UKH

Hospitals in Greater Manchester are treating "more Covid patients than at the peak of the first wave", resulting in non-urgent care being suspended.

The above is taken from a BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54854445

The article continues to say that: "Non-urgent hospital surgery and appointments will not go ahead as planned as coronavirus admissions have increased by 64 patients in a week".

I assume that the same pattern will follow in other areas. i.e. the situation will be replicated through most of England/UK in due course.
If that is true, should the climbing community voluntarily do something to ensure that they're not potentially adding to the problem by partaking in activities that could necessitate a Rescue/A&E/Hospital Admission/Surgery, etc. ?
I personally think so, but I'm fairly sure others might have a different opinion...

To the single Disliker thus far, care to say something to support your position?

Same question to Number 2 Disliker. Justify yourself! 

OK ill bite, being dislike number 6.

Firstly there's no need to shout 'Justify yourself!', I'm not a toddler who has stolen biscuits from the cupboard.

Secondly, I went climbing yesterday. I climbed some safe trad routes. Tomorrow I may go bouldering or Potter around on a shunt. Climbing doesn't have to be dangerous. You sound like some old Daily Mail reader ranting of the recklessness of climbing not only risking our own lives but the emergency setvices/mountain rescue too. Get a grip!

It's a cliche but the most dangerous part  of the day was driving to the crag, and no more dangerous than going for a bike ride or a run. and significantly less dangerous than going to a supermarket with the masses. 

Playing devil’s advocate a little here then... Was the BMC and many others on here wrong a few months ago when it was almost seen as high treason and very irresponsible to go climbing if, as reported, hospitals are in a much busier and possibly in require greater help in reducing demand than 6 months ago? 

Yes.

I second you sir.

Im happy for you to stay inside and wrap yourself in cotton wool, as you please.

As said earlier, were grown ups not little children who dont understand risks and how to effectively manage them. 

Nanny state or what.

"I personally think so, but I'm fairly sure others might have a different opinion..."

You're effectively preempting that this is a stupid thing to suggest.

I expect the disliker(s) dislike the idea of stopping climbing. Seems reasonable for climbers to dislike not climbing.

Its S#!T enough that the gyms have closed, now we have some namby pamby buffoon suggesting we shouldnt be going outside as well. 

I think there is a “normalisation” of attitudes to “the Rona” across the country. Many folk are not adopting the hair shirt approach of the first wave but instead working out how they can operate parts of their lives that are important to them in as normal a manner as possible. What the climbing community could do and probably has done is to tweak their personal risk assessments not to do that route that is a bit iffy or on the edge of their limit to minimise any chance of requiring urgent medical care. 

So the idea is take the "non-covid" elective stress out of the health service then? I assume you will be telling all the smokers to quit?

Considering how many people are killed or injured in car crashes, should people stop driving places?

Unless they really need to then in this English lockdown, yes....this is after all is in the guidelines. 

as someone who works in mental health, we've been overloaded for YEARS. people are suddenly shocked they'll have to wait a few months for a routine op, when children self-harming have 10 months waiting list to be assessed by psychiatrists currently (as has been the case for the past 2 years...) 

People also go to A&E for depression and panic attacks. If someone is feeling suicidal they should call an ambulance for themselves because treating your mental health is just as important as physical and it's not way a burden on resources because it is so vital.

If everyone stays in their houses for the next few months, doesn't get vitamin D they are likely to develop anxiety and depression as a result and mental health services are struggling to cope too (but will always try to the be there, we are just underfunded ) 

People need to look after themselves in whatever way they can to stay well physically AND mentally. The chances of having a climbing accident are lower than developing a mental health illness or depression (1 in 3..) ; and mental health usually is a longer and bumpier treatment process than fixing a broken wrist. tis a balance.

Could reference that claim please.

I'm sure it can be referenced pretty easily!

Even at '1 in 3' I expect that, that is hardly the tip of the iceberg. I'd say that at least 70-80% of my close friends and family members have had at least some issues, no matter how small with some kind of anxiety, depression or mental illness.

I've been a keen climber for over 40 years.  In that time I've only needed A&E as a result of ice climbing and climbing wall accidents.  Therefore during lockdown I won't be going ice climbing or to a climbing wall

There are over 1500 people dying every day in England and Wales currently.

Govt. says 300+ are dying each day currently (over the most recent released weekly data) from the virus. We know this is a gross exaggeration because of "where covid was mentioned on the death certificate" i.e. a positive test but not necessarily the cause of death.

Currently 17-25% of virus infection comes from hospitals, back in the peak some trusts had 30-40% hospital acquired infection rates (some more than 40%). Main reasons - staff hygiene, cross-contamination, lack of isolation of covid patients and staff in isolation hospitals, social interaction of staff, logistics of shared computer and phone use.

What else would you propose to ban, the NHS? Death in general?

DC

Go on then.

Can I ask where you are getting those numbers from, please? I type with keen professional interest.

How many climbers needed hospital treatment last week due to climbing injuries?

E

Really? How do we "know" this is a gross exaggeration?

The government daily stats are nothing to do with death certificates - they're people dying within 28 days of a positive swab for SARS-CoV-2. The deaths with covid on the certificate take 2 weeks to appear in the weekly ONS stats.

In the first wave deaths within 28 days of diagnosis < deaths with covid on the certificate < excess deaths so the 300+ deaths per day is more likely to be an underestimate.

Its called life and part of being human, there are ups and there are downs, its all pretty normal, thats why its good to talk about it with others, once people understand how normal it is, it helps them cope, though some are a bit upset that they are not a special case. Obviously there are some very ill people, but not 70-80%, and to even suggest that 70-80% of people are ill does a great disservice to those who genuinely are.

7.5*

*UKC bogus statistic.

Sounds about right

So each A&E in the UK last week saw 0.041 climber patients.

E

"Lookin oot ma windys" in Glasgow I'm not convinced abstaining from the hills will be as difficult to swallow for people as it was in March/April/May.............

Quite aside from being the civic minded thing to do, if you live up north right now I would say it is in one's individual best interests to keep their  probability of needing urgent medical care as low as reasonably possible for at least the next 2 weeks at least, before re-evaluating.

I think that comes down to making sensible individual judgements on risk - not just on climbing but on driving, on cycling, on DIY/gardening and everything else.  It doesn't mean stopping anything but it does mean not doing things on the riskier end.

Personal example of making a bad decision:  Last week I went for a long walk in my hiking boots.  I forgot to tighten them after a mile or so, and my feet have gone soft as shite since lockdown. There was a lot of ascending and level bog trot in the wilds of Upper Teesdale.  By the time I noticed I'd lost the outer two layers of my right heel to a giant blister which itself had peeled.  I ended up doing the last three miles barefoot on asphalt rather than put the boots back on.   I'm pretty pissed at myself because it's left the sort of wound that's hard to look after whilst going to work, entertaining small children and so on.  The absolute last thing that I want right now is to get an infection and have to go to the GPs or hospital.   I dare say if I'd gone climbing instead I'd have stuck to easy routes and not come away with a big chunk of skin missing.

Anecdotally it's much easier to get injured on the more mundane, "everyday" parts of life as you're not paying attention to risk management.  Probably a good idea to be more mindful for now...

no.

You could start with this:

Media published freedom of information request, will be either Times, Mail, Grauniad or Indescribably. Check out Dr David Nicholl.

https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/20/5/e173.full.pdf

Nosocomial means infection from hospital. Then NHS England website. Hard work.

DC

The ONS stats show around 90% of people dying with COVID-19 had this as the primary cause of death...

Look at it this way: Anecdotal evidence suggests a large percentage of us has already been exposed to the virus over the past year. This wave is increasing rapidly through the population, realistically it is unstoppable, so no point in kicking the can down the road and screwing the economy, jobs and livelihoods.

There will come a point when everyone will have been exposed, or will have developed antibodies/resistance/immunity as per all the other ailments we suffer and this is a flu type virus, many of those.

So eventually, for all the daily deaths (Eng and Wales - up to 2000 in winter, sub 1500 in summer), all death certificates will say "Covid on the death certificate" regardless of cause of death. 

The end point therefore is that every death will be a covid death. However, the WHO states that out of 60 million deaths this year globally, only 1+ million are due to covid. Get the point?

DC

Too many replies to answer individually, so I will answer this one and see what people think.
As it stands in the Greater Manchester area, one is too many.
The same applies to any activities that carry unnecessary risk - Driving/riding a motorbike for pleasure, dodgy DIY, etc.
On a more general note, people have mentioned the mental health side of climbing.  The Lockdown is only for a month, how do you think climbers managed when there were no indoor walls and basically shut up shop for the winter? 

Speaking as a very keen climber for many years I can testify that based on a sample of around 150 years of frequent climbing (mostly trad/bouldering) amongst me and my coven (I'm not sure what the correct collective noun is) this has resulted in one trip to casualty, no callouts to MRT and the occasional call out for car breakdowns.

Within the same group bikes, cars, football, trips and falls in a domestic or urban setting, illness and assaults have amassed vastly more visits to hospital.

Therefore, I conclude, based on my tiny sample, the anecdotal evidence of this community, reading MRT logs, and wider statistical evidence of injuries in sport that climbing contributes very little to the accident rate compared with the baseline for normal activity and is essentially in the noise.

Causal walkers in the the hills during winter, on the other hand, should probably consider their actions during covid (but then they should do this anyway).

My god, so much nonsense you don't know where to start... 

Totally disagree.  The evidence points to the exact opposite to what you claim:

• University outbreak after university outbreak spread like wildfire in September/October with doubling times even shorter than the March outbreak.  This demonstrated very clearly that without the risk control measures, we're right back to square one.
• Meat packing plant outbreaks show likewise.

> So eventually, for all the daily deaths (Eng and Wales - up to 2000 in winter, sub 1500 in summer), all death certificates will say "Covid on the death certificate" regardless of cause of death. 

Nonsense and irrelevant:

• Nonsense - when I die, I very much doubt my death certificate is going to list the chicken pox or mumps on my cause of death.  Likewise, if someone had covid when they got run over by a bus, their death certificate is going to say "got run over by a bus" and not list covid.
• Irrelevant - the death figures from "death within 28 days of a positive test" will not be affected by the virus eventually having infected most people - unless this happens within a month which is close to the nightmare-level scenario and isn't going to happen.

Anecdotal evidence, as opposed to say antibody studies and the evidence of rapid spread in the population once control measures are relaxed?

I would reply in more detail but Wintertree has already done that.

Anyway, with the wave "increasing rapidly" through the population, at current R approaching 1 and roughly 50,000 new infections per day we've only got about 3 years left before everyone's had it.

Thanks. I have no problem with the study you link to, but I would urge extreme caution in extrapolating from a single outbreak (8 of 21 covid patients likely to have acquired infection after admission) to the entire NHS during the spring epidemic. I have no doubt there was a serious and sustained period of hospital-acquired infection in acute care during this period, but I thought I may have missed a larger, more comprehensive study.

You're not going to reply individually to each dislike are you? You could be here for quite a while... 

It's likely to be replicated in patches across the 'Northern Powerhouse' and in isolated hospitals elsewhere but the rest of England is largely likely to be spared.

Jk

Well many went climbing, a friend of mine who is 93 tells me that when he was active, they did not go winter climbing, they just went climbing. Also many climbers went caving.

TBH, I suspect you are flogging a dead horse here.

With hindsight, yes it was an over reaction. We didn't have hindsight in spring and we were facing the loss of our health system so no, at the time it was a proportionate response to what we knew and didn't.

Jk 

Certainly  they should attend A&E if unable to directly access appropriate mental health services, but no, they shouldn’t automatically ring for an ambulance.

Ambulance services aren’t the free taxi service to the hospital. They’re hugely overstretched at the moment and in the vast majority of cases, an actual taxi is more appropriate.

While appreciating that caution is advised when hospitals are busy avoiding things that keep you healthy isn't.

In short all forms of exercise carry risk of injury. Climbing tends to be low risk but with high consequences in the event of an accident. Whereas injury from cycling, running, are far more likely but with lower consequences. In general I find climbers better at managing that risk than say weekend walkers going out ill prepared.

If I was concerned enough about the impact my climbing could potentially have on hospital intakes then I would in all probability refrain from cooking food (potential from burning), driving, cycling, gardening (seriously I have put my back out twice doing this and been hospitalised on three occasions from mower and hedgecutter injuries), drinking, moving furniture, D-I-Y, walking over uneven ground, using ladders, etc. All things that have caused me more injury than I have ever done climbing

Er... we just went climbing. I well remember Johnny Dawes punching through snow to finish on Wednesday Climb at Burbage.

My point was that the weather is most likely gonna be crap anyway....

But aye, if you like.

If you feel that an example of poor judgement is some personal risk assessment for a hike that didn't take into account the change in softness of your feet, then I think that pretty much means stopping everything! 

That's not what I said.  What I said was "Anecdotally it's much easier to get injured on the more mundane, "everyday" parts of life as you're not paying attention to risk management.  Probably a good idea to be more mindful for now...".  

This was an example of me doing something mundane and not paying attention to the risks.  As a result I've got a giant wound that is taking its sweet time to heal.  My suggestion was not to stop doing things, but "to be a bit more mindful for now" - I should have been more mindful of my feet regardless, doubly so right now as there's a very real prospect of significantly reduced access to healthcare in a couple of weeks time in my area.  It doesn't matter what someone is doing - climbing, driving, walking, DIY, gardening, cooking - now is a good time to try and be more mindful when doing things - not to stop doing them.  Especially if you live in the North of England...

I hope that distinction is clear.

92 dislikes vs 13 likes. I suspect the majority of people (87.6% of UKC) in the country don’t understand cumulative risk. 
 

And that is why treating people like adults and voluntary lockdowns in the U.K. can’t work unless you’re only expecting around 10% of people to follow simple instructions. 
 

Not a good argument at all.  This will help the Heath service, years down the line.

I wasn't arguing anything,  just observing.  The OP was around risk and choice in these lockdown times. I was just wondering how much choice should be allowed or indeed removed at the moment.

BTW smoking isnt only a long term risk if you already have COPD or asthma. 

Your choices have been temporarily reduced and limited in order to protect the long term health and prosperity of the country. 

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

No one has free choice. Ever. 
 

If you don’t do it now, even great restrictions will be placed on you and probably not by anyone’s choice, not even the government’s. 

Get that, and agree entirely. 

We should all be thinking about our own behaviour and act responsibly, and we will all decide what that means. My default was an observation about smoking as a risk factor which has an element of choice. Not surprising really, dad died of cancer and mum has pretty bad COPD caused by smoking so I have a bit of built in prejudice there....

I think it’s hard for people to understand because the self imposed restriction of climbing you are advocating will have an absolutely tiny impact on the health service. Not going climbing will not make a noticeable difference and is not even against the law/ guidance. I could voluntarily deny myself the right to go out the countryside and engage in a pursuit, but whilst people are still free to pop to the supermarket to buy scratch cards, head to the Range to buy Christmas decorations or risk injury cycling I think I’ll exercise my own judgement. This coming from someone who hasn’t been to a single pub/ restaurant etc. all summer as it seemed like a pointlessly risky behaviour encouraged by the government. I think me continuing to Boulder alone will have less impact than my choice to avoid others and not go to shops for pointless stuff. 

Ah more of this don't go climbing nonsense. 

I was vilified last time around for arguing there was nothing wrong with going climbing as it was probably far safer than cycling which was somehow fine.

I'm glad to see the general consensus has come round this time and people are seeing the light.

Maybe it's because we're "allowed" this time around as there is a certain "must follow the rules" teachers pet brigade on here but hopefully it's more because people have gained some experience and can see the bigger picture now.

Also it's a little harder to care this time around as the weather is likely to be pants unlike last lockdown's amazing weather.

I look forward to your reaction when the situation of present measures ( in both the spirit and the letter)  being ignored by people results in a nationwide 5k  travel ban. Then you'll have to decide if you're a teacher's pet or a complete rebel.

Sure, I'll stop climbing, just as soon as:

Everyone stops smoking

Everyone stops drinking

Every overweight person goes on a strict diet

etc. etc.

As I said above. People don’t understand cumulative risk. 
 

Example. Throw a die. There’s a 1 in 6 chance you’ll land a 6. No problem. That’s a small risk. Now get a 100 people to each throw a die at the same time. How many 6s will come up? It’s unlikely that you personally will get a 6, but several people will. And you are part of that statistic - it could be you. The more people throwing dice, the more 6s. 
 

Add in your travel to crag, travel is supposed to be reduced to essential and local travel. For a reason. The more car journeys. The more accidents. The likelihood of you having that accident is very small, the likelihood of there being an accident on any one day is so high, it’s practically a certainty due to the number of people and journeys. So limit the number of journeys and you limit the number of accidents. 
 

You are part of those statistics, even if you think you’re not. It doesn’t matter how low your personal risk is, it all adds up. 

I don’t think any of those measures done in the next 4 weeks will change the short term impact on the health service. That’s a completely different story. 
 

You’re being asked to limit your travel to local for exercise. For a 30 days. 4 of them have passed already. 
 

If we all wait for someone else to do something - then it’ll never happen. 
 

Be the change. 

The crux of it is that quite a few "climbers" on this forum don't seem to actually want to go climbing, nor do they want anyone else to despite the minimal risk.

But I’m not waiting for anyone to do anything. I’m going beyond the guidance in ways I think will be actually helpful - not going to the shops, extremely careful following social distancing at work etc. I had to go to the pharmacy in a supermarket and was shocked by the number of family groups in there, people not observing SD, buying booze and nothing else etc. So if I choose to follow the guidance and travel locally to exercise locally I think I’m doing enough. Particularly as my workplace is still open, which is absolutely the number one risk for me and nothing I can do anything about. I think lockdown regulations will continue for over 4 weeks and it’s not going to be suddenly, magically safe to travel on 2nd December but not before. 

Wow. Nowt to do with the topic in question but I find that most remarkable. In over 60 years of fell walking and climbing and mountaineering I have never tightened my laces after a mile or so - I didn't know it was a thing (is it?). I've had blisters once. What am I doing right?

You either have boots that fit better than mine or you’re better at lacing them first time?

I haven’t had this problem in 20 years so I’m guessing at what the problem was.  They’re time served gortex boots that haven’t bothered me in the 8 years I’ve had them, including walking up the cinder cone in Lassen (some of the most awkward walking I’ve done - as you pump the cinders down hill with every step).

I do think climbing is the wrong hobby for some people 

I'm not quite 93 Steve but (just) closer to 80 than 70 and I concur. in the 60s and 70s we went climbing every chance we got. If it was Feb and we got to the Lakes or Wales and there was no snow about we went rock climbing. Extra jumper and a pair of Dachsteins and off you go. I well recall chipping the ice off the start of the first pitch of Hubris on Deer Bield, Hubris (E1 5a) then taking an impromptu semi-hanging stance in the middle of the next pitch to bring my pal up whilst me fingers thawed out. We finished the route though. You wouldn't, however, catch me doing it now. I guess it was just a better alternative to sitting around the hut.

I don't live in England.

But what you say is true. I'm just having a frustrating week so decided to take it out on UKC!

Closer to 80, wow, you wear it well, I was chatting with my climbing partner and we both agreed that the best route we have done in Morocco was yours at Fylde crag.

I would love to introduce to my friend, he lives close to you, and I bet you would have much to speak of.

 

In that case i am definitely going to ride my motorbike to the hardware shop, do some DIY, then ride my bike to go climbing. Just to tick you off.

I could of course drive there but its more pleasurable on my motorbike

I've ended up in A&E three times in my life. Once was from a bouldering fall, once from a ju jitsu fight and once, to my unending shame, was a step aerobics accident. I've come to the conclusion that it might just be me who's dangerous rather than the activity! That said, it didn't stop me from getting out to Gisburn on the MTB today and having an enjoyable, if somewhat soggy, blast around. But I definitely felt more aware than usual of the risks and, as a result, was riding more cautiously than usual.

If I understand properly what you are implying in your dig at Factor XXXX -

Minimising the risk in climbing is about looking after yourself ;  minimising the risk of  virus transmission is about concern for others.

Blimey Steve you'll make me blush . . . Don't look me age and author of your favourite climb in Morocco - praise indeed. Thank you. Means a lot since my catalogue of contributions to the climbing world of such quality as Sez Les has just the one entry! I was very pleased to see the magnificent new Anti-Atlas guide from the Alsford/Donnithorne/Sergeant stable not only includes it but ups the grade and the stars! 

I've always been a rebel, rules for me are guidance, generally it makes sense to follow them, in other situations it doesn't. I'm not some outlaw or anything but I'm not the sort of person who'll sit at broken red traffic light for hours because the light bulb says stop.

If I find myself in a situation where a general rule has been applied yet my specific situation means breaking the rule doesn't do the harm the rule was put in place to prevent or in fact causes less harm than following the rule then I'll break it if I deem it right and I'm unlikely to suffer consequences.

Mean how harmful was the spread of the mantra "don't put extra strain on the NHS" that was the main justification for not climbing? How many people died or ended up needing serious extra care because they didn't go in for checks or scans, or didn't get report feeling unwell until it was too late? 

I suspect it caused a lot more harm than a few sports injuries in the largely empty areas of the hospitals which weren't focused on treating covid.

I'm obviously in the minority here and what I might say next might well result in a further onslaught of Dislikes, etc. 

Let's clarify my viewpoint:

I have no real problem with people climbing during the Lockdowns and during the pandemic as a whole as long as they're sensible in what they are doing in terms of throttling back on their activities. i.e. I wouldn't expect people to be still doing chop routes.  I assume that most would agree with that?

I would also like to think that people would look at the news and moderate their climbing (and other activities) based on such things as transmission rate and how much pressure the NHS is currently/potentially under. i.e. If the NHS is reporting that they're struggling to cope, then I would expect people to react to that by doing their best not to be a contributing factor to that pressure.
I assume that most would agree with that?

In essence, if the Country is currently enjoying a controllable low level of Covid-19 with a clear outcome of no virus, then fine, go climbing.
However, if the Country is struggling to control the virus, is it really too much to ask that we as climbers just err on the side of caution and not climb for a month or so?





 

Maybe I'm a responsible person that realises that climbing isn't more important than potentially putting unneeded pressure on the NHS?

I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else. So I won't try and take the moral high ground and dictate what others should do.

You want to sit at home then fine, that's your choice. 

That's not my choice. 

I'm a responsible person that realises that 1000 people having a much needed good day out and going climbing is far more important than the downside of 1 of those 1000 ending up in A and E for a couple of days, even in a pandemic.

I do agree with you there.

I have held back from having tinnitus and headaches checked out. Prefering to self-medicate instead. Partially to avoid adding to the NHS but also because a) it is hard to get seen and b) it increases my exposure to other people. I did risk a check up on a lump in my throat earlier in the year but was told it was nothing to worry about.

As an infectious disease epidemiologist, what concerns me far more than people going climbing is the apparent flouting of the guidance on 'socialising', painfully obvious from social media, the logbooks and photos on here in recent days.

"In general, you must not meet with another person socially or undertake any activities with another person. However, you can exercise or meet in a public, outdoors space with people you live with, your support bubble (or as part of a childcare bubble), or with one other person."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#meeti...

Climbing/bouldering in a group of more than two (if you are from separate households) is not permitted.*

Also note the physical distancing advice -- that would be incompatible with any meaningful spotting for boulderers or headpointers alike. 

Edit: * see support bubble exception.

Do you believe that to be true, literally?

I don't.

You're keen to see the Lake District tourist industry back at full strength I take it? 

This must have passed you by;

The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

I'd add that having drunken parties indoors is massively more risky than bouldering spotting with physical contact. Nottingham police are issuing £10,000 fines for egregious breaches of the regulations and the initial news of that hasn't stopped more people from being kn*bs and getting fined.

I'm also with Mark on both aspects.  I always thought climbers with obsessions about reducing risk as much as possible were in self-denial and in the wrong sport. I also think pious lecturing of others who are not in breach of any government advice are plain wrong. Such behaviour also goes against the spirit of access to the outdoors and the clear physical and mental health benefits of outdoor exercise.

If I had a crag near me I would climb but I prefer to follow the advice and walk locally. Good luck to Mark with his local climbing, I'm sure he will be sensibly avoiding lines that could leave him in an overstretched A&E. 

What about all the sports that don't have a risk statement? Since you sent it to Mark I'd add that he never struck me as someone not responsible for his own actions and I've seen thousands in climbing who didn't seem to be (I cant remember the last time I climbed indoors and didn't see some irresponsible behaviour).

Well, yes, but I think it's important we all do what we reasonably can to limit transmission. Climbers are not immune from infection, and who know what they get up to when not climbing.

Presumably it is not so much the climbing that may be an issue but the associated travel.

The potential mixing with people from other areas that might cause virus transmission being the problem? 

This illustrates you don’t really understand the risks and processes fully. 
 

How does that person end up in A&E?

Sure, but if you can climb within the rules I see no reason not to, at the moment, and I think the risks attached to spotting for two people from different households are less than deliberately not spotting (and a rotating fall potentially leading to a trip to A&E); the risk for such contact outdoors if you hand sanitise where required is trivial.

Personally this summer I climbed well protected routes below my normal lead grade at a non honeypot locations as I didn't want to end up in hospital or piss off locals with parking.

Now, this would make a far more interesting thread "How many times I ended up in A&E, and how".

what are you talking about?

err... he falls of the rock!

Neither do you.  Up-thread you seemed to think the risk of ending up in A&E was 1 in 6 - if that's your experience then maybe you need to modify your climbing practices

Do we "know this is a gross exaggeration"? OK. I've a few spare minutes so I'll bite. All figures for England and Wales.

Agreed around 1500 people die each day from all causes. ONS figures suggest the 5 year average for week 43 (late October) is around 10,000 per week which is consistent with that:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriage...

So that's an average of 40,000 deaths per 28 days in normal (non-COVID) circumstances, out of a population of approx 60 million. So 1 in every 1500 people could normally expect to die in a four week period. 

Currently around 20,000 people are testing positive each day. So of those, only 13 or 14 would normally expect to die in a period when there was no COVID. But around 300 of those testing positive are actually dying per day. So your "gross exaggeration" is around 13 in 300. That's hardly "gross" I suggest.

I've assumed that the 20,000 testing positive are demographically representative of the population as a whole. That won't be entirely accurate, but unlikely to dramatically alter the outcome. We know those dying from COVID are skewed towards older age groups, as are those dying of anything, but I doubt there's much of a skew in those testing positive - probably pretty much representative of the population as a whole.

Martin

Ooo that's a good one.

Head butted a stone in our garden as a child

Hit by a car as a child

sliced tips of my fingers off with a lawnmower

sliced my leg with a pair of hedgecutters

rolled a ride-on lawnmower down a bankside (it landed on top of me)

concusion from being hit with a spade

Appendixitis (not A&E but still rushed in)

concusion from walking into a lampost

My only climbing injury was a sprained ankle for which I self-medicated. Edit: just remembered I put my back out slipping off an indoor bouldering wall. Didn't got to A&E but I did have physio for 6 months

That was an example using known probabilities of an every day scenario to simplify the explanation. I could have equally used people tossing a coin. 
 

And it didn’t just include the act of throwing the dice, it included the travel. 

Not disagreeing on the general risk level of climbing, but this is definitely not true.

To get three stitches in my tongue after biting into it in a particular awkward direction that meant it wouldn't heel by itself.  As the doctor kindly explained, the anaesthetic injections would hurt more than the stitching itself, but they were the only way to insure I wouldn't move whilst he put them in.  It was such an unusual procedure that he gather as many other sawbones as he could to watch.

To take a child to get their tongue inspected after they bit it badly at daycare.  What are the odds of that?

To take a child to have a grain of rice removed from their nose.  

Why? I would have thought that would be the case given the number of traffic accidents on the road?

I've visited A&E helping injured climbers many times more than I've been for myself for anything. I've been once for an actual climbing accident that happened to me: helicoptered with a suspected fractured foot when a torso sized rock broke off in a groove on a Gable descent ( shortly after foot and mouth when we were told to be careful with more than usual levels of loose rock).  My favourite climbing related A&E salutary lesson was when I was dancing for joy along a kerb with hands in pockets, having read a fantastic winter climbing forecast in Fort William, I tripped and landed head on kerb... suspected skull fracture. 

Because individual risk can’t be calculated from population risk. 

Anecdotal evidence may suggest that. However we now have actual evidence which does not. The following paper which examined seroprevalence studies among other tests over 45 countries suggests that around 5% of those populations had been infected by September.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

Gosh. you've had your money's worth Duncan.  

I've not troubled the NHS yet.  Ambulance and A&E when a large block came away and I decided to jump.  But Italy paid that one.  Thanks Italy.

Doesn’t seroprevalence look at antibodies. There’s evidence that large numbers of people 20-30% are asymptomatic - not presymptomatic. They wouldn’t have antibodies. 
 

Looking at the number of cases we have compared with hospital admissions would indicate in March a much greater number of infections than we have now.
 

But that’s an aside. It’s not about our individual risk of catching Covid and dying - it’s about spreading it to people who might die. 

I wasn't. Driving at speed is surely more dangerous than romping up a VS

Most of it down childhood impatience and working in an industry prone to risk

True, but driving at speed is surely more dangerous than romping up a VS

The outcome for both if anything goes wrong, is the same. 
 

You can’t look at an individuals’ risk when you are trying to manage the behaviour of a population.

60m people all have a different risk and a different outcome. It would be lovely if we could leave it up to every individual to sit down and calculate their individual risk and the risk they present to the rest of society. But none of us have that facility or the data required. And it’s dynamic data. Look out the window, roads are quiet, I’ll go for a drive. Works on individual case, but not if everyone does the same, all of a sudden the roads are packed. 
 

The crowds on Snowdon and at the beaches should be good evidence for that. No need for studies or anecdotal evidence. 

There are certainly a large number of accidents, however there are also an extremely large number of vehicles on the road. I have driven 120,000 miles in my current vehicle, according to traffic accident statistics the chances of me having a fatal accident over that distance are approximately 5/10000

Statistics for climbing activities are less readily available, but using the micromort ( a 1 in 1 million chance of having a fatal accident ) as a basis for comparison, You would need to drive for 250 miles to experience the same risk as 1 full day of skiing.

On that basis I would estimate climbing is being a much riskier proposition than driving the typical distance to a crag, though of course it does depend on what kind of climbing you're doing.

Not everyone romps up VS routes. 

People have been known to fall off them. And easier.

Child labour in Stoke is a scandal.

And everyone else recognises that walking down the street, driving in a car, carrying out DIY, doing gardening, riding your bike or just generally existing also carries a risk of personal injury or death. In fact, ultimately your risk of death is 100%. 

I believe last time around some stat's emerged that showed climbing to be far less dangerous per hour of activity than a lot of other common activities which were deemed fine last time around, especially cycling.

By all means, go live in your bunker for a few years until this passes but I think for the majority of people the physical/mental health balance with risk is optimum with continuing to do the sports and activities you normally do provided adequate social distancing is maintained.   

In the study quoted above, the seroprevalence data from the general population was compared to studies performed among blood donors (where donors would be required to be asymptomatic) and the difference was found to be negligible.

In 55 years of climbing I have known 23 people, who I would count as friends, who have died in climbing accidents.  I don't know a single person who has even been injured let alone killed in a motoring accident. Perhaps I'm a statistical anomaly

Al

I think that was the point i was making. Climbing is no more dangerous than driving without qualifiers

I think this may be your problem. 30 days is not ‘a few years’. 

What were they looking for in the blood? Virus or antibodies? 

Well yes. And we are being encouraged not to drive. 

My point is Mark said he was at greater risk driving to the crag than actually climbing it and you said that was untrue.

By which you are making an assumption on how he drove to the crag.

Would you say that driving at 100 mph through the Peak was more or less dangerous than scrambling up a V Diff?

I think its really hard to define a standard A&E risk for trad in normal times let alone for climbers being careful in times like these.. I'm into the tens of thousands of rock pitches led, seconded or soloed but have never had an A&E trip for climbing up a pitch, despite a few percent being close to my limit with serious consequences if I fell and about 5 ground falls from up to 8m at most. I've been with a handful of slips off the start move of boulder problems resulting in a serious sprain that ended up in A&E; plus, my kerb dancing celebration, various winter accidents (some lucky not to be fatal), two hand saw accidents (clearing saplings from a route) and have seen way too many really scary near misses on abseils,  and ditto from falling ice/rock/gear, and ditto for failing to check knots etc. My take from this is when things are hard, focus often helps the climber reduce risk (where it is subjective) but when risk is less obvious to pay careful attention (where it is subjective), otherwise objective risks are where the real serious risks lie in climbing.

I've fallen down stairs but I still climb them.

The majority of climbing and hillwalking incidents I’ve been involved in have been sprains to backs or legs/ankles. Doing something silly, often falling less than 2ft onto uneven ground. The injured parties have, mostly, had to be helped to walk off the crag/hill and would not have been able to drive. Considering we are supposed to be alone or with one other, I see this causing difficulties. Especially in November. 

not really the point here. That is to stop the spread

Are you sure? The incidence is everywhere. The spread isn’t limited geographically. If I meet someone in Manchester or London it doesn’t change the spread. 

Maybe you need to change your screen name to Jonah?

It's interesting as I am the opposite. I've had a similar number of biker friends killed in crashes over the years. I guess it is down to how it is qualified. Top ropping at Stanage compared to tackling K2. Two years ago I saw five friends younger than me die of cancer. My take is you are going to die come what may and it is better to live well than live in fear. Not that one shouldn't take reasonable precautions.

Then why was everyone so het up about an eyetest half way across the country?

There's probably a reason that a  holiday insurance policy will cover you for climbing  the stairs at your hotel  but will tend to define  climbing and other sports as "hazardous activities". 

If  I thought  that climbing was  not a hazardous activity then I wouldn't ever have taken out climbing insurance on foreign trips.

Presumably the same applies to all those on here who are insisting that climbing is no more dangerous than walking to the corner shop. 

I admit being guilty in this, having started doing parkour on the local council course.  It feels dangerous. Which after nearly a year, is the bit  I'm missing.  I'm on my own and probably no more at risk of injury than the small children in the playground alongside (and the hospital actually).  I would stop all risks if the local hospitals were not coping.   But they are.

This is a reasonable and valid approach to take, viewing risk in the aggregate and your part in that as a probabilistic contribution to a general risk pool. However, if you're going by that approach it's only fair that it cuts both ways. I.e. Given that it's not possible to contribute nothing to the risk pool, you make a reasonable assessment of what is acceptable/fair, and you prioritise what you do/don't do accordingly. To me in practice this translates as having gone way beyond the rules with regards to indoor interaction and social distancing throughout the pandemic, but having continued to go climbing in lockdown 2. My cumulative risk is so low and contributes so little to the general risk pool that I can 'afford' to participate in low risk climbing for the good of my sanity and those around me. Everyone has to make such calculations. Continuing to go climbing is not evidence that climbers are not making these judgements. Nor is it evidence that climbers are too dim to understand cumulative risk.  

So to return to the original reason for this comment "That (without qualifiers) climbing is more dangerous than driving.

Would you say that driving at 100 mph through Buxton while on the phone is less risky than climbing a VS?

Yes, I'm assuming based on statistical averages (as pointed out by Offwidth, it's very hard to estimate these things for climbing activities but I think we can make hand-wavy estimates based on other comparable activities - eg skiing, and mountain rescue reports).

Obviously more dangerous, but driving at 100mph through the Peak would not be average behaviour. Google Maps for example puts the time between Chapel en le Frith and Stanage at about 35 minutes, which would be an average speed of around 30mph.

Because long journeys introduce the risk of spread for incidental reasons. It’s a population level increase, not a personal one as I explained above several times. 
 

If you are looking at it over whether you will personally die or end up in hospital, you are looking at it from a very specific point of view and missing the whole picture.

The same with Covid. Where are all these people going to be rehabilitated after a month in hospital on oxygen? They don’t suddenly disappear. 
 

If you break your ankle, you won’t be going to hospital once. 
 

And people worked themselves into a frenzy over DC for political ideology, no one in the National press was bothered about my next door neighbour having friends around every weekend. 
 

Some may find that amusing.  I'm not one of them.

What about those of us who were disgusted and appalled to see the government taking no action against a public figure, because the government’s inaction went on to undermine the public trust and to weaken compliance with the rules, leading to situations like your next door neighbour and making things worse off all of us.

You blindly insist it was all about political “ideology” but my view for one is rooted in pragmatic infection control.

See I didn't necessarily assume I knew how he was driving or what sort of climbing he was doing.

Interesting but that is obviously not highest speed and includes stopping for traffic, lights etc. It is perfectly possible to drive at 100 mph through sections of the Peak and 30 mph is still dangerous if you are on the wrong side of the road or hit ice

My neighbour was already ignoring it. 

so it is about controlling the spread

Antibodies, specifically IgG or IgG/IgM (this is not my area of expertise so not sure if that means IgG/IgM ratio).

If you're that interested the code and data for reproducing the results is here - https://github.com/meganodris/International-COVID-IFR

Interestingly, a lot of the data came from Scotland.

So they’re only looking at antibodies of people who didn’t have the virus at the time they donated blood. 
 

Given we are being told the antibodies are only produced if you have a serious infection, take around 4 weeks to develop and they only stick around to week 12-16, the seroprevalence is missing a chunk of infections. 

Lots of suggestions plenty of other people shifted into less compliance after the DC affair.

Do you recognise that the basis of my objection is not political?

It’s about controlling the spread within the community, yes, but not between your start and end points. 
 

If you have an accident then you are interacting with people. And that’s the most likely time you will interact with anyone if you haven’t planned any stops between. 
 

Plus the longer and more unnecessary journeys you make, the more fuel stops you make. Not a problem for me as I use pay at the pump - but on a population level... 

No. At the time they donated blood they would be asymptomatic, which is not the same as not having the virus. They also looked at studies from the general population.

see https://github.com/meganodris/International-COVID-IFR/blob/master/data/sero... for the data sources.

Nope. And I’m not getting drawn into it. The local police attended. Decided that there was no issue.

Certain media outlets (self appointed guardians of the public) decided it was an issue and in the ‘public interest’. Surely that wasn’t the case, and it was exactly the opposite, if the general public were going to use it as an excuse?

Ok. Didn’t have the virus and/or weren’t exhibiting symptoms. 
 

What about the antibody part of my question? 

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the local police actually said, which is that there may have been a violation of the law but that they do not investigate past breaches, only ones they catch at the time.   So it is not determined if there was an issue or not.

I maintain that my view is not political - I couldn't care less which individual it was, which party they were with.  Break the clear rules during a pandemic - lie about it (parents house vs second home - critical distinction in terms of the laws at the time) - become a media case - lack of proper action weakens public compliance.

I get the feeling it's intensely political or personal for you, given the insane effort you went to on a certain notorious thread to justify the Barnard Castle trip.  

Realistically though...

Numbers participating in autumnal climbing: low 1000's nationwide on a rare nationwide nice weekend November day

Probability of feeling well enough with undiagnosed covid to want to go climbing: low

Probability of spreading covid between home and crag: manageable to near negligible

Probability of a crag accident requiring assistance: very low

Probability of rescuers catching your covid: manageable with PPE, low-middling

Consequences of covid for individuals involved in rescue: variable, low to very high but likely fit individuals skews that toward low

Population level consequences: pretty negligible

Risk: depends a bit on one's perspective but I'd say overall very low.

Repeat for contracting covid in A&E after an accident with similar outcome unless you're particularly vulnerable.

I'd say if you want to go out, be sensible about avoiding crowds and be careful. If you don't, don't.

jk

Not sure what you mean, but like I say it's not really my area of expertise. I can only quote what's in the paper. If you have questions about the methodology or conclusions I suggest you contact the authors.

I basically agree with you.

 But we each make our own individual risk assessments based on our perception of risk and our ability to avoid risk.

For instance I am more cautious about going to the shops (except for essentials I don't) because I do not feel I have enough control over the situation whereas I am happy to climb something with in my ability because I am confident I am not going to have an accident. I could still have an accident but I would put that in catagories of either not under my control or not paying attention and I believe those to be very low. I also consider not climbing to be a risk through muscle loss, general fitness, mental health. I also place climbing as lower risk than say mountain biking, or road cycling, or even running (sprains, heartattack). Some one else would make a different assessment.

In the end it is a balancing act between our own health the risks to others and having a life worth living. When I think of what we should or shouldn't do I always think of my dad who is in his 80's and still goes down the market. I feel that the benefits to his health outweigh his risk of catching COVID. We did his shopping for him during the first lockdown but he was miserable.

Perhaps you are, Al. My unwanted tally of pals/associates killed as a result of climbing against that of those lost to motoring incidents are roughly equal. However, while we climbers know, acknowledge and accept the inherent risks, when it comes to motoring the general populace seem oblivious to the perils of whizzing along a motorway at at 70 or 80 mph. Just saying. 

Not always. My company have a policy of ‘No live working’. That means I am forbidden to work on any electrical systems while they are live. I can test, but I can’t modify. That’s not down to me, that decision is not mine. 
 

The government have decided no one goes to restaurants and pubs. None of us have the ability to decide what the risks are. 
 

Sometimes, we just have to follow rules and guidelines and accept them. 
 

Some people will see that as an attack on their personal freedom and human rights, or something. 
 

Others will see it as a short term measure to achieve an aim for the good of society. 
 

You mean those rules and guidance that allow you to go climbing?

Yep.

“11. Travel.

...

To spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)

...

If you need to travel we encourage you to walk or cycle where possible, and to plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport. This will allow you to practise social distancing while you travel.”

Do you know as many climbers as you know people who drive?

Just asking.   

The government has also decided we should exercise outdoors and positively encourages us to do so, and has said we can travel to get there.  This discussion is not about breaching any rules or guidance, it is about their interpretation.

Risks can never be totally eliminated, but all the talk of risks from climbing avoid the question of what else we would be doing instead?  Most accidents happen at home.  Instead of climbing I've spent the summer painting my house, and I find being on a ladder far more unnerving than being on a rock climb, and the likely consequences of a fall are probably going to be more serious.  

The risk of transmission outdoors is considered to be small, you will be climbing with someone from your household or a (presumably trusted) friend, and it should be easy to keep well over 2m from other people, so the covid risk from climbing is small.

If we're comparing activities, I've been climbing 48 years and I've lost two friends to climbing accidents.  I've also lost the same number who were killed while cycling.  I work for a cycling organisation and see far more injuries (including some needing A&E) amongst my cycling colleagues than I do among my climbing friends. 

I disagree. I say we still make our own personal risk assessments. Rules and regulations just means that they have additional consequences. I have worked in an industry that had safety policies that were daily flouted by managers and workers alike.

Even now people will flout the speed limit, break the rule of six, steal and murder. People don't always follow the rules and don't always think that they are doing anything wrong in breaking them.

For myself I am quite happy to follow government guidelines as outlined here:

You must not leave your home or be outside your home, except for specific purposes which include exercise.

You are allowed to leave your home to exercise outdoors. You should stay as local as possible, but can travel out of your local area if necessary (for example, to access an open space). If you need to travel, you should walk or cycle where possible, and follow guidance on safe travel.

(I am within easy cycling distance of several crags)

You can exercise outdoors in a public place alone, with the people you live with (or your support bubble or childcare bubble) or with 1 person from another household. Children under 5, and up to two carers for a person with a disability who needs continuous care are not counted towards the gatherings limit of two people meeting outside. This means, for example, that a parent with a baby can still go for a walk with a friend.

There is no restriction on the type of activity you can do when exercising, provided that you are within the permitted gathering limits outlined above. You should maintain social distance when exercising with anybody who you do not live with, unless they are in your support bubble, and you are advised to avoid any activity which requires close contact. You cannot exercise with or meet someone you do not live with (or from your support bubble) in a private garden. Sports facilities will also be closed.

There is no limit on the amount of individual exercise you can do, but you should act responsibly and limit transmission risk wherever possible.

I think the interpretation is the government want to you limit your travel. On my way to work all the motorway gantries are lit requesting “Essential travel only” or something similar. That’s up to you to decide if climbing is essential exercise. For me it’s a hobby, it’s not something I have to do 4 times a week to stay fit and mentally stable. 
 

I run to keep fit and while it’s a good excuse to clear my head while keeping fit, it’s not essential to my well-being. 
 

I think if not going climbing is impacting on your mental health then you have deeper problems and climbing is just keeping them hidden. But I’m not a MH expert. 

Rules and regulations should make you stop and think before you flout them. They’re to steer mass behaviour. They’re made by people who have all the data, they’re not made by people who just want to control you. They’re there for a reason. 

The guidance includes exercise as a reasonable excuse for travel the example of travel to an open space is just that an example, you're nearest crag, if it isn't a ridiculous distance, is equally as valid.

There's nothing in any of the guidance that says that exercise must be essential exercise only. 

After considering the 'accidents' I've had at home. Issues with ladders, sharp saws and other implements of torture, which have landed me in A&E. I feel I'm probably safer outdoors on a climb.

The guidance is guidance not a set of rigid rules. They’re asking you to limit your travel. 

yeah limit not eliminate.

Seeing as you were just asking, I know fewer from both categories now. For obvious reasons. 

If you live in Greater Manchester I'd tend to agree...

Yet you still have the ability whether to obey them or not.

You can stop and think and then decide to obey them or not not or even fight them (as people did for the laws against homosexual activity, slavery, women's rights). The ability to steer mass behaviour is always to the good.

I am speaking generally of course.

The obeying of rules is dictated by striking a balance between ones desires, ones moral compass and consideration of the consequences. Some people think all rules should be obeyed while others believe that all rules are made to be broken. I fall somewhere in the middle.

I should clarify that I am not saying that "People should break the law" just that given human nature they will

I replied to the comment "I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else" which is quite clearly ludicrous. On a linear scale BASE jumping would be most risky, climbing in the middle and typing this, less risky. Saying risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else , is just nonsense, hence why I posted the BMC participation statement. 

It would have helped if you had read my posting, please do so next time, these I said you saids on UKC do get tedious.

What are you babbling about bunkers and the like for, did you read what I posted and what I was replying to?

That was my post, I think your response is "ludicrous"  I don't think climbing is particularly dangerous. The stats show it isn't unless you don't know what you are doing so guess that must cover yourself.

If you want to stay inside and sit in an airtight bunker then do it. But if you think I am when the advice is don't then you are wasting your time. I bet 99 percent of climbers have my view. More likely to have an accident at home or travelling. 

Getting a bit sick of your type on here looking down on people doing nothing wrong. Why not join a forum of xboxers or something else where you can sit inside all day. 

The outdoors is where I and pretty much all on here want to be and they ain't interested either 

You said,

"I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else"

is that what you really think?

Lets stick to what you said.

Where exactly do you live? I live in a house. I suggest you look around for more suitable accommodation. At least one with windows.

I think you are better off speaking for yourself, as rather than appointing yourself majority spokesperson for UKC.

If you think climbing is such a high risk then why bother going at all? 

Oh the irony 

Why so? My opinions are mine and mine only and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else on UKC.

I have not said I do, just that your comment of 

"I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else"

is drivel.

Climbing is less risky than some things, and more risky than others.

You are part of a small group telling others they are wrong to go climbing. A small group that would be happy seeing everyone sit at home. 

I'm going climbing, you have an issue with that then I couldn't really care. Guidance says it's OK, so deal with it. 

 The notion of staying local and keeping transmission down applies to all walks of life and all sorts of non essential  activity. No one needs to climb to exercise, in the same way that no one needs to surf to exercise or go fishing to exercise. Where these pursuits can't be carried out locally it doesn't seem a big ask to give it a rest and fall back on some other form of exercise, for a couple of weeks at least. 

I don't seem the harm in reinforcing the government's stay local message, partly because some people don't seem to understand it and partly because some people are making a point of ignoring it and broadcasting the fact to anyone who will listen, almost as if they are eliciting support for their stance.

Once again, these are just my opinions and I don't purport to speak for anyone else on UKC.

I get to the roaches or ramshaw in 6 minutes from my house. Pretty local I'd say 

Certainly is, now about this 

"I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else"

now do you really think that?

Stuck record 

I don't think climbing is risky if done right like so many other things. 

I expect that isn't a good enough answer for you though. 

You are a very lucky person, Mark, living so close to a fine set of crags. 

If the rest of the climbing population were in a similar position there might not be any disputes about climbing and Covid transmission, but the realty is that a lot of people live over an hour' s drive away from their nearest crag and so staying local means a sacrifice for them. 

Of course, if the stay local notion is inconvenient then, as Wintertree says, some will apply the  Cummings rule and a hobby will become as essential as an eye test.

I'm very lucky and I know that, Saturday at ramshaw was busy. Not lots of climbers but a lot that I don't think were local. But that's not really my business. Of course I'd like it to be locals only as I'd like it too myself but that's just greedy and I'm certainly not one of those "locals only" types. 

No one on this thread has said don’t go climbing. They have said that the guidance says avoid travel unless it’s essential and if you’re travelling keep it to a minimum, preferably not at peak times. 
 

I would suggest travelling an hour to the Peak District in a Saturday is not local, keeping it to a minimum, or avoiding peak times. 
 

All we have said is there is the guidance and it would be preferable if everyone followed it, or at least as many people as possible followed it to avoid further lockdowns. 

We have also offered some explanations as to why that particular guidance is in place. 
 

Lots of posters have then gone into how they can decide for themselves what the risks are (they obviously can’t) and that it’s up to them if they want to break the law (there’s no laws being broken) and they’re not going to live in a bunker for the rest of their lives (it’s only 30 days). 
 

And now they’re complaining that we are telling them what they can and can’t do (we aren’t). 
 

Get a grip, go climbing, justify it all you want, but don’t pretend you’re some kind of rebel who is able to understand the risks. As that’s obviously not the case and just makes you look a bit silly. 

That sort of argument relies on climbing being more dangerous than things like cycling. I know extreme cycling as I used to juggle fire clubs riding a unicycle backwards and I aways regarded daily road cycling in my city as more dangerous than my UK trad climbing (I knew about the same number of people keen on both and way more had died or had serious accidents on a bike than trad climbing). I gave up cycling in the city when I was nearly killed twice on the commute home one day (lucky to escape not going under a bus that cut me up and then ditto for a lorry that puled out of a junction in front of me). When I lived in the rougher parts of Nottingham arguably walking 100m to my corner shop in the evening could be seriously risky according to some. Certainly hillwalking has noticeable numbers of a bad ankle sprains etc requiring rescues (look at mountain rescue stats).

The key factor is what we are allowed to do and in England  we are allowed to climb in a household group or in a pair from two households. Its sensible to stay focussed and cut risk a bit to avoid any realistic chance of ending up in A&E.

FACTORXXX did in the OP

it's only 30 days this time. Previously it was, what, four months odd? And if the lockdown is extended its another 30 days. Then another.

At what point do you say "f*ck it. I'm off out"? *

* Note. I'm already at that point...

No he didn’t. 

Lots of people have lost a lot more than a few days climbing. 

Title: ....... Stop climbing?

Last sentence: Personally I think so.

Thinking people should stop climbing and asking their opinion is telling them they should?

There are several largely separate issues which are being conflated in this thread.

I think the OP was alluding to the risk of accidents and the resultant load on the NHS. Clearly no one sets out to have an accident. Some people are incompetent and are accidents waiting to happen - they shouldn't be climbing in the best of times. However most people are sufficiently experienced and sensible to be able to mitigate the risk of accidents. Of course some will still be unlucky and/or will make bad decisions. I agree that at the present time it's sensible to err on the side of caution if you don't think you can manage the risk. Drop the grade, go sport climbing, go top roping... there are plenty of options. I don't think it's right to say people should stop climbing completely.

There is then the separate issue of the risk of spreading the virus. The main vector is going to be between climbing partners, so you have to consider your risk of having the virus, your partner's risk of having it and the risk of transmission eg how close you're going to be to them. Again, the risk can be mitigated here. You can avoid close contact with top roping and sport climbing. You can avoid close contact other than for a few seconds with single pitch trade. Multi pitch is definitely an issue and I wouldn't advise it but it's not the time of year for it anyway. The risk of transmission to other people at the crag is somewhere between negligible and zero.

Finally, there is the issue of travel. Yes, there is risk of having an accident or a breakdown but on the whole it's a fairly low risk, especially now that there are fewer cars on the road (if people are happy to make long journeys to places like Cornwall and Pembroke with normal traffic levels, surely they shouldn't be that concerned about much shorter journeys to say the Peak when there is relatively little traffic?). Yes, there is risk of spread if you stope at the services but you don't have to stop and, even if you do because you need to nip into the loo, it's pretty easy to mitigate the risk of spread, especially now that most people are wearing masks.

In practice with the weather being far from ideal, there simply won't be that many people heading out over the coming months. This is an interesting debate but it's not going to make much difference to the overall picture one way of another.

I'm not convinced we'll see a wholesale relaxation of the rules on the 2nd, so I do think we all need to get to a sensible view on what we are personally happy to do. Some people will prefer to stay at home, others will head out without a care in the world and most will be somewhere in between. It depends on everyone's personal circumstances - what is your risk of having Covid; what is your partner's risk of having Covid; where do you live; what type of climbing do you do; how experienced are you. There simply isn't a single answer which will be 'correct' for everyone - unless you take the view that everyone should refrain from climbing, which I don't think is necessary. I totally get why some people take that view but I think they would be wise not to force that view on others.

The other thing to bear in mind is it's not about zero risk of spread, it's about getting the risk of spread as low as is reasonably possible. We are not going for a zero Covid strategy like they are in NZ. If we were, I'd be happy to sit at home for a few weeks but I know that this is not the strategy and so that kind of 'sacrifice' is not called for. Having said that, given the mostly crap weather, I'm not too bothered about sitting at home... Managed to get out on Saturday for the first time in several weeks and was pretty happy with that.

Some context:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54877437

Dislike away...

Thanks for posting.  No dislike from me.

Thread focuses on one behaviour and the choices people are making and as this is a climbing forum you get a range of views from stop, to carry on as before. Surprised? I'm not.

The impact from a small number of social climbers who continue to climb as the weather gets colder and wetter is not really going to make a heap of difference IMO. Although I get the idea of every little bit helps, or indeed not.

We should be spending more time fretting about the f*ckwits protesting in some cities about having their rights taken from them (their right to kill my mum I guess), or the challenged individuals who think this silly mask thing doesnt apply to them...and many more.

Stupidity has spread even faster than covid this autumn. Like the cycling clubs who think its OK to go out in pairs and then happen to be all heading the same way at the same time. Saw four groups like that on sunday. Like the plonkers who continue to car share to get to work, and then wonder why they seem to get covid at the same time as their co-workers...and on and on...

...and breath, rant over...

Wow Barlow!

I honestly cannot follow what you are on about, you seemed to defend this comment.

"I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else"

but than you start on about unicycles.

which I have said I think is ludicrous and marks will not really say yes or no to.

On the broader topic, during first lockdown I followed the guidance, when it ended I followed that guidance.

I am not living in a bunker, I have this summer;

• Climbed exstensivley Lake, Peak, Dales, Lancs
• Been to Croatia
• and Florence, the Ufizi is superb
• Eaten out
• Went to a concert, no idea how that was allowed, but the Police seemed aware.

and generally got on with my life sticking to the rules. Now I am sticking to the new rule of climbing only with one person. I am not really clear how effective these rules are, but its not such a big ask, and the sooner we can get all this sorted, the sooner I can piss off and buy my Trans Siberian tickets, so if I can help sort it, then I will.

Just that this phrase, "I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else" seems weird, as to me a key part of climbing is the acceptance of risk, and somethings have more risk and some have less.

 

Where in that article does it say that exercise accidents are part of the problem? Have you asked NHS staff about this? Most I know think continuing exercise is a vital public health preventative measure, especially given the mental health stresses of a pandemic,  but people should be more careful than normal to avoid accidents... the exact position most climbers here have. The people causing the stress for the NHS are those not taking social distancing seriously.

My point is modified climbing behaviour can be pretty low risk as you apply skill, experience and focus to mitigate. Trad climbing risk is lower in my opinion than cycle commuting in my city as someone who knows about risky cycling (but never had an accident doing stunts with mainly subjective risk) and had one too many near misses on my ordinary careful cycle work commute, due to uncontrollable objective risks.

My points on risk in trad climbing may seem weird to you but they are a fact from the statistics. Yet our natural fear response to climbing is much higher than equally or more risky activity. Part of the attraction of climbing is having overcome most of our fear response when climbing in control. Experienced trad climbers still know the risk is there and accept it and pay attention to it. Accidents in safer climbing environments, notably on top ropes, are much larger in number than expected as some people stop paying the risk due attention. It's not just the risk its how that links to skill and psychological response.

The stress on the NHS is due to people not taking care to avoid covid transmission. Unnecessary flights and concerts would be other good examples of dumb practice in a pandemic in my view. I'm supporting climbers who want to climb locally having been careful with social distancing.

I agree with all this, but why did you support "I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else" and now you say "Experienced trad climbers still know the risk is there and accept it and pay attention to it.", which is exactly what I think.

I quite often deal with people who are paraplegic and I often get to chat with them and I usually ask what happened, its always been something innocuous, the stand out is a chap making his breakfast who slipped on milk and broke his back, but I still think climbing is more risky than making porridge.

As to you calling me dumb for taking flights, you are welcome to your opinion, but it was all legal and I am sure you do things that I would not understand why you did them.

Again, actual risk is modified by skill and focus. You don't fall down the stairs or slip on milk when paying attention. The lack of attention is why people fail to notice they haven't tied in when engaged in 'lower risk' climbing. 

Flying this summer, unless your job really required it, was dumb if you are serious about preventing covid spread. Commercial flights are very effective ways of circulating virus and it's almost impossible to social distance in economy.

You seem pretty resolute not to actually address this comment,

"I'm a responsible person who knows the risk of climbing is no more than doing anything else"

which someone else made and you took up the cudgels for.

I will leave you with it, as carrying on would be a bit dumb.

Of course they don't but then nobody needs to don a hair shirt and stay home all day to get us all through this winter either. We need to dramatically cut the transmission of this virus person to person, travel to and from a day of cragging in the very small groups mandated is for now* negligible in that respect.

*while covid is prevalent everywhere. Inter-regional travel becomes more problematic if and when regions develop radically different infection rates but we're nowhere near regional eradication, realistically all regions have plenty of cases to keep seeding new ones at a high rate with or without imports.

If the hospitals you might need local to your day out are swamped then that's worth significant thought but the vast majority aren't. They're busy but coping and life is always a balance of competing interests.

You're focused only on bits of it.

jk

You seem a little obsessed on climbing being a dangerous sport. 

Do you get some kick telling none climbers you take part in extreme sports? 

Do it right it isn't dangerous.

I went climbing all day on Saturday, never felt in any danger once 

If you mean Mark I know him and he can be blunt sometimes but yes pottering about on his local crag is pretty consistent with what he says. He has massive experience, will have plenty of ability in hand and is focused.

We live in a free country and covid regulations are complex and what each of us regard as dumb is often legal (even if we wish sometimes it wasn't). What is ethical is another matter entirely. I will be sticking with pleading for doing our best with social distancing where it matters to end this horrific pandemic and will defend those climbers with little risk who are climbing within the rules and lucky to live near climbs.

Have I said different?

Extreme sport, where have I said that, LOL

Ah maybe its a bit like sex, if its not dangerous, then you are not doing it right.

So did I.

What's your issue then 

Staying local is a different thing from wearing a hair shirt and cloistering yourself away.

I go for a walk most days and can easily work out a 10 mile walk around the locality. Yes I'd probably prefer  a ride over to the Chew, have a walk round the skyline, pop in to check on my smallholding while I'm there but it isn't actually necessary and it's an hour each way. 

No one is suggesting complete martyrdom, just taking thing back a peg or two and making a decision about what is actually necessary. 

These careful climbers are simply not the problem, in risk terms a twisted ankle on your walk might be almost as likely to end up in A&E . People 'with party shirts on' are a major problem. Students in class in Universities are a major problem. People travelling for no good reason on buses trains and planes are a major problem.

I don’t think anyone has said they’re not a major problem. And no one has said climbers are a major problem. 
 

The point is everyone is a risk, the cyclists, runners, swimmers, dancers, ice skaters, footballers, etc are all risks too. Team sports have been stopped. 
 

Climbing is low on the risk as long as the people doing it are social distancing and keeping it to a minimum. 
 

So how many people on this thread, who are saying they won’t be confined to a bunker, actually intend to go climbing this week (not weekend as that’s peak time and obviously being discouraged)?

I previously always climbed through the winter as I knew where to go when the weather made most venues unpleasant. If I say lived in Matlock (which has a few 'OK in most weather' venues nearby), rather than Nottingham, I'd be climbing all winter. Weekend is only peak time in honeypot areas, often the best winter venues are deserted. Part of my contribution is not doing what I normally would in winter traveling to climb or to clean up crags getting a bit overgrown; the much bigger contribution is promoting the importance of social distancing (and practicing what I preach) and arguing down dangerous covid conspiracies.

Cool. So do you have a partner and are you planning to climb in the next 22 days? 

Agreed

I have a partner in both senses and so could trad climb and boulder if we ignored the advice to stay local. That's our choice ... I'm not going to lecture others on issues where risk is minimal even if they do travel a bit to climb. I'm defending anyone climbing locally within the rules and being careful with risk.  

That's not quite an accurate paraphrase of my view. People travelling in mixed household situations for no good reason are a major problem. I'm much more relaxed about travel  for a single household in a car but recognise the advice to stay local.

In contrast, in risk terms, in my old career as an academic, after retirement this April, I know best practice is to calculate covid ages based on age, gender, ethnicity and underlying health conditions and to keep those most at risk from face-to-face teaching. I think any face-to-face teaching this term was a major Heath and Safety issue, as Independent SAGE and my union campaigned. I know of colleages with a covid age beyond 60 who are still teaching face-to-face where good practice hasn't reached; those affected are way more likely to be ethnic minorities and recently moved into UK academia from outside western economies. I've advised them to contact the union on H&S grounds but they are frightened of upsetting their boss, partly for cultural reasons. This is the current state of parts of academia in the UK and I'm seriously angry.

Assuming you wish to climb for your permitted exercise or time in the open then that's only true if you have 'local' crags.

Do you realistically believe you would be doing any harm to the covid fight whatsoever if you went? You wouldn't go if you were symptomatic. You would plan to have no or very limited interactions. Any non emergency interactions you do have can be almost trivially rendered safe (hands, face, space). For your trip to cause any harm a lot of small holes would have to line up. For a climber used to weighing not insignificant risk against what is pretty nebulous benefit you seem to be taking quite an extreme position on this.

Almost nothing is strictly necessary, food, water, shelter. Life without its pleasures is just existence.

jk

It may be that , depending on where you live, climbing as a form of exercise isn't feasible under "stay local" advice. 

Some will bite the bullet and  follow the advice, accepting that a few weeks finding another way to exercise is a long way from living as a hermit; others won't.

I don't think my attitude towards not travelling across the Pennines unecessarily is extreme. Would you say that to everyone, whether they had a climbing history or not?

If making a decision not to travel an hour for my exercise,that's a 35 mile drive each way,   is regarded as "taking up an extreme position" then the government have really got their work cut out for them.

Quite. I do most/all of my climbing indoors or outdoors on artificial surfaces. They’re all closed. My closest craig is 3 hours drive. It’s not happening for me. I’m not suggesting anyone else stops. I’m just suggesting people should think about it using more than their common sense and own anecdotal experiences. 

What classes are those? Assume you mean secondary schools!

Ignoring the snide semantics, it's lectures, seminar classes and tutorials in subjects that I'm most concerned with. I can understand justifications for face-to-face for some lab classes in some subjects but pretty much everything that can be  online should be for now.

I'd suggest that a number of people "flaming" you are just plain jealous.

There have been enough people who (have chosen to) live in London or similar for work or the nightlife, and have received the greater remuneration that goes with this. Now some of these are moaning about those who live "in the sticks" being able to enjoy themselves just a little bit more by being in the countryside.

When this is all over, and it will be at some point, those living in the cities can go back to their nightclubs etc., and collect their fat payslips, commuting to the countryside at weekends, whereas those in the countryside will only have the countryside.

Beds have been made, just lie in them.

 .... I have this summer;

And you're questioning someone going to a crag SIX MINUTES from home, in the countryside and well away from anyone else ???

Your point about people making their beds  is an interesting one. I'm keen to see how well it's received among  UKC ers who aren't as fortunate as Mark S.

Asking this question of OFFWIDTH does indicate that you haven't been paying attention to quite a lot of CLIMBING points over the years !!

I'm not going to like or dislike the link you posted. I have no doubt that it is a difficult time for NHS staff. However the point of my post is that with appropriate mitigation the risk of experienced climbers troubling the NHS is pretty minimal. You haven't really engaged with the gist of my post - unless what you are saying is that any risk is too much risk, in which case we should all just sit at home all of the time and stay away from dangerous activities like DIY, gardening or indeed going down the stairs (just as well I live in a flat I suppose, better stop taking the stairs to get out though as I live on the 10th floor). There's an element of reductio ad absurdum here. It is not about zero risk - life never is.

It should be about minimising risk while the NHS is struggling.
Once the NHS gets back to some sort of relative normality, go climbing again.
Is it really such a personal burden not to climb for a few weeks?
As for zero risk, you're right, we're never going to achieve that, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately hedge our bets unnecessarily. 

As someone who works as a clinician within the NHS I can assure that the NHS is always struggling, the COVID pandemic has seen a different kind of struggle and one which make the press on a daily basis but for many of us its no worse than the usual "winter pressures".

 Is that the old normal or the new normal? I'm afraid normality is in the eye of the beholder, the NHS will never be the same as it was.

Yes it really is. I find climbing a magnificent escape from the pressures of work and the tiny risk that I'm exposing myself to is nothing compared to the risks I am taking being at work.

We are not hedging our bets, we are living our lives as normally as we possibly can which is what everyone should be doing, the cost to the country's mental health if we all lock ourselves indoors and avoid any perceived risk will be immense.

As you said, it's about minimising risk, which is what all sensible people would be doing now. That is not the same as eliminating risk altogether by not going climbing at all. For those who are suitably experienced, it is easy enough to manage the risks down to a low level, particularly when it comes to sport and top roping.

As I keep saying, it's not about the next few weeks, it's about the next few months. Personally I've not been out much for the last few weeks anyway due to the weather but I intend to keep getting out when I can. I made these points in my post above.

The pressures you experiencing are being limited by the lockdown. 
 

And no one is ‘locking themselves indoors and avoiding any perceived risk’. 
 

I think yet again, people are taking comments to the extreme. 

Ignoring the pompous arrogance, looking at it from a student perspective that is what is pretty much happening, if there is a "problem", it's out of class. 

How do you know its just out of class? Many academic teaching spaces have poor internal ventilation with no windows to allow outside ventilation: the same issue that led to serious spreading incidents in the first wave. Some classes early this term had students sitting in contact (as per the normal sardines principle used by many institutions to maximise use of space).

My main point was about unnecessary risk to University employees (academics and other university staff) from students needlessly being in a physical classroom: those staff are most certainly not being infected by out of class student activity. Universities have a duty of care to protect staff and in some cases seem to me to be doing the exact opposite (exploiting newly appointed overseas staff with covid ages over 60, who if best practice was followed should be excluded from any face-to-face teaching).  Also there are increased risks to students from in class teaching (and their subsequent contacts outside University): halls and housing form bubbles.. in-class teaching mixes different bubbles together.

Running courses online is really hard work, given the need for one to one contact at times, but the mix of arrangements necessary to provide similar interaction levels was always possible. In class teaching justifies bringing students to University to fill halls that are part of University finance. It was a deliberate act forced on Universities as the government would not subsidise any loss, but too few VC's spoke out about the massive health risks involved in student accommodation and in face-to-face teaching. Independent SAGE (and UCU) were very clear.

https://www.independentsage.org/university_final_sept/

I agree, however I am struggling a bit with those University teaching staff whose children are attending Sixth Form.

And me.  It was nice to have an excuse!

I have only questioned a specific comment he made, not criticised anything about him going to the crag, done nothing wrong in my view, have you read the thread?