OT-Tourism and Travel
So...obviously there are more important things than vacation plans, and I’m sure I’m not alone in cancelling plans, but a question for the board:
Is it realistic at all to plan a family trip to the East Coast this summer? DC/NYC/Boston. Just would like opinions on if you think the US will open up for tourism/travel in the next 3-4 months.
Even if it were "much mild", you do realize as many people have died of COVID as a typical flu season, and that is with the most extreme social distancing/ public health lockdown that's ever been done at scale?
I know you know this, quit being such a wanker.
The great majority of scientists right now are arguing that we need to maintain current restrictions. Are you willing to let them decide?
No, he's not.
Oddly enough, I don't recall a mild illness completely overwhelming hospitals before. Or any other illness for that matter. At least not during my lifetime.
In the words of the great Samuel L Jackson, Stay the fuck at home!
Hospitals get near capacity in flu season. Add on any new virus and hospitals get overrun or go to surge capacity. It happens.
It is not eveidence of how virulent the new disease ends up being.
Stay home, but stop being so worried.
My friends at Beaumont have never gone through what they have this past before. Nothing prepared them for this.
If you think lots of infections/deaths are a legit tradeoff for having somewhat more freedom, OK. But be up front about it and don't spread misinformation.
I deal with a lot of health care providers.
If you are saying that they were not prepared to deal with a novel and unknown virus, then yes, of course. There is no known treatment plan. Very confusing. Add in the fact that it is very contagious and the tip of the iceberg of patients showed up around the same time.
That does not mean its severity is any different than other viruses. For example, if one in a thousand people get a strange new virus at once, there is no way to "be prepared" but that does not mean that any more than one in a thousand will get it that way.
Other viruses are very deadly too. Its just that we are prepared for them.
Would you like to get back on topic? Does it appear that the virus might be a little milder than anticipated?
Does this fly both ways?
For instance, were you confused when Governor Whitmer decided to curtail rights and further destroy the economy by banning activities and work that experts say would have almost no chance of spreading the virus?
Well, that's a pretty loaded question. "How do you feel about Cheerios knowing that they are full of poison*?"
A lot of scientists would say that the perfect way to stop the virus's spread would be a total shutdown of everything for a few weeks, but that's not realistic. The line between "essential" and "non-essential" is always going to be blurry and people might quibble about an item here and there. But very few scientists are arguing against a lockdown policy right now, contrary to what our friend above is suggesting.
*probably not actually true
See, what's actually blurred in this particular case are the two policies.
Policy one was the original shelter-in-place essential/non-essential work order that was working to do what experts deemed we must do: flatten the curve. Most people knew this policy was going to continue.
Policy two is the new policy that banned activities and work that experts say would not meaningfully contribute to the spread of the virus. Most people did not expect this policy to replace policy one and its surprising that it did given its lack of scientific merit and contribution toward our goal of flattening the curve.
Edit: There was a snarky last paragraph here that I deleted. I hope your friends working at Beaumont are doing okay.
Sure. They are also saying we can loosen them. They want to do so with lots of testing because they are still figuring things out.
The more evidence that comes in, the less likely it seems like you will be hurt by the virus.
Just pay attention as the science stops being based on presumptions and gets filled in with evidence. I will. Either way.
blue herron is correct. we're closed up here. and the roads have caved in. and there are scary monsters waiting to eat cars full of tourists. big monsters with big teeth, like dobermans that bark bees, but the dogs are the size of office buildings and the bees are like F-16's. no visit. danger. bad.
I'd been planning on renting a cabin Up North-Up North myself later in the summer, but it really doesn't seem like governments are being particularly rational about what they close and what they don't close, so it's just not worth the risk of renting this far out.
I know someone who has had it and recovered. It was anything but mild.
April 20th, 2020 at 10:07 PM ^
Just curious: were they fat?
Why do you think you're helping anyone by telling people to be scared?
All the signs and data continue to keep showing that this virus is not as dangerous as we thought.
Point well taken. We will keep that in mind come July-August.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:04 AM ^
Yes. Tourism will be open in the next 3-4 months. It will be slow as the fear of COVID19 lingers. But the return to normal will come faster than many believe. (And a lot slower than POTUS would have you believe.)
just my opinion if course!
April 20th, 2020 at 11:05 AM ^
Head to Sweden.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^
Airbnbs here in the black hills are mostly booked starting the end of May. A few people I know that do it say they havent gotten any cancellations and new bookings keep coming in. I know it's not the east coast but I expect tourist season here to be pretty busy.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:21 AM ^
I have a Disney world trip scheduled in mid July. I anticipate being able to go. With any luck they’ll be limiting guests so it’ll be less crowded. It would just mean I have to get to the gates early.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^
It would just mean I have to get to the gates early.
Unless you're staying physically in the park, I'd expect to get locked out assuming that they limit guests.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
No doubt you will have a better shot here if you are staying "on property" in Disney parlance. WDW caters to its own.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
You still might have a shot if you stay at one of the affiliated Disney Springs hotels, but even that seems iffy if they're really limited people.
Yeah we are staying on property. That actually would make some sense for a first phase reopen. They could limit park access to accommodate guests staying on property plus annual pass holders, and that’s it.
You couldn't pay me to take that trip in 2-3 months. This virus isn't going to just disappear, and that is probably one of the riskiest possible vacations you could take.
We have one scheduled to Disney early Sept. Right now I'm hopeful we'll be able to go if we want, but I'm not expecting WDW will be running 'like normal'. I expect them to reduce capacity, be we already have hotel reservations so I expect we'd be allowed in if they are open. I guess the only thing is, will it be 'worth' going if not running like normal. My guess is that WDW won't be 'up to normal' until late 2021 or 2022. And I get the sentiment that WDW will always be there in a couple years, but my my kids won't be the same age either in 2 years. And it's a great age to get a first Disney trip in now. And they have been looking forward for this trip for almost a year. It's going to be a tough call, but since we can still get refunds easily with Disney, I'm delaying making the final call until we get closer and have more information.
We were supposed to take the kids there a couple of weeks ago for their Spring Break. It sucked having to cancel, but at least we hadn't told them yet so they didn't have the same disappointment. We've rescheduled for Spring Break 2021 and are hoping for the best. I'm guessing it will be insanely busy there next year, with all the delayed vacations and WDW's 50th anniversary.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^
Until we have readily available, widespread, accurate testing, as well as antiviral treatments for those who do catch the virus, I don't think its smart for you to plan trips to go anywhere. Much less a COVID-19 hotspot like NYC, or the most populated, condensed region of the country that is the Northeast.
I also wouldn't put any kind of money down because you may end up in a situation where you're not going to get your money back if the event is postponed indefinitely. I paid ~$350 for dugout seats at Coors Field to go watch the Cardinals play the Rockies. Was supposed to be a guys weekend getaway with my Dad, and it was a game that was supposed to happen two days ago, no less. I've accepted the fact that I will likely never get my money back. Event planners or retailers like Stubhub can't refund anyone right now because their cash flow is down to zero and they've probably already spent the money you gave them trying to keep their people employed.
What you also have to think about is that even if you are physically allowed to go, a lot of places may still decide to close or be restricted on an individual basis. So you may only get to experience half of what you'd otherwise get to. Trip wouldn't be as rewarding. I know it sucks, and I'll be the first to admit I'm one of the more cynical members of this board, but I just wouldn't risk planning anything until 2021, at the earliest. NYC, DC and Boston will still be there when this crisis is over.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:39 AM ^
What kind of things do you realistically want to experience on that trip? Assuming for the sake of argument that one or more of those cities is even open, I think the traditional touristy stuff could be very challenged. I also think hitting all three of those cities could be exceptionally tricky, logistically.
You might be able to find some interesting New England options -- VT, NH and ME (three very different states). There are some beautiful spots up there, but they won't fulfill any Americana/monument goals along the lines of the Statue of Liberty, Faneuil Hall or the Smithsonian.
April 20th, 2020 at 11:55 AM ^
I would give a resounding "no" to any major summer travel.
We love to travel and are able to do so quite a bit.
I'd be very reluctant to do anything that relies on air travel. Schedules are going to be ever-shifting...and a second wave of virus outbreaks could ground many/most planes.
Plus, what's going to be open when you actually get to your destination? Museums? Attractions? Restaurants? Bars? And, if they are open, how desirable of an overall experience will you have?
April 20th, 2020 at 11:59 AM ^
I am eligible for sabbatical this year. My oldest graduates high school this year so I was planning a Europe trip. Plan was an 8 week trip to Croatia, Germany, Italy, Austria and Czech Republic. Thankfully I was waiting for my bonus to lock in the trip and never purchased tickets. I am just going save and plan it for next summer
I am thinking it might be a good summer to do a lot of camping, maybe British Columbia
We used to be an avid camping clan, but AAU basketball killed that hobby (and I don't see any basketball on the horizon this summer)
Adapt and overcome.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
I remain optimistic that based on geography, cities will have some lifts. A report in the WSJ (sorry, on phone and can’t link) tested 3300 people in Santa Clara county to test for the presence of antibodies that would show if they had previously been infected
the results show 2.5-4.2% of residents are estimated to have antibodies against the virus, which translates to 49-81,000 infections, 50 to 85 times as high as known cases. in conclusion, large majority of people that contract the virus recover without ever knowing they were infected, and the us rate may be much lower than assumed...this rate of infection in the county could be .12-.2%.
still out for peer review. Maybe this helps with loosening some of the shelter in place studies.
Yeah, but but but that study wasn't fully randomized so it's completely invalid. We need to stay locked down until we have at least three vaccines (just in case the first two don't work; can't be too safe)
Staying locked down until three vaccines are available is just not realistic, pragmatic, or feasible. It will be two years before there is enough vaccine for the entire population. People are social and keeping them home for 2 years is not going to happen. The longer the lock down goes, the more people will re-evaluate the cost/benefit ratio for themselves when it comes possible exposure. The hard part is going to find the middle ground of a more open country that avoids a full on economic depression, allows for some resumption of lesiure activites and social gatherings, while balancing that with the knowledge, that yes, people will die because of it. Where that balance is the really freaking hard and difficult part.
The best way to make that balance with the minimal amount of death and most open country, involve a slow opening with widespread testing (like millions per day basically), and super aggressive IDing of cases and contact tracing, with localized lockdowns as cluster re-appear. The problem is that the US has been slowing erroding it's ability to do that over the last couple of decades, and then we spend the months we could have been using to get infrastructure to do that in place, by putting our hands over our ears and going 'lalalala i can't hear you it's just the flu lalala'. Not to mention the very serious culteral barriers Americans are going to have for the Asian style contract tracing and survallience.
But for real, you cannot keep a lockdown for two years. I mean my parents are older (dad is 80) and have been taking this seriously from the start. They haven't seen their grandkids in over a month and they live 10 min away. My mom has already said that they can only take a month or two more of it. Eventually they're going to just risk exposure and possible death in order to see their grandkids. That kind of math is going to start changing in a lot of people's heads over the next couple of months.
I think he was being sarcastic in his response.
If that study is remotely accurate, that means there will be ~39 million infections based off of the 0.12 number in the US.
There have been ~784,000 confirmed cases thus far.
If that's under reported by a factor of 50, on the low end as that study suggests, that means we've already hit ~39 million cases in the US.
Am I missing something or are those numbers not making sense?
Hence why it’s out for peer review
It won't make it past peer review. The selection bias alone dooms it, but there are other issues. Not the context to be playing fast and loose lest it become another Wakefieldian debacle.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^
Depends on public perception at that time.
It doesn't matter how mild or serious coronavirus is anymore. The only thing that matters is how people feel about it.
Will the public perception be altered as we learn more or will people ignore the science as it develops and hold on to the fear/concern. That is the real question.
For example, the state of New York is doing a bunch of serology testing to determine how widespread the virus has been in the state. If it shows a very widespread virus, that will mean it is not very fatal. If it shows very little infection other than what was detected, it shows a virus that is not as contagious as we thought.
Either way, our current lockdown measures are BASED upon the fact we don't know that much about the virus. As we learn more, will people change their views?
That is the million dollar question for travel and "returning to normal."
April 20th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
I'm going to pay attention to the science and as a result "hold onto the fear/concern". Otherwise you are just rolling the dice with your life and those close to you as your bet.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:57 PM ^
So, if it turns out that the virus is not as virulent as we think, once we..
have data..
...will you be able to reasonably asses the risk?
So much of this depends on health/age.
Using Michigan's data (24% of cases under 40 years old, less than 2% of total deaths for the same group), as far as I can tell the CFR for those under 40 is less than .5%. If the IR is 10x - which seems entirely possible (reasonable?) with some of the research now being produced - that of the CR, then that means the IFR would be .05% or less for that age group without even getting into health issues. This could change with more data, but it seems pretty plausible.
Couple that with the incredibly fortunate fact that children seem to fare best against the virus (no deaths under the age of 20 in Michigan), its tough to see why people/families within that age range should be forced into a lock down over the summer.
Now if you're over 70, then yes, you might very well be rolling the dice.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:49 PM ^
The only thing that matters is how people feel about it.
For all your vaguely scientific posts, you've been an excellent demonstration of this idea.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:59 PM ^
I am just following the scientists. They keep saying they don't know much and are trying to learn important facts each day.
Did you want to follow them too, or just go with your gut?
Interestingly, those same scientists and public health officials are saying something like "hey, don't run around with other people until we know more about this virus that we don't know a lot about".
I missed the part where they said "actually, since we don't know anything, it's safe to lick all of your neighbors" and the part where feelings are a good prophylactic.
No one ever said to break the law or go around doing that.
We are all doing our part. Its just that our part is to wait on the science and not get overly worried.
You're giving me whiplash.
You: "It doesn't matter how mild or serious coronavirus is anymore. The only thing that matters is how people feel about it."
Also you: wait on the science
We are supposed to wait on the science or we're not?
I think he's trying to say that: (1) we don't yet have enough data to truly assess the risk; and (2) to some extent, what matters even more than the data is how safe people feel going outside, i.e., people are going to be skittish about big crowds for a while no matter what.
Admittedly, this might be a generous interpretation, but it does make some sense.
We should wait on science. That's what smart people do.
Realistically, people are stupid. They will go on their "feels" and the feeling of the day is fear. Its hard to shake that with all this coverage and worst case scenario.
April 20th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^
My son is supposed to train at a facility about an hour outside of Boston from mid-June to mid-August. It's in a small town. Right now, they're saying the program is still a go but I have to wonder with what I'm hearing about Boston's numbers, will it be cancelled? He was planning to drive from Chicago, not fly. I'm not even sure how I feel about him going at all, even with it being far outside the Boston metropolitan area.