Goldorak

Not most, but some.

fransknorge

Actually they are closed to foreigners. They will stay open but with very strict requirements and for locals only:
https://planetski.eu/2020/12/02/aust...tine-measures/

orbitmic

Of course, such quarantine measures may well be deemed illegal in both countries if challenged. There would be no issue if Switzerland ends up having higher infection rates than other countries in the Schengen area, but if the measure is just based on Switzerland and Spain not closing their ski resorts whilst the German and French governments, for reasons that belong to them, arbitrated in favour of closing them in the same way they arbitrated in favour of opening many shops and high schools without a significant difference in incidence or positivity rates compared to other EU countries from which visitors would not be subject to a quarantine, then I suspect that national or EU courts will give the measures the treatment they deserve.

Sjoerd

I don’t think so. The pandemic is one of the extraordinary reasons countries may close borders or have checkpoints at intra-Schengen borders. During the first wave in March-May, the Belgian-Dutch border was closed to all but essential crossings (checked by police).

the810

With many countries in lockdown until early January, I'm not sure it really matters. If I have to be stuck at home anyway, I might as well take a holiday first.

I applaud Swiss for having the courage to stand up agains this nonsense. If it weren't for mask mandates, I would be on my way there to support the local economy.

orbitmic

Nope, that is an entirely different decision. You are right that there is absolutely no problem if France or Germany want to close their borders again due to Covid, but there is if they say they want to close it to Switzerland or Spain only without it being justified by a specific difference in risk (e.g. significantly higher infection rate, lower testing etc). In fact that argument of equity was specifically mentioned when justifying the measures that you mentioned during the first wave and explicitly cited by the EU when explaining why those measures of closed borders were acceptable.

This is precisely what makes me suspect that retaliatory measures based on a country refusing to close down ski resorts would most likely be struck down as unacceptable.

In short, a major crisis enables you to take protective measures, but it does not allow you to take them inequitably or on the basis of elements which are not demonstrably related to the threat that you are invoking.

KARFA

Weren’t ski resorts significant super spreader venues before the first wave?

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...the-continent/

Gagravarr

I think it was the apres-ski parties that were mostly the problem, not the socially distanced outdoor exercise on the slopes where most people were already wearing face coverings and gloves...

fransknorge

Apres-Ski parties, cramped lodging in often poor sanitary conditions for the seasonal workers, restaurants. But yes KARFA is correct, ski resorts were a major factor in spreading the pandemic in Europe in February.

fransknorge

While we are on the topic of Switzerland, excess deaths are now reaching 50%. Meaning current mortality is increase by 50% compared to a standard December. For those who wants to go there to support the economy, be aware as ICU are full the official recommendations are to have up to date wills and to have given thoughts on organ donations.

orbitmic

Indeed, which makes the French strategy (ski resorts are actually open but not ski lifts, so apart from Nordic skiing which goes on normally, you can still get the promiscuity of 20 students squatting in a 2 bedroom flat intended for 4 people, but they will spend all their time inside as they can't get on the slopes) particularly bizarre...

So yes, some specific ski resorts - particularly Ischgl in Austria - were major problem areas during the Spring wave, but not really because of the "skiing" part but rather much of the surrounding elements from clubbing and pub crawling to promiscuous accommodation etc.

NickB

I would have thought that part of the calculation was that your hypothetical group of 20 students will simply not go if they can't ski and can't go to bars, restaurants or clubs.

Beyond the ski resort context, one thing that I have always found strange in the French rules throughout the various periods of confinements is that they never asked for dormitories in hostels to be closed. I would have thought that strangers sharing a room throughout the night would have been a transmission risk given the length during which individuals are there, even if the dormitory is not ultra-high density.

NWIFlyer

In what must count as a major development, the UK started a vaccination programme this morning, with a 90-year-old lady being the first recipient at just after 6am local time this morning, earning rather more airtime than Andy Warhol might have predicted she was due in her lifetime.

There's a rolling BBC news report on their website which is detailing the roll out logistics, and what promises the government is making in terms of sharing data on the number of people vaccinated.

The vaccine being administered is from Pfizer/BioNTech, of which the UK currently holds stocks of 800k doses with more due.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55227103

florens

Overcrowding at ski resorts, some pictures:

Huge Queues For Verbier Lift - PlanetSKI

Curious to see how things will turn out in Switzerland. The confederation has said that protection concepts need to be abided by. Skiing itself is fine, but the infrastructure just isn't made for that many people. And if the government were to impose a reduction of capacities, many resorts will likely lose too much money and close altogether. We'll see

Sjoerd

They will simply rent a chalet or large apartment, stock up on beer and wine in the supermarket, and party at their accommodation.