What is the rationale for preventing people from going to vacation homes?

[LAS14]

In many cases it may remove them from larger family units or from congested city living. I'm assuming they're going to shelter-in-place, just as they would at their urban home. So no spreading to rural areas.

tia
las

[Yavin4]

1. If you are a carrier without symptoms...

you could spread the virus to those rural communities and wipe them out.

[LAS14]

2. If you're going there to shelter in place, which was my assumption, you won't...

... transmit anything to anyone.

[SoonerPride]

9. Unless your vacation home has food for 3 months

You are going to go to local stores to buy provisions and “essentials” thus bringing your possible contagion with you.

Stay in place means stay where you are right now and don’t freaking go on vacation.

[LakeArenal]

19. Gasoline as well.

[we can do it]

24. What if you develop symptoms after you're there?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Export infection to rural areas. More accidents, more people at stores & gas. Non-essential. . . .nt

[brewens]

4. They end up slamming the small local stores for one thing. A couple of towns have been

surprised by people fleeing the lockdowns. Out of season when they weren't prepared. They figure they would rather ride out the lockdown at their favorite vacation spot, but the locals are also supposed to be laying low. They have more people around when they do have to go out.

[gibraltar72]

5. One reason is to keep people who don't have an escape

from thinking how fucking unfair this is. Hard to be in this together when people have to make unequal sacrifice. Also not drag it around with you.

[demmiblue]

6. The potential of overwhelming smaller healthcare facilities that have limited resources. n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

11. +1000s

n/t


#newrostrong

[mindem]

7. In many cases

they have the potential to carry this crap to their vacation homes with them. Stay in place!!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Spreading the virus to the small towns that support the vacation homes.

I am aware of a specific instance in my state where a person with the virus went to her cabin up north and proceeded to spend time shopping and socializing in the nearby town, causing the first recorded instance of the virus in that county - which is a part of the state that doesn't have a lot of health care resources.

[riversedge]

12. whow.

[Yonnie3]

10. Prevent them from taking the virus with them

They may be leaving an area with a higher concentration of infections and then buying fuel, groceries and supplies at their destination. If they are infected and contagious they will spread the infection. If they develop acute symptoms they will strain the sparse medical resources in the vacation area.

[essme]

13. We have gone to our place

in the mountains....but, we took our food in, did not go out-- and because it is so close to home, did not get gas.

We would not dream of going to the grocery store in this little town right now.

[tanyev]

14. If we had quick, accurate, easily available TESTING, it wouldn't be as much of a risk.

When the hell is that ever going to happen?

[abqtommy]

15. Any travel means exposing others and being exposed. This does not support minimizing

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

infections. I know I figuratively kiss my ass goodbye every time I leave to take care of any necessary
business like shopping for groceries or picking up prescriptions.

[LAS14]

28. No, it doesn't. If you stay in your car, door to door, you don't expose any one. nt

[abqtommy]

29. There might be someone who can manage that. If so, more power to them...

[Voltaire2]

34. And how do you get supplies?

Oh right, you send your infected servants out to fetch them for you. or if you are forced to do your own chores because you are 'roughing it", you bring your infected ass to the grocery store.

I suppose there exist some vacation homes that are stocked for disaster and who's owners would in fact never have to leave. I assume they also have a complete infirmary equipped to handle a covid emergency, and the owners will also bring qualified medical staff with them. In that case sure, they pose no new burden on the local resources.

[LAS14]

41. We bring them from home as we always do. Or, we might go to....

... the grocery store, mask in place, staying 6 ft away as much as possible, as we do here.

[Voltaire2]

56. And you are back to draining local resources.

And bringing your infection with you. To a small community with very limited resources.

Just stay where you are. It is really a simple concept.

[LAS14]

58. Draining local resources, or putting money into the local economy? Anyway, we grow over...

... half of our year's supply of vegetables. Our trips to the grocery store would be multiplied if we didn't depend on our freezer. Life is not always simple. But I do understand the issue of overloading local hospitals. In our case, our plan would be to hop in the car and pass the local hospital to head home at the first glimmer of a symptom.

[Voltaire2]

60. it appears you just dont understand why you ought to remain where you are instead of

traipsing around the country.

It has been explained to you patiently all across this thread.

Apply your proposed behavior to everyone else. Do you see the problem now?

[intrepidity]

16. The answer: Limited Local Resources (medical, grocery)

That is the best and most rational reason: these communities are not equipped for it.

[Voltaire2]

17. These vacation homes are typically in rural areas with very limited healthcare and other resources.

So the rich fly in, bringing their covid infections with them, spreading the disease as they travel, then proceed to buy up all the groceries and other supplies, and when the sick overflow the hospitals, they fly out to somewhere else not yet a total disaster.

Yeah I don't see the problem, do you?

What part of shelter in place is confusing?

[pinkstarburst]

18. Several things

1) People need to stay where they are at. Otherwise they show up at their vacation spot, get gas, get groceries, and spread the infection to the locals. Not cool. Shelter in place means everyone. Not just poor people.

2) Small, rural communities have hospitals and grocery stores that are built for a capacity of small, rural communities. They had a story on this where all these Londoners were flocking to parts of Scotland and the Scots were like, "Hey, we have ONE doctor in this entire region and ZERO ventilators and NO ability to airlift anyone out who gets covid-19. Please don't come." So having a whole bunch of people from the cities fleeing to rural areas will take up food supplies (yes, even if you initially take your own) and put strain on the local medical system should you get sick. Everyone needs to shelter in place where they live.

[getagrip_already]

20. Fear and loathing mostly....

By self quarantining you are ensuring you aren't dragging anything around with you/ By getting out of a high risk environment, you are reducing the load on those facilities because your risk of getting infected in place are actually much higher in a city.

Plus once you emerge healthy, you can spend money in that area and help support the local economy and relief efforts.

But you have to keep those privileged rich people out of your neighborhoods at all cost.

So no, fleeing to a remote area isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is a NIMBY reaction from scared people. Apologies to scared people.

We USED to be one country. We USED to care about others, and when one area was struck with disaster we would all help. Now, we pit state against state, group against group, race against race. We ostracize others through our own irrational fears. We erect crosses to burn "others" on (mostly figuratively speaking). We lock people into plague zones and refuse to give them the services to protect themselves.

People still have a right to travel, if done safely.

Let's drop the NIMBY fear mongering. I'm not advocating dragging the virus from place to place, but I abhor the notion of "zones" you have to remain within.

[mindem]

33. How condescending

In my small, rural, "seasonal" town our two grocery stores are having major problems keeping things stocked. The last thing we need is a huge influx of extra non-residents exacerbating the problem. People need to keep their asses planted where they live. Period.

[getagrip_already]

35. you're welcome...

But hoarding isn't being done by people who aren't there. It is occurring anyway.

And these people (who own homes in many cases) already have every right to shop in any season as you do.

Sorry, it is still a raise the drawbridge reaction. You don't have the right or moral authority to tell people where to live or when.

I know that is upsetting to some, but so are civil rights, equal housing, and non-segregated schools.

And no, I don't own a second home. I'm personally happy in mine at the moment.

[mindem]

36. Bullshit

Your attitude is exactly the same as the Operation Gridlock misfits in Michigan, but that's OK, they had every right to do it. People who are refusing to follow social distance guidelines have every right to do it, but hey, that's ok, just shut up and accept it. Exercising a right isn't always the right thing to do. It so happens, in Minnesota, we have stay in place. Governor Walz’s office said in a statement when asked about heading to summer cabins - “Staying home helps protect your neighbors from spreading COVID-19 and also avoids crowding rural medical facilities. Avoiding this kind of travel makes us all safer and healthier.”

[getagrip_already]

40. No, far from it.. personal attacks won't make your point though....

I'm saying that if you travel somewhere and hole up for 14 days with no symptoms, science says you are just as good to go out with precautions as anyone else. You have integrated into a new community.

That is your right, and all the fear won't change that.

It is a far cry from the idiots out protesting and violating personal space. Btw, those are locals, not visitors.

And you are welcome also.

[2naSalit]

46. And where would you be getting tested?

If you are going out without being tested, 14 days is not going to cut it. People are still testing positive after 14 days.

[getagrip_already]

51. science disagrees with you....

That is the current recommendation. If you go 14 days without any symptoms, you are not contagious. Should that be 3 weeks? 4? Then scientists should be the pones to benchmark that. Not you or me.

I'm fine with whatever the recommendations are, but they are not for not letting people relocate safely.

[MrsCoffee]

37. You don't have the moral authority to tell people to wander as they wish during a pandemic.

I know that is upsetting to some, like the Ohio walking dumb protesters, but so is being on a ventilator or not being able to say goodbye to a loved one in the hospital.

[getagrip_already]

39. You are mixing metaphores here.... And you are still welcome

I'm saying it is perfectly safe to travel somewhere and hole up for 14 days, and if no symptoms, emerge and join the new community.

I'm not advocating for anyone wander as they wish, out in public.

Two completely different scenarios.

People still have constitutional rights. They can still choose where they want to live. As long as they do it safely within the confines of established scientific protocols, you don't have the right to stop them.

[MrsCoffee]

42. No it's not perfectly safe.

It’s ridiculous to assume one could just up and move without any risk to themselves or others during a pandemic. FFS scientific protocols call for staying home and not traveling because scientific protocols take into account mode of transmission. You seem to think people can vacuum pack themselves into a little ball and teleport to their new destination which would be a self sustaining utopia.

[getagrip_already]

47. You just disproved your own claim....

Science does call for staying home, but doesn't say where that home has to be. Traveling point to point in a car without stopping is not putting anyone at risk. Staying isolated in a home is not putting anyone at risk.

What you are in effect arguing is that we should erect districts where people are restricted.. Urban ghettos. Put up fences and don't allow anyone to leave.

That was done in europe once. It didn't end well.

The right wing fever swamp is actually calling for this right now. Lock up ethnic communities so they can't travel and use hospitals in another area. Let them die in place essentially.

So no, it is your arguments that aren't based in science or humanity. Sure, stay inside, don't come in contact with others. Good advice, but it doesn't force you to stay where you currently are.

This is just fear and loathing. It doesn't make sense, and the science doesn't support it. We here in MA aren't tracing contacts with new yorkers causing community transmission, at least not at a rate that is significant. It is coming from local residents. Before anyone was looking, our initial infections came from international travelers. But that vector was locked down and now transmission is community based only.

So science doesn't say what you think it says.

[MrsCoffee]

54. I'm sure Jarvanka would like to borrow all your arguments.

But I guess that’s just me hating on the rich again.

If you don’t have to travel, don’t.

[2naSalit]

48. +1

[womanofthehills]

57. Non residents are coming to our small town grocery store

Anyway. People are coming in from larger towns to buy up all our meat and beans. Grocery store had to put a limit of 2.

[pinkstarburst]

61. That assumes you're healthy

Plus once you emerge healthy, you can spend money in that area and help support the local economy and relief efforts.

Except, not everyone emerges healthy after 14 days.

Please see Jackson Hole, WY, where they've had numerous cases of non-locals importing the virus. Or was your plan to drive there, and in the event you get sick, get back in your car, have contact with exactly no one, and drive straight back where you came from? Somehow I doubt it. And the small rural towns don't have the medical infrastructure to handle all these cases.

[2naSalit]

21. Well. out here where a lot of trophy homes are...

When they showed up, they cleaned out our few grocery stores. They also doubled, at least, our population putting a strain of our infrastructure like our healthcare facilities that they aren't paying for. Aside from that, many were already infected when they showed up so they will get sick sooner and fill up our small, rural hospitals and still be there when we locals get sick. So where are we going to go? And how were we supposed to stock up when all the stores' shelves are already empty by the time we get there?

Take a look at Blaine County in Idaho where Sun Valley/Ketchum are, and Jackson Hole, WY, or Big Sky, MT where there are so many trophy homes and vacation rentals that they are the majority of the cases in in those counties, already. Most of the people who end up in the hospital stay there for weeks. Some of these hospitals have fewer than five ICU beds.

That's what the problem is. And a lot of people who don't wear masks when they are shopping in our stores won't wear masks either. I encounter several every time I have to venture out.

[getagrip_already]

22. The examples you use all were active before alarms were raised....

Massachusetts was also nailed in a similar fashion. Our initial infections (massive numbers) came from a single biotech conference that brought in lots of international attendees. Hundreds of cases have been traced to that one event.

But that was before anyone was looking for it.

More recent contact tracing is showing that although we are very close to NYC and CT, our community transmissions are not being traced to new yorkers bringing the virus in. They are being traced to locals interacting in the workplaces that are still open.

As for ppe, well, the middle of the country has a huge problem there. You can't blame wyoming visitors for refusing to wear masks. I'd be willing to bet most residents won't.

So whether I'm sheltering in my home, or somewhere else, I'm not a burden to anyone. I could actually be a resource.

The rich (I'm not, but I'm not getting sick either) will never be a burden on your local resources. They will evac to a state of the art private hospital.

[2naSalit]

25. Not if they are already full.

They go to the nearest ER. Where are those 6-8000 life flight helis coming from? You have to be here to see it.

[getagrip_already]

43. You can buy medivac insurance.... they will life flight you anywhere..

But that is another issue. You were talking about the *very* rich, and they have the means to be taken anywhere to get treatment.

So lets talk about middle class. First of all, if they own property there they do have the right to be there. If they hole up for 14 days before going out in public, they aren't contagious (so sayeth the scientists - if 3 weeks is a better number and they say so - fine) and can go out.

At that point, if they get sick, it was from one of the locals. And yes, they will go to a local er, but that is their right as well. If there are no beds where they came from, they are still better off where they went.

So what you are in effect doing is claiming a public resource, paid for with state and federal dollars, as your own. Seems a bit provincial to me.

People do have the right to move. You don't have either the legal or moral right to stop them.

[MrsCoffee]

38. Delusional.

All of your risk taking relies on these rich people giving more fucks about something other than themselves.

You obviously don’t understand modes of transmission.

[getagrip_already]

44. I understand them completely, but not the point...

You seem to fixated on hating the rich (I am not one btw). But it isn't necessarily the rich who have vacation homes. A lot of middle class people do, although much more modestly.

Up here in new england, it is VERY common for people to have homes in maine and new hampshire and vermont. Cottages really. They call them camps. I don't, but I know several who do.

And they have every right to go to them, open them up for the season, and spend time there.

All of this anti-rich moral outrage is just misplaced. The science doesn't support not allowing people to re-locate assuming they observe quarantine rules.

Look, I get you resent it. You live in a small community that sees a surge in population in seasons where people want to be there. But that is there right. They pay taxes and support the economy.

It isn't some virus spewing conspiracy to take something away from you. These are all shared resources and we are all americans.

Or would you rather trump establish urban districts and not let people leave? That is a proposal in the right swamp fever community. Put up fences around immigrant communities and not let them leave. Let them stay at home instead of clogging hospitals.

Same argument, different theater. And that is where I fear this emotion will drive us. It will be couched in "this is how we reopen society safely". It will cause heartless suffering and death.

And yes, that is what you are ultimately supporting.

[MrsCoffee]

49. I think it's selfish.

Rich, poor, middle class.... I don’t care....

If you don’t have to travel. Don’t.

That is what I am ultimately supporting.

I would never advocate taking chances of spreading something so devastating to other areas just because you can.

[2naSalit]

53. Ummm...

they rarely pay taxes here. Ever heard of farm subsidies? Got five acres? Run a few cows on the property for a few weeks and call it a ranch, you can borrow the cows... presto, no property taxes.

This ain't New England with which I am very familiar.

[we can do it]

23. Limited facilities and resources?

[Takket]

26. Govrnor Whitmer addressed this in Michigan because I had the same question.........

The issue is many people from Detroit area have cottages up north and may want to go "hide" up there until this passes in the rural North of michigan. the problem is you dramatically increase the population in areas that simply do not have the medical facilities to deal with an outbreak. the idea is to keep people distributed in such a way as to maximize the available facilities.

in the long run people who want to go up north can go up north and no one is really going to stop them.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Where I live, they'll shop for supplies and if they get sick, they'll be a drag on resources we

don't have here. I live in a county with no ICU beds, no ventilators and no specialists to treat people.

[Strelnikov_]

30. An example . . the only ICU in Northeast Minnesota is Duluth

And they only have 12 beds (pre-Corona).

Basically, the pre-Corona model is anything needing an ICU within a 150 mi. radius gets transported.

Typical of most rural areas.

[whistler162]

31. J. Geils Band said it best

[Baclava]

32. Good news for FL? Snow birds all flew home early!

[qwlauren35]

50. One thing

In Norway, they said no because the rural hospitals would not be able to handle outbreaks.

[getagrip_already]

52. Some here are advocating the creation of urban ghettos ala Warsaw during the holocaust...

You actually have a lot of company in the fever swamps of the right. They are trying to push for urban "districts" to be established where people are not allowed to leave. You can guess where these lines would be drawn.

They are arguing that the people who live in these areas are leaving for various reasons, infecting others, and to get health care, taking it away from areas where those resources exist.

They would lock people in and let them fend for themselves.

In essence, that is what the "don't come to your own homes in our communities" are saying.

Bottom line is that science doesn't say you can't relocate. Just that if you move, you should self quarantine for 14 days.

We are one country. People still have rights. It is selfish to say "you can't come here" when people own property or have family,

Sorry, that is just not right.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Rural areas have no hospitals

So if they bring COVID to the country and the locals catch it, the locals are dead.

[fishwax]

59. preventing unnecessary travel and keeping small infrastructures from being overwhelmed

for instance, here in New Jersey a lot of people have second homes on the Jersey Shore. But they don't want people going there because the infrastructure of those shore towns can't handle the influx if any of those people are infected.

[maxsolomon]

62. Rich people are already at their 2nd homes.

They went a month ago.

[Blue_Adept]

63. It's the same as the "elite" that flew into South American countries and brought it with them

Jet setting in europe and the UK, flying back to Peru and Argentina and spreading the virus.

STOP TRAVELING.