risk pool.

If you do your ankle in on the Zealand Trail to the point where you can't put weight on it, you're going to need about 20 people: probably AVSAR, a few COs, and local EMS. They might not have seen each other in months. They'll be coming from a 50+ mile radius. They probably won't have adequate PPE. On a day-to-day and even week-to-week basis, they normally have no contact with each other and no contact with you. They're going to be up in each others' faces, touching each other, breathing hard, for several hours. Then when it's done they're going to go home and you'll probably spend some time in medical care up north, and then some more at home. Several different risk pools have mixed together on a massive scale.

This public health stuff is really counterintuitive. It's not about individual activities being "safe" or "dangerous". It's not about individuals being "clean" or "dirty", or certain states "having it" or "not having it." It's about minimizing contacts because every contact carries some small amount of risk, and minimizing mixing of populations so it doesn't spread.

Well said.

 

[ChrisB]

... I managed not to slip at all on a trip in 1998 to the trail in the pictures without any of the gear those in the pictures are wearing. Fear was a great motivator against carelessness. View attachment 6385 View attachment 6386

Mike, where is that Via Ferrata? (Looks a bit like the Dolomites in the second pic.)

cb

 

[Mike P.]

It is the Hollental approach on Zugspitze. Usually people ascend that way, however my wife, her brother & I went up the Reintal Valley. We stayed at one hut and the next AM I left early as their plan was to ride the tram down. (Peakbaggers can't do that, however, we don't talk about that at home...) We were camped at the Army's campground near by and the Hollental Valley was closest to return back to camp. I was solo on the descent passing people.

My pictures only show people from a distance on the rock as I was looking at the spots figuring out where the route was. Pretty boring and in film, the glacier was my first of only two Selfies I've ever taken, the other was on Couchsachraga in the ADK's. While glacier travel is typically a four person affair, the path through the crevasses was well beaten as you would expect a country's near cities with trains and trams and a ski resort on it and the Eibsee at the bottom.

Here are a couple or links: https://www.ckemp.com/zugspitze/
or
a 15 minute YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=GUynVTDdhg8&feature=emb_logo In watching the video, it appears in almost 22 years since I did it, they have lost some trail as there are pegs up higher than I remember. When I was there, while the cable was in place, only one area, fairly low had a large number of pegs.

We went up this way & stayed at the second hut this group passed on day one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yOT8CWTDWQ The Via Ferrata on the top of this approach is only at the top section & was much easier with only one crux. (My wife & her brother rode the lift when they reached the snow bowl where the Reintal Via Ferrata starts, we don't talk about that either, just that she did it in 1995 and 1998 & I went up and down in 98.