Loading Notifications...

Is climbing banned?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

There are a lot of threads at the moment about what is acceptable/not acceptable in the hills due to the COVID-19 epidemic with some pretty emotional responses. 

the advice is against all essential travel, I don't think any recreational activity can be classed as essential, and by venturing from your front door you are both risking spreading the virus or having an accident which may land you in hospital, no matter your intentions. So should anyone be doing any climbing/cycling/running at all? is there nuance? who decides what is 'too risky'? in a pastime where I have become very used to relying on my own judgement into what is/isn't acceptable in terms of risk I'm aware theres suddenly a lot of judgement around this issue  and not sure how to respond.

10
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

My take on it is that, while many of us are competent and won't get hurt on an easy scottish walk or a grit VDiff, I'd just feel too much of a plonker if I took up an ICU bed because I couldn't do without my hobby for a few months. In Italy and France they are treating people in warehouses.

I know I haven't climbed for 2 years due to work commitments and being injured but I know exactly how it feels, I missed alpine trips etc due to injury in the past or wrote off whole summers. I was really looking forward to getting back into it this spring; I'd bought £200 worth of rope and had a trip to Norway planned, but who cares.

 It feels shit but we can live without climbing for a few months given the scale of the sacrifices being made around the world. The individual isn't important here, look at how Asian countries have dealt with the virus they would laugh at us for arguing about climbing 

16
In reply to ebdon:

It's interesting. The BMC advice is: low risk, close to home, familiar areas, don't assume mountain rescue will come get you.

For me, as someone who boulders midday, mid-week, 2-3 times a week (weather permitting) on the grit, I'm pretty confident I could do this at no harm to myself or others. The only injuries I get are to my pride when bouldering. However, with the schools closing now, it'll become a bit of a moot point as I'll be combining full time work with full time childcare, and there probably won't be much room for climbing.

In reply to ebdon:

The UK hasn't yet used legal powers on this yet (because it hasn't got them until the new law passes) so nothing is "banned".

However it is prudent to keep risk low so as to avoid using the NHS.  I'd suggest you're better top-roping if you're going to do anything even vaguely hard.

Post edited at 15:16
 Jon Greengrass 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

> the advice is against all essential travel

the key word is advice, compare the governments current advice to their previous advice on things like stopping smoking, drinking less, eating healthily.

> who decides what is 'too risky'?

you do

>in a pastime where I have become very used to relying on my own judgement into what is/isn't acceptable in terms of risk I'm aware theres suddenly a lot of judgement around this issue  and not sure how to respond.

use your own judgement, we live in a liberal democracy for now..

5
 stp 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Seems like their is high level of confidence that the virus is transmitted via breathing in droplets that an infected person coughs out or through touching something infected then touching your mouth or eyes with the same fingers/hand.

The thing about travel is to stop the infection spreading from one community to another. If you're going to the hills then you won't infect anyone but your partner/s if you have them.

To avoid infection by someone else you need to be 1 - 2m away. The biggest risk I think is gonna be travelling in the same car as someone since you cannot keep the distance and being in a confined space for a protracted period obviously increases risk.

So if you're taking a climbing partner play it safe and stick them in the boot.

2
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to stp:

It's less the transmission risk and more the risk of taking up much-needed hospital beds.

4
 misterb 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

My take on it is that ..............

i haven't been to hospital for a climbing related injury ever in 20 years of climbing

I've never visited a+e for a bike related injury

also Never visited hospital for a car related injury or had a crash in 15 years

Why would i stop driving, biking or climbing as long as it doesn't contribute to the spread of corona.

Social distancing in all the above things should be more than enough and if i have symptoms i will stay in and not do them 

19
 mark s 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Ive been to the roaches today. Never spoke to anyone or got close to anyone. I know what im doing when climbing so minimal risk. Went the shop to get lunch on way home and had close contact with 20 odd people. I know where the risk is. 

4
In reply to mark s:

I'm with you and misterb above but was having a hard time with the judgment on here.

Perhaps this is just highlighting I'm a sensitive soul and cant deal with social media (especially after a few days of not leaving the house)

God this is going to be a hard few months

 BillyBoredEU 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

u sound like a dangerous person to climb with? Good of you to give up something that you don't actually do though

BB

32
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to BillyBoredEU:

Well I had done a couple of trips in Feb and now I've binned it off and cancelled a Norway trip. I forgot that anyone who isn't actively climbing is a lesser mortal and not qualified to comment, sorry, I'll stay in my lane. 

3
 Bob Kemp 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

Looks like trolling. Ignore.

2
 Pero 19 Mar 2020

Just my feelings.  I live in London and don't have a car, so I have no prospect of getting out and about for the foreseeable future.

If someone lives close to a climbing or walking area and can get in their car or on their bike and have a day out, I can't see that as an issue.  Soon, probably, everything will be banned, but that's just what you get with a blanket ban: everything, including things of negligible risk will go.

Compared to the bastards in London who have been stockpiling food, I've nothing to say against someone who can enjoy a day in the hills while they can.

In reply to ebdon:

This is an official Q and A for the 'shelter in place' lockdown in California.  They're OK with going out for exercise as long as you maintain separation.

----------

The Order prohibits non-essential travel on foot or bike -- does that mean that I can’t go on a walk or take a bike ride?

No.  The Order allows you to go outside for exercise so long as you maintain social distancing (more than 6 feet from persons who are not part of your household).  This includes activities like walks or hikes or bike rides or going to a park. 

Can I leave home to exercise?

If you will be outdoors and not in close contact with other people, yes.  Otherwise, no.  Fitness centers, exercise gyms, recreational centers, golf courses, and public pools are not permitted to operate. 

Can golf courses remain open?

No. 

I become anxious when cooped up in my house.  Am I allowed to go to a park or on a hike?  Can I travel to a County park or open space?

Yes.  Spending time outside improves mood and well-being, and is particularly beneficial to children.  You can go for walks, go to the park, and engage in other similar activities, but you should maintain social distance (more than six feet away from persons who are not part of your household) to avoid spread of the virus.

1
In reply to ebdon:

My twopenneth; I think going bouldering for instance (not highballing) is ok ,maybe meet a partner and spot each other to mitigate risk. The argument about having an accident and using the NHS has to be weighed up against feeling more sane, being more efficient and hence productive by being able to do what we love.

What if 100 NHS employees who climb feel better by doing so, but 1 broke an ankle? You've still got 99 doing a better job than 100 feeling miserable. Note, for NHS workers leave is beginning to be cancelled, part-timers pestered to do more and the obvious increased risk to themselves, there has to be an outlet for stress.

It's good we have these discussions, pity some of the wider public are less intelligent. Patients are coming in with made up symptoms in order to be tested. It takes time and effort to deal with these, not just Dr's and nurses, but porters and lab staff at silly o'clock in the morning. So having that 1 ankle may be worth it.

Then again, am I merely trying to justify my preferred option?!

Chris

In reply to ebdon:

No. 

4
In reply to misterb:

> My take on it is that ..............

> i haven't been to hospital for a climbing related injury ever in 20 years of climbing

> I've never visited a+e for a bike related injury

> also Never visited hospital for a car related injury or had a crash in 15 years

> Why would i stop driving, biking or climbing as long as it doesn't contribute to the spread of corona.

Because it's not all about you. None of those incidents have happened to you, yet, if ever they will. But since I've lost all my work (huge stress) and my wife could end up living away from home if this escalates (NHS key worker) why not try and do your bit. Just for a while. (Have a look at Italy's experience of the virus if you're not convinced). 

> Social distancing in all the above things should be more than enough and if i have symptoms i will stay in and not do them 

Post edited at 17:01
3
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to cwarby:

Are patients really coming to doctor's offices and hospitals when they think they might have it? How hard is it to get the message through about self-isolating if you think you have it?

In reply to Red Rover:

Damn good question and very polite. An exasperated A&E doc put it a different way! Probably the same ones who have a garage full of toilet rolls.

In reply to ebdon:

I think the chief government advisor said on TV yesterday that exercise was good and implied stroll in park etc, at a distance etc is OK at present. He even, somewhat surprisingly, said it was OK for a group of kids could play football together. "Only essential travel" however will limit climbing and walking for many of us (though logically its hard to see how travel by car , then maintaining a distance is any worse than a park walk). Probably even stricter guidelines are on the way.

 mark s 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Forget what they say on here. Lots of judgmental people. Climbing is not an issue for the nhs. What about the people who spend a life drinking and smoking. Get out and enjoy yourself 

13
 Alex Pryor 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

> I'd just feel too much of a plonker if I took up an ICU bed because I couldn't do without my hobby.

I wouldn't bank on getting that ICU bed in a hurry!

But the thought of breaking a leg and being told to come back in a few months jugs enough to put me off. 

 Tom V 19 Mar 2020
In reply to mark s:

I might just do that. 

After 4 days cooped up i might have a walk out tonight and call in at the pub. The barmaid knows my order so no verbal communication needed, I've got loads of change on the sideboard so I can sterilise that and count out enough for a couple, there's always a quiet corner to sit in , probably more now, keep my distance and not get falling over drunk to avoid NHS involvement, walk home alone, sounds good. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I need to go to the pub to maintain my sanity.

6
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

I stocked up on brewing supplies a couple of weeks ago! No beer shortage for me. 

1
 JHiley 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

> There are a lot of threads at the moment about what is acceptable/not acceptable in the hills due to the COVID-19 epidemic with some pretty emotional responses. 

> the advice is against all essential travel, I don't think any recreational activity can be classed as essential, and by venturing from your front door you are both risking spreading the virus or having an accident which may land you in hospital, no matter your intentions. 

There are so many threads because whenever those pushing the "you can't do anything recreational at all, or socialise at all" are called out as being completely unreasonable/ not supported by anyone with any expertise or any official body, the response is just to start a new thread e.g. this one.

Your claims are not based on any official advice:

  • The government said people should go outside to exercise.
  • The BMC isn't advising against climbing outdoors.
  • The chief medical officer said is was OK to go to the park on national television just yesterday.

Since I'm currently self isolating due to people in my house being ill, this debate is academic for me at the moment. However as I pointed out on the other thread: The expectation (guess) is currently that suppression may be required for anything from 3 to 18 months (someone today suggested 2 years) and expecting people to avoid doing anything they enjoy or seeing any of their friends for that length of time is not remotely realistic (and I think you know that).

This needs to be sustainable. That means people need to be able to keep restricting themselves without a) starving to death, b) going insane. Maybe try and encourage people to take sensible precautions like avoiding bars, restaurants, meeting in groups rather than shaming anyone for not being as inhumanly perfect as you claim to be.

5
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I get your point but I was talking about avoiding climbing for the initial first wave of infections which will probably be around 12 weeks in duration, not for 18 months. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for a walk you've put quite a few words in my mouth there.  And we have been told to avoid non-essential travel. Is driving up to Scotland essential? 

Post edited at 18:07
8
 Tom V 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

i get the impression that people living in the remoter areas of Scotland don't consider a drive up by a carload of Londoners to be essential and I have some sympathy for them.

1
 bensilvestre 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

In November/ December I was very unfortunate to have two consecutive injuries bouldering, which resulted in me needing surgery. These were beyond my control - not the result of bad judgement or anything like that. Firstly a loose rock in a boulder field fell onto my foot when I was walking between problems. This weakened some tissue beneath the surface (I had some cuts but felt like nothing more was wrong) and meant that a straighforward, everyday fall, from low down on a problem a couple of weeks later ruptured my peroneal retinaculum. Fortunately I received a very fast surgery whilst in France on holiday the following week. Now that all minor surgeries have been delayed I feel even more fortunate than I already did. 

I post this without judgement - with the good forecast in Wales this weekend, and having been out of action for most of the winter due to the surgery, I expect it will be very hard to resist going and doing a little climbing on some rock somewhere, just to ease the mental strain before the inevitable full lockdown. But despite what people often assume bouldering is not safe. I know more people who've been injured bouldering than all other forms of climbing combined. If you do go bouldering stick to flat landings and be even more careful than normal. Taking a bed up would be pretty selfish at this point.

We all think we're safe. This was my only significant injury in a decade of climbing, and the only thing I could have done to avoid it is not going climbing that day. We can all be unlucky.

Toproping is probably the safest option. Standard hand sanitising practice prior to climbing/ belaying of course

1
In reply to mark s:

> Forget what they say on here. Lots of judgmental people. Climbing is not an issue for the nhs. What about the people who spend a life drinking and smoking. Get out and enjoy yourself 

I'll repeat myself. Climbing isn't a problem for the NHS... yet. Stay in as much as possible and avoid becoming part of a problem. It's not about you. 

10
In reply to Red Rover:

> I stocked up on brewing supplies a couple of weeks ago! No beer shortage for me. 

Are you confident it will be drinkable?😄

 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Agreed. I can't believe that the idea of doing without it for 12 weeks in a time of national crisis is so horrifying to some. I know what it's like to be addicted to climbing, after a long enforced break I am desperate to get out again and gutted at what I've binned off. But it's 12 weeks give or take, come on!

Anyway I'm off as I've wasted too much time on here. I wish everyone the best! 

7
 Red Rover 19 Mar 2020
In reply to mountain.martin:

OK if I need emergency treatment due to blindness you can all laugh at me!

Post edited at 18:17
 JHiley 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

12 Weeks is still a really long time to avoid all face to face contact. It seems to me that certain people are (deliberately) conflating advice on self isolating with the general advice on social distancing. If you can go for a walk why can't you climb something safe? You might bump into someone or trip over, or get trampled by an enraged cow. They say a swan can break a man's arm. I'm more worried about the people apparently still hanging out in crowded pubs and cafes!

Personally I agree that driving to Scotland at the present time is not the best idea. Unless you already live there. I cancelled a trip for this reason (before I was self isolating).

 JHiley 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

> OK if I need emergency treatment due to blindness you can all laugh at me!

I was going to respond with, "It's a myth, that doesn't make you blind". I thought you were on about another possible side effect of self isolation.

 mark s 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I will repeat my self. You worry what you are doing and i will do the same.

Ive been out today twice for a climb.

Ive not come in contact with anyone.

Ive not seen one single piece of advice to stay in. So i shall be going out. 

8
In reply to mark s:

There hasn't been a piece of advice to stay in.  Just to avoid social contact, which you are doing.

The Spanish are mad, they are storing up a mental health and obesity/fitness problem for no gain by preventing people taking solo exercise.

3
 jabc 19 Mar 2020
In reply to mark s:

> Ive not seen one single piece of advice to stay in. So i shall be going out. 

Yes there seems to be a bit of confusion over to what the non-essential travel applies to. 

The government guidance appears to be to avoid non-essential international travel and non-essential travel by public transport particularly for those at risk from what i have read here https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/coronavirus-covid-19-uk-government-response 

 jabc 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

> Anyway I'm off as I've wasted too much time on here. 

Going to move onto another forum for a pastime you don't do to hector some other people? Here are some suggestions if you're up for a challenge:

UK Solitaire Players 

UK Hermits United 

Loners Anonymous 

Post edited at 18:45
10
In reply to mark s:

> I will repeat my self. You worry what you are doing and i will do the same.

OK. Let's make this easy. The NHS in total has approx 130000 ICU beds. That's for 'normal' day to day life. At the minute we're in exceptional times. Those beds are possibly going to be full of Italy and other countries experiences are anything to go by. 'Normal' life has to take a back seat, for a bit. You know that rush for bog rolls that need not have happened? Putting potential extra strain on NHS capability is as blatantly stupid and anti-social and selfish as that. If you have an unnecessary accident it's someone else's problem to fix. In South Yorkshire it'll likely be my wife. 

> Ive been out today twice for a climb.

> Ive not come in contact with anyone.

> Ive not seen one single piece of advice to stay in. So i shall be going out.

Then you need to listen to the PM daily briefings. 

Post edited at 19:01
15
 mark s 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Ok nice story. 

Concern yourself with your own life pal

20
In reply to mark s:

> Ok nice story. 

> Concern yourself with your own life pal

Yeah, not sure we're aligned enough to be pally. 

6
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> The NHS in total has approx 130000 ICU beds.

That's total beds.  ICU beds are about 4000. 

> Putting potential extra strain on NHS capability is as blatantly stupid and anti-social and selfish as that.

OK, but I've gone out climbing dozens of times a year for 30 years and never needed a hospital visit as a result.** If one is being sensible and moderate, climbing is not really a high-risk activity.

(**Obviously I'm going to feel very foolish if this changes in the next 10 weeks.)

1
 misterb 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I too will be out of work soon no doubt, already my hours have been halved and i have no recourse to work from home

I'm damned if i will let this ruin my life without a fight

I will be the first volunteering to do unpaid work for the nhs if and when they announce measures like that

I'm f*cked  if i will sit in my house and shit myself . I'm going to be positive as i can on all fronts and that doesn't include hiding from this thing it means fighting

Many people are going to have to show a bit of back bone in the coming months/ years and as a community i think climbers are made of stronger stuff than your average Joe so let's just focus on the obvious positives 

If you need any shopping delivering I'm sure we can get a page set up on here to offer support to ask of our community,as Mark s says, the super market is more dangerous to us all ATM

Peace

4
In reply to stp:

I live in London so any chance of me going climbing is minimal as I need to get trains to even the sandstone.

Sqwark has told me that sport climbing as safer than grit bouldering.

Sav  

2
 Monkeysee 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

That's why big route soloing is currently  the safest option for everyone ! 

Each to their own , just stay away from each other 😉

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That's total beds.  ICU beds are about 4000. 

My haste led to the error in not splitting the figures. Thanks. Sheffield is already struggling through staff being off (no tests) and can't get patients discharged quick enough. 

> OK, but I've gone out climbing dozens of times a year for 30 years and never needed a hospital visit as a result.** If one is being sensible and moderate, climbing is not really a high-risk activity.

> (**Obviously I'm going to feel very foolish if this changes in the next 10 weeks.) 

I honestly admire some people's determination not to let this get to them, but it's not really you feeling foolish that should be the first thing to spring to mind if (big if, I get it) you pop off a route. 

I'd just ask people to the right thing, and, if you excuse the pun, knock it on the head for a bit. The hospital unit probably couldn't fit you in right now! 

Post edited at 20:06
3
In reply to misterb:

> I too will be out of work soon no doubt, already my hours have been halved and i have no recourse to work from home

> I'm damned if i will let this ruin my life without a fight

> I will be the first volunteering to do unpaid work for the nhs if and when they announce measures like that

> I'm f*cked  if i will sit in my house and shit myself . I'm going to be positive as i can on all fronts and that doesn't include hiding from this thing it means fighting

> Many people are going to have to show a bit of back bone in the coming months/ years and as a community i think climbers are made of stronger stuff than your average Joe so let's just focus on the obvious positives 

> If you need any shopping delivering I'm sure we can get a page set up on here to offer support to ask of our community,as Mark s says, the super market is more dangerous to us all ATM

> Peace

Loss of work is crap. Hope you can manage OK. 

Peace and out. 

Post edited at 20:19
1
In reply to Monkeysee:

> That's why big route soloing is currently  the safest option for everyone ! 

> Each to their own , just stay away from each other 😉

And to be fair no risk of surviving to need the NHS if you fall off.

 JHiley 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

Sorry I couldn't help biting off a bit more...

>  look at how Asian countries have dealt with the virus

By pretending it didn't exist and threatening the doctors who tried to warn their colleagues? Then marching around in the street spraying disinfectant into the air and blaming everything on the US Army?

> they would laugh at us for arguing about climbing 

Because whether or not a few pairs go climbing in the countryside is irrelevant to the Coronavirus?

5
 Si dH 19 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

The thing very few people on here seem to have mentioned is transmission of the disease via the rock. The more important holds on the popular routes and boulder problems on popular crags get used a lot,  covered in chalk but also sweat, bits of skin, blood and whatever we had in our mouth last time we touched it. This virus is thought to survive for a reasonable period of time on hard surfaces. And while you are out climbing for a day it is virtually impossible to wash your hands properly between climbing and eating your lunch (or at all). I suspect this is a far more likely transmission path than being coughed on by someone at the crag. Apart from anything else,  the only people put there will be people not yet showing symptoms.

Personally I think the risk of taking up an NHS bed is finite but miniscule,  the risk of picking up the disease on some well loved rock and then passing it on to others far greater. So I might do a bit of climbing in the near future but it certainly won't be anywhere like Parisellas,  Pex or Stanage...

2
 Si dH 19 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

> Sorry I couldn't help biting off a bit more...

> >  look at how Asian countries have dealt with the virus

> By pretending it didn't exist and threatening the doctors who tried to warn their colleagues? Then marching around in the street spraying disinfectant into the air and blaming everything on the US Army?

They did that initially,  then they realised their mistake and fixed it. More people have now died in Italy than in China. Yesterday China had no new infections. That's all a pretty stark illustration that their ability to control this infection and protect their people is better than in the west. 

1
 Si dH 19 Mar 2020
In reply to mark s:

> Ok nice story. 

> Concern yourself with your own life pal

That's a really irresponsible attitude at a time like this. The whole point is that those of us at lower risk need to minimise transmission to protect those at higher risk. 

1
 JHiley 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> They did that initially,  then they realised their mistake and fixed it. More people have now died in Italy than in China. Yesterday China had no new infections. That's all a pretty stark illustration that their ability to control this infection and protect their people is better than in the west. 

If it's true. Which is a big if with China. Even if it is though, that would imply that as soon as they lift restrictions the virus will spread again if there are any pockets left. Unless the real reason it stopped is because so many people in Wuhan caught a version of it that it can't spread anymore.

Though given that 'The West' includes Trump I'll concede China's response was almost certainly better.

3
 jabc 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> protect their people is better than in the west. 

A certain Benjamin Franklin quote springs to mind. It's a matter of perspective. I'd rather take my chances here as a free man than be a Muslim in Xinjiang. 

 Darron 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Red Rover:

You only have to avoid essential travel on public transport. Cars ok providing you keep 2m distance from people (except household members). Makes complete sense when considered with all current advice.

In reply to JHiley:

Precisely. On a wider point, I can’t see how the whole social distancing strategy is sustainable for more than a few months at most. The economics simply won’t work. Lots of companies and individuals needing financial support. The government can help - to an extent. There is no money tree: can’t raise taxes in a recession, can’t borrow endlessly because eventually people will stop lending and can’t print money (the last thing we need now is inflation). Then you have the social and mental health issues you allude to. There will be a massive backlash eventually.

The government is just winging it, hoping the virus will go away after a few months or some effective drugs will be found (at least a year for a vaccine and then administering it to everyone in the country!). Increasing ICU capacity is great but I doubt there will ever be enough and people will still die because ventilators aren’t a cure, they just hell some people get through it.

But the virus won’t just go away. China has apparently eliminated it but now has imported cases and if/once they relax their restrictions it will come back. Crucially, there will be no herd immunity to combat it when it does come back... so more social distancing? Eventually we could have a lot of unemployed people starving and rioting. I won’t blame them.

Social distancing isn’t a strategy, it’s a tactic. I’m not convinced that there is an overall strategy other than sit and wait for a vaccine, hope that not too many people will die and hope that the government won’t run out of money.

In reply to Red Rover:

12 weeks to may be get to the crest of the wave. Imperial College paper basically modelled a fizzle out at the end of the summer. So more like 5 months. That’s the first wave. There could well be others. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

Indeed. Italians as well. The French sensibly allow walking, running and cycling. That sentence looks weird... 

In reply to Darron:

> Cars ok providing you keep 2m distance from people (except household members).

I generally keep more than 2m from the car in front unless the traffic is crawling ;-)

A car is a confined space so I guess lift sharing with non household members or even getting a taxi are not advisable (though most taxi rides are short and black cabs have a screen so presumably relatively safe). 

 Slarti B 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

Not sure they allow cycling any more!!

In reply to Misha:

On the medication front. I have read that n India they are using HIV/AIDS anti-retrovirals and an another medication to treat COVID 19....

It worked.

The CM at Beacon Climbing shared ain't good news about COVID and I re-shared it.

I don't think social distancing is a strategy. You are right about unemployed and starving people rioting - yellow jackets, UK style. 

3
 mark s 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Si dH:

So in 1 post you say you may well climb in a quiet area.

Then you say im irresponsible for saying the same thing???? 

Something doesnt add up there. Need to make your mind up which side of the fence you are on. 

 Si dH 20 Mar 2020
In reply to mark s:

I didn't say you were irresponsible for climbing in a quiet area. I think it's OK for now as long as we understand the risks and actively minimise them. 

What I said was irresponsible was your statement "Concern yourself with your own life pal". It may have been out of context and I know we all shorten things we write online,  but we need to all be looking out for everyone else at the moment. 

In reply to Si dH:

> I didn't say you were irresponsible for climbing in a quiet area. I think it's OK for now as long as we understand the risks and actively minimise them. 

And sadly a way to minimise is not to travel,  

i believe we  have a responsibility not to spread this or any other colds type virus so yes   +1  for looking out for others 

 Lord_ash2000 20 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

I don't really understand the none essential travel thing, I can only assume it's aimed at city dwellers walking down crowded pavements and using public transport because me stepping 3m out of my door to my car, parked in my drive to go somewhere leaves no risk of catching or spreading the infection. You've got to understand that the government advise is general advice given the the population as a whole so for a lot of people it won't really apply. They know the virus will spread anyway it's just a matter of slowing the rate down so the NHS isn't overwhelmed.

Just use a bit of common sense really, if you're considering going climbing etc think what do I need to do in order to do this and does that generate a non minimal risk? So if you need to walk down a busy street and catch a bus full of NHS workers on their way to work to get to the crag then I'd avoid it, if you and your household are going by car to a remote crag where you're probably half a mile from the nearest human then I see next to zero risk really. So given the benefits of climbing for physical and mental well-being verses a infinity small additional risk of getting the virus that would be fine in my view.

Post edited at 08:24
1
In reply to Pero:

‘Bastards in London’ - what the f**k are you talking about? There have been pictures of empty supermarkets all over the country.

jcm

1
 Lord_ash2000 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I think your ability to judge risk is way off. 

What percentage of NHS resources (beds) are taken up with injured climbers on a typical week? I'd say close to zero. 

What's the likelihood of catching or spreading the virus by climbing outdoors, again close to zero if you go by car directly from home.

Over a long period of time those who regularly partake in sport of any type actually save the NHS a lot of money because yes once a decade they might hurt themselves and need treatment but for those who spend their lives doing nothing the trips to hospital are far more frequent due to the array of health conditions they get from their poor lifestyle.

In the short term do you think the NHS will be more stressed from a handful of injured sports people and the few individual extra cases of CV resulting from people keeping active where they can or, from the tidal wave of mental health cases that'll be coming thier way in a month or two if everyone keeps themselves locked up regardless of common sense?

Post edited at 08:38
3
 timparkin 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> This virus is thought to survive for a reasonable period of time on hard surfaces. And while you are out climbing for a day it is virtually impossible to wash your hands properly between climbing and eating your lunch (or at all).

But  ... UV light is destroyed the virus and the strength of the sun's UV is over 20x that of a sanitiser  UV per sq m. Hence, as long as someone hasn't been using it that day, you're probably fine. 

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think your ability to judge risk is way off. 

I'd say you and some others are reaching for reasons to justify your decision to engage in your chosen potentially risky activity. 

> What percentage of NHS resources (beds) are taken up with injured climbers on a typical week? I'd say close to zero. 

As the husband of someone who works in an intensive neuro unit, more than you would think. Come and have a chat with our friend the A&E doctor. 

> What's the likelihood of catching or spreading the virus by climbing outdoors, again close to zero if you go by car directly from home.

It's not about the virus. 

> Over a long period of time those who regularly partake in sport of any type actually save the NHS a lot of money because yes once a decade they might hurt themselves and need treatment but for those who spend their lives doing nothing the trips to hospital are far more frequent due to the array of health conditions they get from their poor lifestyle.

Couldn't agree more. But this isn't the time for whataboutery. 

> In the short term do you think the NHS will be more stressed from a handful of injured sports people and the few individual extra cases of CV resulting from people keeping active where they can or, from the tidal wave of mental health cases that'll be coming thier way in a month or two if everyone keeps themselves locked up regardless of common sense?

You don't have to lock yourself away. That's a wilful misreading of what is being advised. Go for a walk, distance yourself, take precautions. You'll no doubt do what you want. After all you don't see the point of preventing some people dying do you? 

Post edited at 09:06
12
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I'd say you and some others are reaching for reasons to justify your decision to engage in your chosen potentially risky activity. 

Or perhaps they're just searching for a way to inject some level of normality into their lives for what is a totally abnormal situation - which to me does not seem unreasonable.

> Go for a walk, distance yourself, take precautions.

That in itself entails risk. So does chopping vegetables. So do many things that are not really causing anyone to wring their hands. It's a matter of evaluating that risk to ourselves and others given the context - something that as climbers we're supposed to be able to do (some admittedly better than others). Nobody goes to the crag setting out to need hospitalization, the risk of that happening is tiny. It has not suddenly skyrocketed - if anything the risk would be less due to increased attention to safety.

3
 flour 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I'd say you and some others are reaching for reasons to justify your decision to engage in your chosen potentially risky activity. 

> As the husband of someone who works in an intensive neuro unit, more than you would think. Come and have a chat with our friend the A&E doctor. 

> It's not about the virus. 

> Couldn't agree more. But this isn't the time for whataboutery. 

> You don't have to lock yourself away. That's a wilful misreading of what is being advised. Go for a walk, distance yourself, take precautions. You'll no doubt do what you want. After all you don't see the point of preventing some people dying do you? 

Spot on Stuart. If the posters on here who are in denial tried to explain their reasoning to the desperate staff in critical care they would soon be exposed.

4
 Rick51 20 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Unfortunately half of accidents happen at home according to RoSPA with approximately 6000 deaths pa. Stay safe in there.

https://www.rospa.com/Home-Safety/Advice/General/Facts-and-Figures

2
 bigbobbyking 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Rick51:

> Unfortunately half of accidents happen at home according to RoSPA with approximately 6000 deaths pa. Stay safe in there.

Ok, so let's stop the other half...
Going for a walk isn't zero risk, but you can't say with a straight face it's not MUCH lower risk than going climbing. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Not sure why you're getting dislikes. I've spent the past week trying to give myself an excuse for going sport climbing with my usual partner - separate cars to nearby cliffs, keeping  2m away - should be possible? But we'd be using the same gear, the same holds etc and would still essentially be in the same space. The risks of injury and infection may be low but my wife is in a higher risk group (asthma) so it's a no for me.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> What percentage of NHS resources (beds) are taken up with injured climbers on a typical week? I'd say close to zero. 

> As the husband of someone who works in an intensive neuro unit, more than you would think. Come and have a chat with our friend the A&E doctor. 

A fair few years ago, I was an injured climber taking up a bed. I certainly have no intention of risking doing so again at this desperate time for the NHS - who pretty much saved my life. But I was the only climber I came across in cardio-thoracic, orthopaedics and ITU  - and this was in Sheffield. I accept the percentage may well be higher than I think - but does anyone have any idea what it actually is?

In reply to ebdon:

Climbing isn't banned. It's up to individuals to decide for themselves whether going climbing puts themselves or others at risk. Yes, we should all act responsibly, but we have to make similar judgements over everything we do. Yes, there is a risk of injury which we can't totally eliminate, but we can manage by climbing well within our grade and being prepared to back off rather than go for it.

I suspect there will be far more injuries from people stuck at home catching up with DIY jobs than from climbing. I'm planning to paint my house,  I'm more scared of falling off a ladder than falling off Windgather.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Not sure why you're getting dislikes.

For the record I've never 'disliked' anything - but it's probably because he is taking a fundamentalist position on a question which for me is more nuanced, and depends on a climber's individual circumstances. I have a gritstone crag less than 200m from my door. There's about as much risk going there and scrambling up a couple of Dfffs that I've done dozens of times before as there is from me tripping over the cat and falling down the stairs.

 Lord_ash2000 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> You don't have to lock yourself away. That's a wilful misreading of what is being advised. Go for a walk, distance yourself, take precautions. You'll no doubt do what you want. After all you don't see the point of preventing some people dying do you? 

If your argument is doing risky things means you are more likely to end up in hospital at a time when the NHS needs its full focus on treating the infected then yes it will. A handful of walkers, climbers, cyclists, runners, etc will get injured in the coming months and yes that will take up some resources. But you have to balance that agist the quality of life improvements for the millions of others who don't get injured.

It might very well be that as a direct result of injured sportspeople taking up beds a handful of people might have a worse time suffering from corona virus than they may have otherwise and maybe 2 or 3 extra will die as a direct result. However, if you look at it objectively rather than emotionally, then I'd say reducing the suffering of millions a bit is worth a handful of deaths of those who probably would have died of something else sooner or later anyway. It's quality over quantity really, we have no shortage of human life and I know I wouldn't want the entire world to suffer just to keep me alive a little longer.  

Post edited at 11:46
3
In reply to planetmarshall:

Nuanced to a large part though by the governments adoption of nudge rather than directive.

I too am in the happy position though of having a crag 3 minutes away!

 Si dH 20 Mar 2020
In reply to timparkin:

> But  ... UV light is destroyed the virus and the strength of the sun's UV is over 20x that of a sanitiser  UV per sq m. Hence, as long as someone hasn't been using it that day, you're probably fine. 

Not all holds we climb on get the sun though... 

Post edited at 11:49
In reply to planetmarshall:

> There's about as much risk going there and scrambling up a couple of Dfffs that I've done dozens of times before as there is from me tripping over the cat and falling down the stairs.

I agree.  I was definitely in more danger of tripping and breaking an arm taking our dogs out along the Roaches yesterday than if I'd been soloing on my own.

 JHiley 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I'd say you and some others are reaching for reasons to justify your decision to engage in your chosen potentially risky activity. 

Why does anyone need to justify engaging in an activity if it has negligible impact on the situation? No one has come up with a reason not to go climbing outside, provided certain precautions are taken. No one with any authority or expertise has advised against it or anything like it. Nothing in the published government advice supports this sort of restriction unless you deliberately conflate different statements to distort their meaning. E.g. conflating advice on international travel with driving to the crag, conflating advice on large gatherings with meeting a single friend, conflating advice on self isolating with social distancing.

> As the husband of someone who works in an intensive neuro unit, more than you would think. Come and have a chat with our friend the A&E doctor. 

Weird how no identifiable medical professionals have come out and advised against taking exercise then. Just a few internet trolls. The don't do X type of exercise because an accident puts pressure on the NHS is just garbage. You can easily use it to justify or ban literally any activity.

> It's not about the virus. 

Nice of you to admit that. Pretty sure this means you get a lower trolling score though.

> Couldn't agree more. But this isn't the time for whataboutery. 

No. I read what he wrote. It was a direct refutation of your ridiculously contrived argument.

> You don't have to lock yourself away. That's a wilful misreading of what is being advised. Go for a walk, distance yourself, take precautions. You'll no doubt do what you want. After all you don't see the point of preventing some people dying do you? 

This is just puzzling. You literally just made his/ my exact point. Does this mean you've given up? Then you made a weird personal dig so maybe you're just confused.

Maybe focus your energy on the people ignoring the sensible advice and congregating in groups, still hanging out in bars, turning up at GPs surgeries if they have symptoms or going home with trollies full of loo role and hand sanitiser and stripping the shelves of food before nurses get a chance to buy any. Pretty much everyone here gets it. For example I'm self isolating at the moment, have cancelled two trips separately to that and last week I spent half my time trying to convince people to take this situation seriously.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Nuanced to a large part though by the governments adoption of nudge rather than directive.

Yes that's a fair point - and other governments have taken more draconian stances. The current state of the supermarket shelves shows that the public at large cannot be trusted to act responsibly when left to their own devices (I know how illiberal that sounds - but the evidence appears to be there). But climbing is a niche activity, and evaluating risk and taking responsibility for our own actions is what we do.

 Andy Lagan 20 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

There is a stark difference between the approach by the British government to that here in France. I was just stopped by police as I was walking down the road ( I had the necessary paper work so there wasn't a problem, maintained social distance). Cycling has just been banned unless it is to fetch supplies. I'd love to go climbing or ski touring, but I won't as I am following the rules that have been put in place presumably by people that have a far greater insight into the problem that I have. I'm spending my time doing maintenance of my bikes, clearing up the garden space of our apartment complex. I also have a degree to study for, which helps, but there are a great number of things to focus on instead of sports at this unusual moment in time. An article in Mountagne Magazine states that 'the slightest injury resulting in the mobilization of aid to the detriment of patients of the Covid-19.'

https://www.montagnes-magazine.com/actus-coronavirus-pghm-va-sanctionner-les-contrevenants-montagne 

It will soon be evident which approach has led to a more effective in flattening the curve of infections. My guess is that the approach on the continent will be better than in the UK, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Until then I'm happy to follow rules laid out by the French Government to ensure the lest stress on the system which is trying to help those less fortunate than me.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> It might very well be that as a direct result of injured sportspeople taking up beds a handful of people might have a worse time suffering from corona virus than they may have otherwise and maybe 2 or 3 extra will die as a direct result.

You're plucking numbers from the air there. We're now trending higher than Italy on one of the graphs. https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441 What that ultimately means, who knows. 

> However, if you look at it objectively rather than emotionally, then I'd say reducing the suffering of millions a bit is worth a handful of deaths of those who probably would have died of something else sooner or later anyway. It's quality over quantity really, we have no shortage of human life and I know I wouldn't want the entire world to suffer just to keep me alive a little longer.  

That's probably on the internet forever now, you know that right?

In reply to JHiley:

> Why does anyone need to justify engaging in an activity if it has negligible impact on the situation? No one has come up with a reason not to go climbing outside, provided certain precautions are taken. No one with any authority or expertise has advised against it or anything like it. Nothing in the published government advice supports this sort of restriction unless you deliberately conflate different statements to distort their meaning. E.g. conflating advice on international travel with driving to the crag, conflating advice on large gatherings with meeting a single friend, conflating advice on self isolating with social distancing.

You're absolutely right, no one has to justify anything. It's about maybe doing the right thing for a few months or so. It's not about looking stupid if you did have a prang, it's about facing the staff who'd be dealing with you. 

https://holmevalleymrt.org.uk/index.php/latest-news/161-mountain-rescue-england-and-wales-response-to-coronavirus-covid-19

You'll also notice not once have I advocated stopping doing anything. I'm definitely limiting my activities and exposure to self-imposed risk.

> Weird how no identifiable medical professionals have come out and advised against taking exercise then. Just a few internet trolls. The don't do X type of exercise because an accident puts pressure on the NHS is just garbage. You can easily use it to justify or ban literally any activity.

Exercise is not what I've ever said to avoid. You can believe I'm a troll or not, I couldn't care less. I witness the state my wife comes home in though. 

> Nice of you to admit that. Pretty sure this means you get a lower trolling score though.

> No. I read what he wrote. It was a direct refutation of your ridiculously contrived argument.

> This is just puzzling. You literally just made his/ my exact point. Does this mean you've given up? Then you made a weird personal dig so maybe you're just confused.

I've never said don't go out. Knocking climbing (and in my case caving) on the head for a few months is no great hardship.

The dig? Do you mean about Lord's thinking it OK for a few extra people to die rather than inconvenience many millions? Check out another thread he's posted on. 

> Maybe focus your energy on the people ignoring the sensible advice and congregating in groups, still hanging out in bars, turning up at GPs surgeries if they have symptoms or going home with trollies full of loo role and hand sanitiser and stripping the shelves of food before nurses get a chance to buy any. Pretty much everyone here gets it. For example I'm self isolating at the moment, have cancelled two trips separately to that and last week I spent half my time trying to convince people to take this situation seriously.  

Take this as it's intended: fair play to you. 

Post edited at 12:55
 Lyndleme 20 Mar 2020

I think it's wise to wait things out. Better safe than sorry.  

In reply to Andy Clarke:

> A fair few years ago, I was an injured climber taking up a bed. I certainly have no intention of risking doing so again at this desperate time for the NHS - who pretty much saved my life. But I was the only climber I came across in cardio-thoracic, orthopaedics and ITU  - and this was in Sheffield. I accept the percentage may well be higher than I think - but does anyone have any idea what it actually is?

In 35 years of doing the outdoor stuff I've been hospitalised as a direct result three times myself. One was very nasty and intensive. So yeah...

As for stats:

https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/information-centre/incident-statistics/2017-mountain-rescue-england-and-wales-incident-statistics

Wade through that if you want. OK not all with require evac to hospital but it's a staggering number of volunteer hours.

Post edited at 13:00
In reply to Andy Lagan:

> There is a stark difference between the approach by the British government to that here in France. I was just stopped by police as I was walking down the road ( I had the necessary paper work so there wasn't a problem, maintained social distance). Cycling has just been banned unless it is to fetch supplies. I'd love to go climbing or ski touring, but I won't as I am following the rules that have been put in place presumably by people that have a far greater insight into the problem that I have. I'm spending my time doing maintenance of my bikes, clearing up the garden space of our apartment complex. I also have a degree to study for, which helps, but there are a great number of things to focus on instead of sports at this unusual moment in time. An article in Mountagne Magazine states that 'the slightest injury resulting in the mobilization of aid to the detriment of patients of the Covid-19.'

> It will soon be evident which approach has led to a more effective in flattening the curve of infections. My guess is that the approach on the continent will be better than in the UK, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

> Until then I'm happy to follow rules laid out by the French Government to ensure the lest stress on the system which is trying to help those less fortunate than me.

Todays Johns Hopkins graph/report has some sobering curves for the UK.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> You'll also notice not once have I advocated stopping doing anything. I'm definitely limiting my activities and exposure to self-imposed risk.

And that's fine. You've decided on a level or risk that's acceptable to you. But accept that others, using their own judgement and individual circumstances, might decide to set that bar differently.

And it is not for you to decide that they're wrong.

In reply to planetmarshall:

> And that's fine. You've decided on a level or risk that's acceptable to you. But accept that others, using their own judgement and individual circumstances, might decide to set that bar differently.

> And it is not for you to decide that they're wrong.

I've never said they're wrong. I never would. It's about their perceived risk thresholds or abilities to judge that and consequences of actions. There's a safety net in place for when that goes wrong. And it does. Right now that net is getting very full and we each have a choice as to whether we want to intentionally make that situation possibly worse. 

Of course we could go down the rabbit hole and talk about kettles and ladders and getting out of bed. But to maintain 'normal lifestyles' most of those things still need to go on and so they should. It's about putting on hold, for a short time, those things that are further away from the 'safe' end of the spectrum. For the greater good to paraphrase a film.

Lord seems not to care because he doesn't see the worth in preventing some people dying against the inconvenience it causes to the rest of the surviving population. You've read that I presume. There's no point in arguing against that with him, that's his lot to deal with.

Post edited at 13:29
1
 Huddy 20 Mar 2020
In reply to misterb:

“I'm going to be positive as i can on all fronts and that doesn't include hiding from this thing it means fighting”

I think hiding from it is pretty much the message being given.  

1
In reply to ebdon:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-51974140

Word from a friend in Bavaria is they're on curfew. 

Events might just take over.

In reply to Huddy:

> “I'm going to be positive as i can on all fronts and that doesn't include hiding from this thing it means fighting”

> I think hiding from it is pretty much the message being given.  

Yeah, it's strange this 'war-footing' type attitude. 

1
 Andy Moles 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Of course we could go down the rabbit hole and talk about kettles and ladders and getting out of bed. But to maintain 'normal lifestyles' most of those things still need to go on and so they should. It's about putting on hold, for a short time, those things that are further away from the 'safe' end of the spectrum.

The thing is, with appropriate experience and judgement, climbing can be at the safe end of the spectrum. Risk can be made as negligible as going for a walk. If you don't think that's true, maybe you don't have the appropriate experience and judgement, but don't think no one else has.

1
In reply to Andy Moles:

> The thing is, with appropriate experience and judgement, climbing can be at the safe end of the spectrum.

Absolutely it can be. And people can and often do extend their own perception of their ability. Don't really care one way or the other. When it does go wrong, and it does, then it's an unnecessary burden on an already stretched service. People can justify it all they want, that's ok. 

> Risk can be made as negligible as going for a walk. If you don't think that's true, maybe you don't have the appropriate experience and judgement, but don't think no one else has.

You've no idea about my levels of judgement and I'm not really interested in discussing that. Suffice to say in my job I meet lots of people who think they can make good judgements but the reality... 

 Andy Moles 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Agreed and I didn't actually make any assertion about your judgement, that sentence began with an 'If'.

You have agreed that climbing can be safe...so I'm a bit at a loss as to what your message actually is.

In reply to Andy Moles:

> The thing is, with appropriate experience and judgement, climbing can be at the safe end of the spectrum. Risk can be made as negligible as going for a walk. 

I went out cragging yesterday evening. Separate cars. Kept our distance. Safe routes within our grade.

This evening and at the weekend I'll be out on the hills walking on my own. Total social distancing but I would judge in fact a little more risk than the climbing if anything.

I am happy that both are acceptable activities done sensibly,

1
In reply to Andy Moles:

> Agreed and I didn't actually make any assertion about your judgement, that sentence began with an 'If'.

An inference perhaps, but I'm honestly chilled about it. 

> You have agreed that climbing can be safe...so I'm a bit at a loss as to what your message actually is.

Because it's not always safe all the time. And when it goes wrong (long shot though that may be) it usually requires some serious input from the emergency services. My wife's unit is down to about half its staffing levels. No tests on staff, and little in the way of PPE. 

No one ever goes climbing thinking that they want an accident and I'm not here to want to be proved right. I'm happy sitting this one out (the virus). 

A tale. It wasn't until I met my missus that I started wearing a helmet for cycling or climbing. Had a look in the ward once, couple of climbers at the time and a few cyclists. 'So these are the people who didn't wear helmets'? says I. 'Nope, these are the ones who were wearing helmets. We don't see the ones who don't.' I made a choice that day. After some thought and the reality being shown to me. 

Peace and out.

 Tom V 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

The main problem is that there are people from all sorts of groups who can make the same sort of arguments as to why they should carry on going out. It seems obvious that people's judgement isn't to be trusted in extreme times like this and the notion that climbers are in some way better at risk assessment than other groups has no foundation that I'm aware of, however much we like to think differently.

There will be no option but for intervention and drastic curtailment of freedom while ever people keep chipping away at the spirit of the thing and making exceptions of themselves.

Post edited at 15:17
2
In reply to Tom V:

> There will be no option but for intervention and drastic curtailment of freedom while ever people keep chipping away at the spirit of the thing and making exceptions of themselves.

I suspect that if everyone embraced the spirit of responsible social distancing as requested by the government then there might not be the need for a drastic lockdown. Some people on here seem to think we are already locked down though!

1
 Enty 20 Mar 2020

To the Brits currently climbing in the Tarn, and anywhere else in France -  STOP NOW! 

You might not know this yet but you're the talk of the town on social media over here and "Brit climbers on holiday defying the ban" isn't going down well among local climbers holed up at home 😠

Anymore info that you've climbed today and will climb tomorrow and it's name and shame time.

Angry?? Na not me.

E

 lithos 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That's total beds.  ICU beds are about 4000. in Jan 2020 in England we had 

Adult CCU beds:     4123  of which   3423 were occupied (83%)

Pediatric IC beds :     312 of which      247 were occupied (79%)

Neonat CC cots       1439 of which     1024 were occupied (71%)

data from 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/critical-care-capacity/critical-care-bed-capacity-and-urgent-operations-cancelled-2019-20-data/

I am guessing we may have more now and some people been discharged and with many surgeries cancelled they should free up a few more - but 700 open adult beds in Jan ....

In reply to lithos:

> Adult CCU beds:     4123  of which   3423 were occupied (83%)

> Pediatric IC beds :     312 of which      247 were occupied (79%)

> Neonat CC cots       1439 of which     1024 were occupied (71%)

> data from 

> I am guessing we may have more now and some people been discharged and with many surgeries cancelled they should free up a few more - but 700 open adult beds in Jan ....

https://www.hsj.co.uk/news/hospitals-critical-care-unit-overwhelmed-by-coronavirus-patients/7027189.article?fbclid=IwAR3hTFL0sWwjeYXOtt6stj9fBFxCJgsUGqtcHFSG5_TRmSDIXLp42nN2LqI

 JHiley 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> The main problem is that there are people from all sorts of groups who can make the same sort of arguments as to why they should carry on going out. It seems obvious that people's judgement isn't to be trusted in extreme times like this and the notion that climbers are in some way better at risk assessment than other groups has no foundation that I'm aware of, however much we like to think differently.

> There will be no option but for intervention and drastic curtailment of freedom while ever people keep chipping away at the spirit of the thing and making exceptions of themselves.

But different activities do carry different risks. Perhaps we should try enforcing the rules on things which have an effect rather than expanding them to cover things that don't. I don't buy the 'lets do things for the sake of looking like we're doing things' approach which seems popular in certain other countries, especially if it makes the restrictions less sustainable by affecting morale.

Enforcing closures of bars and cafes etc, fining people for gathering in big groups and shutting public transport for everyone except key workers seem like good options at the moment. I'm hoping for measures like these in the address from Our Great & Mighty Leader later. Adding restrictions on irrelevant activities for the sake of it seems pointless and likely counterproductive.

 Tom V 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

The people who are already thinking and acting like there is a lockdown are  ironically not the ones who will bring about that actual eventuality.

 Tom V 20 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Well the pub ban is a reality as of tonight and I imagine French type restrictions are only a matter of days away.

 JHiley 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Yeah. I would've liked to go a bit further to be honest but I guess they're called Conservatives for a reason.

 mrphilipoldham 20 Mar 2020
In reply to cwarby:

Interesting you say this, I overheard an NHS employee today at Almscliff out climbing. He seemed quite positive about the situation, and their preparedness. 

1
 Tom V 20 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Did he give some indication of his role in the NHS? It might be relevant, given the nature of the topic in hand.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I'm glad and hope wherever he works, it all pans out. From my view (hospital lab), I see and hear many issues. e.g the courier's who bring and take samples round the network are not given sanitiser gel. Boss says it costs!!!!!???? We're still getting infected samples down the pod system that PHE say is wrong. I worry. Chances are if I get it, it will not be much to write home about. Not so others.

Let's hope he's right.

Chris

In reply to Tom V:

> Did he give some indication of his role in the NHS? It might be relevant, given the nature of the topic in hand.

The devil is indeed in the detail. I do hope they're right, whoever this mysterious person is. I've got a horrible feeling mrphilipoldham's post might age badly though. 

In reply to mark s:

I had a walk up to Malham today, counted 14 folk on the catwalk, having said that I called into the Coop in Gargrave on the way  home, people queing at the checkout for 15 minutes all crammed together in a narrow isle, made sitting/climbing on the catwalk the much nicer and safer option. 

2
 Tom V 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Dewi Williams:

People need to eat.

I think some of our European friends will be shaking their heads in disbelief at your 14 on the catwalk scenario and the justification for it.

Post edited at 21:02
3
 mrphilipoldham 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Not that I caught on sadly! Keeping my distance, and all.  

 mrphilipoldham 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It most probably will. Only reporting on the snippet of information I overheard in passing. Genuinely not making it up to brush off fears etc. Being completely honest, I was somewhat surprised.

 HardenClimber 20 Mar 2020
In reply to Dewi Williams:

Our village butcher has a small shop.

Queue was well spaced outside, one person in shop at a time (staff member came out to take sandwich orders from queue, so they didn't even need to go in. contactless reader worked outside).

Good team!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> It most probably will. Only reporting on the snippet of information I overheard in passing. Genuinely not making it up to brush off fears etc. Being completely honest, I was somewhat surprised.

I took your post at face value, though yes, it is a surprising thing to hear. 

1
In reply to Slarti B:

Indeed they don’t, seems it was ok for a couple of days. Crazy. 

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Exactly. People seem to stress about petrol stations as well. Just use gloves and contactless. Going to the supermarket is higher risk as you spend longer in there and it’s busier. As noted above, current advice is against non essential travel *by public transport*. This may change of course.

As for deserted crags, judging by the number of people on social media saying they won’t climb, Stanage will soon be deserted! I wonder how many of these people will still be holding out come June... July... August... September... 

1
In reply to planetmarshall:

This is what puzzles me. The risk of accidents is going to reduce, if anything, as people should take more care. Of course anyone can have an accident but those who are sufficiently experienced can mitigate that risk to remote. Those who aren’t experienced should stay at home or go for a walk instead. If a sport climber is looking to get into trad, now is not the time but they can still go sport climbing. I think a bit of common sense goes a long way. 

2
In reply to Bulls Crack:

If I were in your shoes, I’d make the same decision. However I live alone and would now be working from home (off work at the moment so same thing). Hence I would make a different judgement call, which would also take into account my partner’s circumstances.

In reply to Misha:

Yes can see that - friends = on here - might be doing the same thing ie can self-distance/isolate together 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I’m sorry to hear about your accidents. Perhaps they shape your view somewhat. In over 15 years of climbing, including a fair bit of serious trad, winter, water ice and alpine, I’ve had one minor accident (a cut which needed a few stitches, took the staff nurse less than half an hour to sort out). I wasn’t even climbing at the time but it was below a route, so climbing related. I’ve never had an accident despite taking many trad falls because I’m able to judge what is safe and don’t get on bold / serious routes unless they’re within my abilities.

So it’s perfectly possible to mitigate risk, though zero risk doesn’t exist of course. Now I’m not saying that I will never have an accident again but I think it’s fair to say that the chances of me having an accident trad or sport climbing in the next few months are remote, particularly as I would give additional consideration to venues and routes. The same for my climbing partners, who are also pretty experienced.

1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

You are right that people sometimes have an exaggerated view of their own ability and judgment. I suspect those people comprise a large portion of the accident statistics. But as Andy says that doesn’t mean that everyone is like that. There are a fair few experienced climbers who are perfectly able to judge for themselves and mitigate risk down to a remote level. If you want proof, it’s simple - these people climb serious routes but they are still alive and their accident rate is statistically insignificant. I know a fair few such people and they are not the people who are keeping the MRTs busy. 

In reply to Tom V:

The Catwalk is quite large. 

 Lord_ash2000 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> That's probably on the internet forever now, you know that right?

And I stand by it, human life is not of infinite value, the sacrifice of human life for the greater good happens all the time. We're already doing it, we could save even move lives if we looked down the whole country now, no one leaves thier homes on paine of a 10 year jail sentence, nationalise the food industry and have government vans deliver rations to each household.Less people would die but it would be horrific for everyone else so as you'd expect a balance has to be found.

And it's the same with risks, yesterday I went out for a 75km bike ride (on my own). It was nice weather, I had the afternoon free so why not? Was there a tiny risk I could crashed and needed hospital treatment? Yes of course. But what were the chances? Total distance covered by all cyclists yesterday / number of hospitalised cyclists yesterday X the 75km I did. I don't have the figures but I suspect is comes out at a pretty low risk considering the reward. 

The fact is the NHS will have a certain fixed rate of injuries and there is not a lot which can be done about it. People will trip, fall, get run over, go down the stairs, etc etc all that is going to happen regardless. Now yes, if I was thinking of on sighting some bold trad route at my technical limit i'd have maybe throught twice about it the current situation but personally I deem a bike ride, casual day out climbing, running, etc to he at an acceptable risk level.

5
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon: yes climbing is banned. 

6
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

So you think your right to carry on as normal is more important than anyone else’s? Of course your individual risk is small. Don’t be selfish. Stay at home. It’s not that hard. 

6
 misterb 21 Mar 2020
In reply to alex_arthur:

I went for a walk yesterday on Dartmoor and it was teeming with people

Most in the over 60 bracket it seemed

In reply to alex_arthur:

> Don’t be selfish. Stay at home. It’s not that hard. 

Sense of proportion. 

How many accidents happen in the home? How many will hurt themselves during the lock down doing DIY they don't have the skills nor the correct tools for?

Going for a cycle on a road is arguably at the bottom end of the risk scale. It's not like they were downhilling trying to master a 360 or something.  

1
In reply to misterb:

> I went for a walk yesterday on Dartmoor and it was teeming with people

> Most in the over 60 bracket it seemed

I passed about 20 over 70s walking in a mass huddle on their weekly ramble. Particularly vexing considering mine and many others situations in trying to protect that age group. 

In reply to misterb:

> I went for a walk yesterday on Dartmoor and it was teeming with people

> Most in the over 60 bracket it seemed

Why not, staying active is healthy. Keeping their cardiovascular system in good order might what saves them from this virus in the future. 

1
In reply to summo:

> > Don’t be selfish. Stay at home. It’s not that hard. 

> Sense of proportion. 

> How many accidents happen in the home? How many will hurt themselves during the lock down doing DIY they don't have the skills nor the correct tools for?

> Going for a cycle on a road is arguably at the bottom end of the risk scale. It's not like they were downhilling trying to master a 360 or something.  

More people need to get a sense of how big this thing will get and adjust their activities accordingly. From your other posts and replies I know you get this fully and my reply isn't intended as antagonism.

Making an effort not to get injured needlessly should be an aim for everyone right now from climbing to putting up the shelves.

I'll be running (for as long as we're still allowed out) but climbing or caving or big solo runs on the hills are not a priority at the minute. Of course fresh air and exercise will be vital (I've never said otherwise).

Post edited at 09:10
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

Walking/running/low risk exercise from home is a good idea as long as maintaining distancing. 
Your right people should probably think carefully about DIY aswell right now. 
Long distance road cycling is not low risk in my opinion. UK roads to full of careless drivers even now. 

 misterb 21 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

Yeah that was my inference that it was a good thing, i stayed well away from everyone to abide by social distancing ideas , it was great

 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

This is totally the correct message 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I'd agree. I guess it depends where you cycle. Congested roads versus extremely rural where you'll rarely see a car. 

And yes, in this very connected world you would think more could see how much countries like Italy are suffering and adjust their actions accordingly. 

In reply to alex_arthur:

>  UK roads to full of careless drivers even now. 

Racing to Tescos for another pallet of bog roll. 

 Niceboy 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

last time I ran I fell over and sprained my ankle ( I was running for a bus) ; how can you suggest climbing- of any description- should not be considered yet you are going to go for a run?!

In reply to summo:

> >  UK roads to full of careless drivers even now. 

> Racing to Tescos for another pallet of bog roll. 

Well played sir. 

In reply to Niceboy:

> last time I ran I fell over and sprained my ankle ( I was running for a bus) ; how can you suggest climbing- of any description- should not be considered yet you are going to go for a run?!

Please set your phaser to stun because I'm not here for a fight! 

You've probably not got much else to do, like the rest of us, so fill your boots reading this thread. Nothing I've said is particularly contradictory with going for a run. But in concise form: a sprained ankle probably won't need an ICU bed; a neck injury will.

Reflect a little. 

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to alex_arthur:

> So you think your right to carry on as normal is more important than anyone else’s? Of course your individual risk is small. Don’t be selfish. Stay at home. It’s not that hard. 

I find it disappointing that a significant number of people on a forum dedicated to climbing, an activity in which self reliance and independent risk assessment are absolutely seminal values, are adopting a sanctimonious black-and-white attitude to this.

A number of people have made the point pretty well that climbing is not, with the right level of experience and judgement in choice of venue and objective, a significantly risky activity. I'm yet to see a convincing rebuttal of this argument - only repetition of 'but accidents can happen', which no one disputes. It's just that those risks can be mitigated to such an extent that they don't outweigh the benefits to personal wellbeing of staying active.

It seems to be the judgement of some that climbing is not 'necessary', so therefore should be avoided. Where exactly you draw the line on what is 'necessary' will vary from person to person - for me, I would sooner give up driving to the shops for the next three months, thus reducing my risk of being involved in a road traffic accident, than stop all outdoor activities such as walking, cycling and climbing (with due care and avoidance of other people, etc).

I have spent the past week (somewhat unwillingly) guiding in the mountains. As a self-employed instructor, that may be my last income for some time - judge me if you want. Honestly, leading a single person along a snowy ridge felt a hell of a lot less risky than walking into Tesco in the evening.

3
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

As I've said before, everyone with a hobby or interest will have a reason for carrying on; the angler , the golfer, the horse rider all need their fix just as much as a climber does,. The end result is that the whole idea of staying indoors and keeping a lid on this is being disregarded by a significant portion of the population, because they think their activity is special, or because they aren't showing any symptoms or are not in a vulnerable group, or because they think they are capable of micromanaging the most deadly disease  in our lifetime. This will be one of the reasons the government uses when implementing a lockdown; people just aren't taking it seriously enough.

Comparisons with shopping are completely fatuous since most people accept that we need to eat in order to live and I doubt many people are going shopping for fun any more.. This isn't the case with climbing or any other leisure activity, however much people keep claiming that being deprived will have serious health issues. If you want to talk about serious health issues, first watch some footage from an Italian hospital.

Post edited at 09:46
 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> because they think their activity is special

It's not in the slightest to do with thinking climbing is special (though I do find the assumption of calling it a 'hobby' irritating - for some people of course it's just a hobby, for others it's their profession or plays a role in their lives that is closely bound up in their wellbeing). I would expect people who are passionate about other activities to feel exactly the same, and to make sensible choices weighing up social responsibility and consequence against actual risk, not some ostrich-headed one-size-fits-all prescription.

3
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> You've probably not got much else to do, like the rest of us, so fill your boots reading this thread. Nothing I've said is particularly contradictory with going for a run. But in concise form: a sprained ankle probably won't need an ICU bed; a neck injury will.

> Reflect a little. 

I think the key thing is for everyone to operate in their comfort zone, which will vary massively from person to person.

Your point about the x-ray dept might not work though, as many staff have been told they'll need to work outside their usual field. So anything which results in a hospital visit is a burden. 

That said, as a population folk need to preserve their sanity and not go stir crazy. The right level of activity, in the right location is likely statistically safer than driving etc. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I passed about 20 over 70s walking in a mass huddle on their weekly ramble. Particularly vexing considering mine and many others situations in trying to protect that age group. 

I'll be a bit contraverisal here:

Many in that age group value quality of life over quantity of life.    This matters particularly when they know that "quantity" is a limited resource that is rapidly running out. Maintaining quality of life can therefore be their priority -- and maybe they are correct to make that assessment. 

So, why shouldn't they make their own decisions about this?  

(One answer might be: "because they might end up taking a ICU bed/ventilator from someone else". But if it's accepted that there won't be sufficient provision anyhow, and that the over-70s would simply be triaged out, then that argument falls.)

In reply to Andy Moles:

> I find it disappointing that a significant number of people on a forum dedicated to climbing, an activity in which self reliance and independent risk assessment are absolutely seminal values, are adopting a sanctimonious black-and-white attitude to this.

> A number of people have made the point pretty well that climbing is not, with the right level of experience and judgement in choice of venue and objective, a significantly risky activity. I'm yet to see a convincing rebuttal of this argument - only repetition of 'but accidents can happen', which no one disputes. It's just that those risks can be mitigated to such an extent that they don't outweigh the benefits to personal wellbeing of staying active.

> It seems to be the judgement of some that climbing is not 'necessary', so therefore should be avoided. Where exactly you draw the line on what is 'necessary' will vary from person to person - for me, I would sooner give up driving to the shops for the next three months, thus reducing my risk of being involved in a road traffic accident, than stop all outdoor activities such as walking, cycling and climbing (with due care and avoidance of other people, etc).

> I have spent the past week (somewhat unwillingly) guiding in the mountains. As a self-employed instructor, that may be my last income for some time - judge me if you want. Honestly, leading a single person along a snowy ridge felt a hell of a lot less risky than walking into Tesco in the evening.

Nobody is judging Andy. I've tried to be careful in not doing that. It's not about judging risk, mitigating risk, being deprived of something that for many of us, gives life meaning (and income). It's all about possible outcomes and the strain imposed on a system not designed for this. 

Tom V makes a useful point about everyone being able to make a claim for their particular need to feed their own rat. 

If you see it differently, fair play to, go safe. You'll not get turned away if you or anyone else has a spill. I'll not be saying told you so, that's not me. I see people going out to the pub, not distancing, not taking it seriously. Me, I don't want to be part of the problem or burden, and where that line is drawn is down to conscience.

Weird is the new normal! 

 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

I’m afraid it is black and white. Climbing is not essential and is associated with significant inherent risk no matter how careful you are. I’m truly sorry your livelyhood is compromised. These are going to be very hard times.

7
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I'll be a bit contraverisal here:

> Many in that age group value quality of life over quantity of life.    This matters particularly when they know that "quantity" is a limited resource that is rapidly running out. Maintaining quality of life can therefore be their priority -- and maybe they are correct to make that assessment. 

But if their lack of self isolation then extends to other areas of life (maybe a health visitor) then are they not potentially condemning other people who have not made that their decision?

> So, why shouldn't they make their own decisions about this?  

> (One answer might be: "because they might end up taking a ICU bed/ventilator from someone else". But if it's accepted that there won't be sufficient provision anyhow, and that the over-70s would simply be triaged out, then that argument falls.)

Only if or when they become ill and refuse admission into hospital. Which of course won't happen. And should they fall ill will they present with a 'do not treat' instruction to care staff. 

As for triage - is that an instruction being given to staff (I don't know your field of work, sorry)?

The illness isn't particularly pleasant (slow suffocation apparently). How many might change their minds when faced with reality? So many people still believe it to be like 'flu. 

Post edited at 10:10
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It’s all about reducing a surge in admissions at the same time. This is what social distancing aims to achieve. Decisions about ventilation hopefully won’t have to be made on arbitrary factors such as age in isolation if we can control the surge. 

In reply to ebdon:

According to this post on this morning's Climbers Club FB page, LLanberis Pass and Anglesey have been rammed. I was looking forward to bouldering at a dry, cold and sunny Roaches tomorrow, but I bet it will be similarly busy, so I guess it's the fingerboard...

Llanberis Pass and Anglesey yesterday were as busy as a bank holiday weekend, the death rate in North Wales will rise sharply without your assistance. Can I please ask you to take some responsibility, please do not drive to North Wales, when the Government is asking people to stay at home and avoid unnecessary travel. Anglesey and the Llanberis pass were as busy as a bank holiday weekend yesterday and our local facilities are not going to be able to cope with the increase in demand. BCUHB is struggling with one of its busiest winters on record and now they have to deal with Covid-19 as well. China had so many cases they built a new hospital. Their death rate was so high, crematoriums were running 24hrs a day and could not keep up with demand. Mobile incinerators were drafted in and people went into total lock down for 51days. Italy's death rate is higher now than China, with a curve that is still rising sharply every day, mobile incinerators are being drafted in…. the UK is only just weeks behind Italy. The only way to prevent the spread and enable our NHS to cope with the demand is, not to perform unnecessary traveling and stop social gathering as per Government Guidelines. The virus is very much in North Wales the volume will be revealed in the coming weeks/ Months. I'm sure you are going to ignore this message, put laughing faces and cutting remarks, tell me I'm over reacting, you have a right to travel, I'm just making a fuss!! but in the coming months when the UKs death rate is as high as Italys' is today and you are going into a total lock down as Italy is, I will post a picture of me and my colleagues in PPE kit in an overwhelmed hospital unable to cope and I shall type the words… if only you had listened.

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Nobody is judging Andy.

I don't mean in the sense of 'I told you so' in the event of an accident. In that instance, I would be far more concerned about a) the additional strain I was putting on the health service and b) whatever I had done to myself to end up in intensive care, than I would about social judgement.

I appreciate your measured tone on this, and think you are absolutely right to urge caution. What is winding me up is a sense that some people are shutting down their faculties of judgement and calling for imposition of rules that don't even make sense. Fear is understandable, but panic is unhelpful.

In reply to Andy Moles:

> I appreciate your measured tone on this, and think you are absolutely right to urge caution. What is winding me up is a sense that some people are shutting down their faculties of judgement and calling for imposition of rules that don't even make sense. Fear is understandable, but panic is unhelpful.

And likewise your politeness is appreciated. I do think, from evidence from friends in Germany (guides) that events will probably make this thread redundant and a full shut down is inevitable. 

 HardenClimber 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Clarke:

Yes...

What we do today will affect the availability of ICU beds in 2 weeks time.

There is sihnificant asymptomatic spread.

We really must learn from Italy.

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to alex_arthur:

> Climbing...is associated with significant inherent risk no matter how careful you are

No it isn't.

In case you think I'm coming from a cavalier position on this, then know that I would absolutely have loved to go ice climbing on the Ben today. Driving away from the sunny, snowy Highlands yesterday afternoon ran entirely against my feelings, but in order to go winter climbing I would have needed to meet with a partner, and in my judgement the kind of winter climbing I wanted to do is inherently more risky than I feel I can justify at present.

Others have gone out, some of whom I know will manage risk exceptionally well, some of whom may be irresponsible idiots. I hope people are playing it safe.

1
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

I don't consider the post about Llanberis being rammed as a panicky one. I am appalled by it, though.

 mrphilipoldham 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

By what measure do you define it to be the most deadly? Ebola is far more deadly in terms of mortality rates, but (thankfully) didn’t become as wide spread. Or is it based on the fact that it is here, unlike Ebola?

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Let me be clear, I'm not defending people going ahead with business as usual, failing to maintaining social distance etc. I'm defending against calls for degrees of self-confinement that defy logic.

Never knew I was such a libertarian...

1
 mark s 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

look in the top ascent list of sport climbs

someone yesterday ticked a sport route in france! 

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> events will probably make this thread redundant and a full shut down is inevitable. 

You may very well be right. And I would fully understand the decision from a governance point of view - you can't issue orders on a national scale that account for every individual's specific situation.

What surprises me is that people who do have some insight into how an activity such as climbing can be conducted in a way that is extremely unlikely to impact on virus spread or health service provision are nonetheless vehemently against it.

 rogerwebb 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> In case you think I'm coming from a cavalier position on this, then know that I would absolutely have loved to go ice climbing on the Ben today. Driving away from the sunny, snowy Highlands yesterday afternoon ran entirely against my feelings, 

I know how you feel. I spent yesterday, which was probably the best day of the year for remote stuff in the northwest, fixing a pick-up. Satisfying when it started but no where near as satisfying as the route I didn't do. 

In the Highlands services are thin. 

> Others have gone out, some of whom I know will manage risk exceptionally well, some of whom may be irresponsible idiots. I hope people are playing it safe.

I think for all the bravado people probably are playing it safe. We may huff and puff and resent restrictions, voluntary or otherwise, but generally people can see the logic in trying to slow down transmission and not to unnecessarily burden services. It isn't so much individual injury that is a risk as the increased liklihood of transmission  involved in disparate groups coming together to effect a rescue. Whereas a running or cycling injury is unlikely to require that big gathering of people to recover you. 

 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes, I used the word "our" lifetime to denote us, the UK, who are not treating this disaster in the same way as our European colleagues.

Post edited at 11:35
 LeeWood 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> What surprises me is that people who do have some insight into how an activity such as climbing can be conducted in a way that is extremely unlikely to impact on virus spread or health service provision are nonetheless vehemently against it.

What is evident - that many folk at the top of our hierarchy (instructors, officials etc) risk their reputation if they are caught flaunting the regs. so they become the pro gov lobby whilst the indpendents - with nothing to lose - become the contras 

Post edited at 11:41
 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I'm not sure I follow. What hierarchy? I haven't personally witnessed a division between 'officials' and 'independents' in support or opposition to the government respectively, certainly not in the content of this thread - just people with differing opinions.

 bpmclimb 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> What surprises me is that people who do have some insight into how an activity such as climbing can be conducted in a way that is extremely unlikely to impact on virus spread or health service provision are nonetheless vehemently against it.

Agreed - that's what struck me most on reading this thread. We spend so much time as climbers trying to explain to non-climbers that there's a wide spectrum of risk in climbing, depending on where, when and how we do it; but the current crisis seems to have caused some people to entirely abandon this nuanced and realistic view of it. We even had someone suggesting that it was completely ok to undertake risky activities around the house (go up ladders, use the deep-fat fryer, DIY, whatever) on the basis that they were "normal life" activities, but that considering any form of climbing was pretty much a hanging offence.

I went sport climbing at a very local crag yesterday: I kept it a very low-risk affair both in terms of risk of injury and contact with others. Probably far riskier in terms of spreading the virus would be to go shopping or put fuel in the car - and actually, the risk of injury is probably not too different, either. Anyone saying, categorically, that I am in the wrong for doing that is welcome to make a reasoned case; but if I am to take it seriously it needs to be a logical risk assessment; i.e. they'd have to know and take into account exactly where, what and how we climbed; and also exactly what I would have been doing instead. 

2
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to bpmclimb:

All well and good, but you can't expect the government to make a case by case assessment before deciding what measures to take. If the reports of a very busy Pass yesterday are correct then it's clear that not everyone is taking the same measured approach as you in terms of seeking out isolated venues and this will inevitably force the government's hand into blanket legislation.

 bpmclimb 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> All well and good, but you can't expect the government to make a case by case assessment before deciding what measures to take. 

I don't have that expectation. I'll continue to make my own case-by-case assessments as long as all climbing isn't specifically and unequivocally banned. 

 Al Randall 21 Mar 2020
In reply to bpmclimb:

I always thought that sport climbing was low risk until I broke my ankle in Kalymnos a couple of Easters ago.  Now I'm less complacent As the weather improves I'm hoping to get out on my mountain bike but I won't be doing any of the hairy, scary down hill stuff while this epidemic is on. We need to keep a balance but stopping all forms of excercise seems a bit OTT.  I feel that there will however come a time when some will think that the cure is in danger of causing more long term damage than the disease.

Al

Post edited at 13:11
 Niceboy 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

" Nothing I've said is particularly contradictory with going for a run."

Sorry, but I think it is.

PS Two days ago I decided to go climbing after reflecting - yes I do that sometimes - that the risk was minimum:  I live in an area where there had been  18 reported cases of Covid -19 in a population of around 500000. I drove ten minutes from my house and walked just over five minutes to the top of a  short  sea cliff I have been visiting for almost  40 years, set up some anchors and did some top rope soloing of a few easy routes; there were no other people climbing on the crag. The only person I passed was a guy running along the coastal path - I know who was taking the most risk, and it wasn't me!

Try to stop with the blanket ban mentality; everyone has to make their own assessment of the risks they are taking, as you have deciding not to climb but to go for a run.

Post edited at 13:20
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

The way people are making their own assessments is precisely what will lead to a blanket ban.

2
 CPH 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Does anyone know the approximate lifespan of the Coronavirus on handholds of a limestone quarry?

Would it last overnight for instance?

Done some googling to no avail.

Post edited at 14:01
 GerM 21 Mar 2020
In reply to bpmclimb:

It is perfectly possible to climb in a lower risk fashion, it comes down to what is low risk enough given the circumstances, and sometimes not doing things can actually increase the risk in often unexpected ways. We as humans are generally quite poor at understanding risk, and often rely on our own experience of what we can get away with, where we have little feedback as to what is good judgement and what is luck. And luck and probability at the moment are significant because the risks that the government is trying to control at the moment are statistical, population wide ones rather than individual ones.

I think we as climbers sometimes fool ourselves into believing we have control of all the risks, and don't want to face the residual (and potentially quite small, but still real) risks involved, because to do so interferes with our enjoyment of doing what we love.

I don't know where the balance rests. I climbed this week. I had been in the house for two days and needed to do something so decided to go for a quick climb. It was quite close to home a short (20 minute) cycle, so I was happy that I was not doing any excessive travelling. I also needed milk so picked that up too. I decided that it was ok to solo a route. It was 'only' a Diff, but I haven't climbed rock for a while. My logic was health services or not the risk needed to feel low enough that I was happy I wouldn't fall off anyway, so whatever the consequences of falling off were in terms of the current situation, they shouldn't matter anyway. And if I did fall, chances are I'd die anyway. In a way the logic is sound, but whether the judgement on acceptable risk was right is debatable, if I fell and survived it certainly could have significant impact. I didn't get within 20 meters of anyone else except the woman I paid for the milk in the shop.

I enjoyed it, it felt good. Just exhilarating enough, and overall felt relatively safe (maybe because I'm poor at judging risk and got away with it), a nice bit of fresh air and a little cycle for the exercise. It was the cycling there and back that felt riskiest, drivers on the road feel just as dangerous as ever (if not slightly more so). But maybe this is because risks we have less personal control over feel scarier, and that it is easy to see fault in other people, and easy to justify to ourselves the things that we want to do.

I will try to do what I'm asked to do, it's often difficult to make those individual decisions, but the principles are simple.

Don't do stuff you don't need to.

Drive less.

Stay in the area where you live to keep the distribution of people matched to the resources available.

Stay healthy (over the medium term this includes exercise).

I just hope we can all do what we are supposed to, and make appropriate decisions about how we can do this.

Post edited at 14:07
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

Common sense isn’t common. Having different set of rules for differently experienced or competent individuals isn’t workable. 
 

Additionally no matter how experienced you are in the mountains your just as likely to have an accident on the roads travelling there. No one plan to have an accident and they often occur when you least expect it on unchallenging ground.
 

The comparisons to a war effort are valid. This will cost the country both in lives and fiscally many times more than the Afganistan conflict. It’s bigger than any individuals personal desire to go climbing. 

4
 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> The way people are making their own assessments is precisely what will lead to a blanket ban.

What you are advocating is effectively a blanket ban anyway; either way, the outcome is no climbing. Those of us who haven't abandoned our faculties of reason may as well enjoy our freedom (sensibly) while it lasts.

 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

That's why there were more people in the pubs last night- in fact, it was quite common for pubs to be advertising their last opening session on FB and offer special rates because of the special nature of the occasion. I'm sure all those who took advantage of this will claim they were enjoying their freedom sensibly, ( not showing any symptoms am I?) just as I'm sure that if a blanket ban IS imposed on climbing and the rest then all considerations of risk and selflessness will go out of the window while people flock to the crags in massive numbers "just to get that last climb in" .

So, yes, that is what I'm advocating and I m absolutely not limiting it to climbing. 

Post edited at 14:24
In reply to Tom V:

I doubt there will be a ban on climbing specifically in the UK, but if people take the mick and the virus continues to spread they may need to e.g. prevent movement.  One way to do this would be to prevent the purchase of fuel and the use of public transport except for essential workers, also to close public charging points for EVs.

The odd person who then walks or cycles from Sheffield to the Peak isn't going to cause significant spread.

Post edited at 14:24
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I don't envisage a climbing ban but a general shutdown on movement outside the home as in France. It's far from perfect but it might  cut down on transmission overall, which is the point, isn't it?

Judging what is necessary movement will be problematical for some (apparently) but having to fill out a form and explain it to a personal capable of slapping a £200 on the spot fine  on you might make some people think a bit harder about the true meaning of the word "essential".

Post edited at 14:34
 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Again, I don't disagree when it comes to disregard for social distancing. We seem to be talking past each other a little. I am not making an exception of myself in defending my choice to continue climbing. I am applying to myself the same principles as I expect of everyone else: know your limits, mitigate risk to a negligible level, etc. That will mean different things for different people.

1
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

 The problem with mitigating risk is that there are or will soon be possibly hundreds or even thousands of people going about their business in the UK who are already affected but don't know it ..The more of them that stay indoors the better., whether they are climbers or not.

In reply to Tom V:

We don't have the level of policing to support that.  Controlling access to modes of transport by rationing fuel and public transport access would work better.  If you can only get a tank a week and you have to go to work you aren't going to waste it by driving to the Peak.  If you can't prove you need to go to work, a tank a month perhaps.

We could put the Army on the streets but the British "social contract" is quite important so that should (and will) only be done as an absolute last resort.

Post edited at 15:26
 mark s 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

I went to the roaches after work today not knowing how busy it would be.

It was bank holiday busy if not more. There was cars parked everywhere.  There will be climbers on here who got tickets. Did you not read the parking signs? I reckon 100 tickets will be given out and well deserved. 

I wasnt going to risk being around so many from out of the area when we dont have confirmed cases locally.

Instead i went to newstones and it was spot on. Too windy though so did 3 problens and sacked it off.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Exactly. As for bold onsights at my technical limit, I don’t do those anyway. Not worth the risk in my eyes, regardless of the number of spare ICU beds. 

In reply to Tom V:

> That's why there were more people in the pubs last night- in fact, it was quite common for pubs to be advertising their last opening session on FB and offer special rates because of the special nature of the occasion.

Going to the pub was directly against government advice and against social distancing guidelines. It is indefensible.

> I'm sure all those who took advantage of this will claim they were enjoying their freedom sensibly.

They are wrong.

> I'm sure that if a blanket ban IS imposed on climbing and the rest then all considerations of risk and selflessness will go out of the window while people flock to the crags in massive numbers "just to get that last climb in" .

I doubt it and I very much hope not.

A blanket lockdown will come either because further restrictions are deemed necessary or because the current ones are being flouted. Ignoring it in either case would be inexcusable and I hope sanctions would be strict.

Post edited at 15:51
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Making an effort not to get injured needlessly should be an aim for everyone when climbing.

FTFY

In reply to Neil Williams:

> I doubt there will be a ban on climbing specifically in the UK.

No, but a general lockdown like Italy and France is likely and that will by default include climbing.

 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Does Mark S 's description of the Roaches this afternoon sound acceptable to you?  Or the other description of the Pass yesterday?I get the impression that people are playing to the whistle, completely the wrong attitude in a national emergency like this.

In reply to Tom V:

> Does Mark S 's description of the Roaches this afternoon sound acceptable to you?  Or the other description of the Pass yesterday?

I wasn't at either place, but if social distancing wasn't feasible, then no.

 Al Randall 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Watching TV footage of the streets in London seems to suggest that, to a large extent, social distancing IS working.  At least in London which is the most vulnerable area.

Al

 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Al Randall:

Sadly the ICUs are very near maximum capacity 

In reply to Niceboy:

> " Nothing I've said is particularly contradictory with going for a run."

> Sorry, but I think it is.

> PS Two days ago I decided to go climbing after reflecting - yes I do that sometimes - that the risk was minimum:  I live in an area where there had been  18 reported cases of Covid -19 in a population of around 500000. I drove ten minutes from my house and walked just over five minutes to the top of a  short  sea cliff I have been visiting for almost  40 years, set up some anchors and did some top rope soloing of a few easy routes; there were no other people climbing on the crag. The only person I passed was a guy running along the coastal path - I know who was taking the most risk, and it wasn't me!

> Try to stop with the blanket ban mentality; everyone has to make their own assessment of the risks they are taking, as you have deciding not to climb but to go for a run.

Appreciate everything you've said. I guess you haven't read all the way through the thread (don't blame you), but it's not that I see any one activity as more or less risky, it's about the outcome if something does go wrong. My decision is based on the noises coming from my wife and her colleagues at the hospital.

For sure there are lots of day to day things that are dangerous, but if I can cut that number down from 50 to 20. A running incident on the roads - might make it home and self transport. Done that a few times. Broken leg whilst caving (just the once for me) - protracted 12 hour rescue with many hours of personnel time plus a helicopter despatch to hospital.

Go with your gut, I'm not passing judgement. 

Stay sane. 

Stuart 

In reply to Misha:

> Making an effort not to get injured needlessly should be an aim for everyone when climbing.

> FTFY

Thanks (I think, you'll have to remind me what I wrote).

(Actually, don't!) ☺️

In reply to Andy Moles:

Well said. Disappointment is a fold way of putting it. I’m also disappointed that some climbers don’t seem to understand the concept of probability. 

In reply to Tom V:

If you thought yesterday in the pass was bad reports suggest that the area is virtually gridlocked today with the number of people, walkers and climbers, visiting the area.

In reply to ebdon:

Pen y pass  completely rammed again today apparently, parked down the road worse that bank holiday according to friend who works at the YHA.

I can understand why people would want to get out, but surely if you can some how justify this to yourself i don't understand why you would head to a honeypot. 

In reply to Al Randall:

I live in London.

 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020

Can you understand the cumulative effect of multiple small probability’s?

In reply to mark s:

> I went to the roaches after work today not knowing how busy it would be.

> It was bank holiday busy if not more. There was cars parked everywhere.  There will be climbers on here who got tickets. Did you not read the parking signs? I reckon 100 tickets will be given out and well deserved. 

> I wasnt going to risk being around so many from out of the area when we dont have confirmed cases locally.

> Instead i went to newstones and it was spot on. Too windy though so did 3 problens and sacked it off.

When you say locally where do you mean? 25 cases in Staffordshire according to BBC.

Useful tool and startling graphs. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

Post edited at 16:34
 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

>  The problem with mitigating risk is that there are or will soon be possibly hundreds or even thousands of people going about their business in the UK who are already affected but don't know it ..The more of them that stay indoors the better., whether they are climbers or not.

When I said mitigating risk, I meant with specific regard to not getting injured and needing medical attention. You're talking about social distancing again, and again, I don't disagree.

I'm out right now, at a local bouldering venue with a flat grassy landing. Looks like no one has been here since before the winter, and I'm fairly confident there isn't another human within a square kilometre of me. How exactly is this a problem?

 mark s 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I mean locally 

Parts of staffs are 40 or 50 miles from us here  in the moorlands 

In reply to alex_arthur:

> I’m afraid it is black and white. Climbing is associated with significant inherent risk no matter how careful you are.

Yes there is inherent risk but it can be managed by the competent so as to be remote when it comes to sport and trad. Probably bouldering as well. Less so winter and alpine. Of course some people are unable to manage the risks and then make mistakes on top of that. I would hazard a guess that this is behind the majority of climbing accidents. If you think you can’t manage risk to a remote level and therefore choose not to climb, that’s your choice. It will be the right choice for many people. But not for everyone. 

1
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

On the scale of Llanberis/The Roaches/ mass gatherings your day out was mostly insignificant, especially if you walked or cycled there. 

Unfortunately most keen climbers aren't lucky enough to have a quiet little bouldering venue on their doorstep but rather than simply accepting their misfortune they are congregating en masse at popular venues. doing exactly the opposite of what is required in this very serious emergency.

 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> As I've said before, everyone with a hobby or interest will have a reason for carrying on; the angler , the golfer, the horse rider all need their fix just as much as a climber does,. The end result is that the whole idea of staying indoors and keeping a lid on this is being disregarded by a significant portion of the population, because they think their activity is special, or because they aren't showing any symptoms or are not in a vulnerable group, or because they think they are capable of micromanaging the most deadly disease  in our lifetime. This will be one of the reasons the government uses when implementing a lockdown; people just aren't taking it seriously enough.

As I said before, the problem with this argument is that some activities really do have greater risks than others in terms of virus transmission. All groups can argue their case but only some actually have a point. Golfers, anglers and horse riders, if they are alone of with a friend for safety and the basic human need for occasional company, clearly cause negligible risks in terms of virus transmission. Golf and angling must also be fairly low on the list of causes of strain on NHS resources! The only one I'd have doubts about it horse riding because every person who's ever tried it has immediately either been killed or suffered massive injuries... on the other hand this creates a good supply of organs.

It's worth remembering that weeks or months of enforced low activity levels will also cause large numbers of deaths, especially with a new virus around which seems to kill those with weakened cardiovascular systems. Weeks or months of enforced social isolation will lead to massive suffering,  especially for older people where this will lead to absolute misery and mental and physical deterioration.

> Comparisons with shopping are completely fatuous since most people accept that we need to eat in order to live and I doubt many people are going shopping for fun any more.. This isn't the case with climbing or any other leisure activity, however much people keep claiming that being deprived will have serious health issues. If you want to talk about serious health issues, first watch some footage from an Italian hospital.

I don't think its a comparison necessarily. More of an illustration that the risks of transmission can't be completely reduced so why prevent people from enjoying activities which carry a vastly smaller transmission risk but are hugely beneficial in terms of general health and wellbeing?

I would also like to see stricter restrictions in this country to help stop the virus. However no one has made a case for why climbing, within certain limitations, should be stopped.

You might not like people adopting a nuanced position, but reality isn't black and white.

 Lord_ash2000 21 Mar 2020
In reply to alex_arthur:

Life carries risk, there are some things we can do to moderate the risks and I'd be willing to abide by that, maybe lay off bold trad routes or extreme mountain biking etc but risk is relative to ones experience and abilities. For me going out bouldering as I did today at a relatively busy Carrock fell represented minimal risk. Despite there being several groups we were all spaced well apart on different boulder's so infection chance was minimal. And risk from injury was minimal as well, we were well padded and not trying anything too highball. 

I've been climbing for almost 25 years and I've fallen off plenty of things, missed mats, taken whippers on routes, dodged (and not dodged) falling rocks, ripped holds off while soloing, you name it. But I've never had a hospitalising injury and I could count on my fingers the number of people I know who have been from climbing. I suspect someone who's played Sunday league football for 25 years would have had all manner of knee injuries and the like, climbing in general is actually pretty safe provided you stick to what you know.

Living in Cumbria I follow the Keswick and Cockermouth mountain rescue reports on Facebook and it would seem the vast majority of injuries are old people slipping on popular footpaths on the local fells, it's very rare it's an experienced climber, runner, cyclists, mountaineer etc. Now that's partly down to numbers of course but this isn't about percentages it's about total beds taken up. If you really wanted to free up hospital spaces then ban over 60's from walking off road.(I'm joking nof course) Banning something far more high risk that only a tiny number of people do really isn't going to make any difference on a national scale, and as I say I think done sensibly most risky sports are really not that risky compared to every day life.

1
In reply to Misha:

> If you think you can’t manage risk to a remote level and therefore choose not to climb, that’s your choice. 

Yes, I feel competent to manage climbing risk to an acceptably very low level. I would not, however go skiing or sea-kaying because I lack the necessary experience to do so.

The only reservation I have about climbing is the handling of gear (still reviewing this in my head).

In reply to JHiley:

> It's worth remembering that weeks or months of enforced low activity levels will also cause large numbers of deaths, especially with a new virus around which seems to kill those with weakened cardiovascular systems. 

Point of order on the nature of the virus. Those who are immuno-suppressed are the at risk category. The human race has no immunity to this virus, yet. Lack of activity isn't necessarily making you more susceptible to catching it. 

Interesting that you are less resilient to viral attack after hard exercise! Why do you think team Sky banned handshakes and high fives with fans? 

In reply to Robert Durran:

> The only reservation I have about climbing is the handling of gear (still reviewing this in my head).

Honestly, what's the dilemma? Surely don't is the answer. 

In reply to ebdon:

BBC News - Coronavirus: People urged not to visit Highlands to flee virus

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51990534

I've heard similar from a friend who lives near Malham. The local council are asking people to stay away. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

A full shutdown is possible in due course. Days, weeks, may be not at all. Doubt it will be days as I think it would need new legislation and it’s not in the emergency powers bill. I will obviously respect any new government rules. Bear in mind that imposing measures too soon can be counterproductive due to less herd immunity - so the virus comes back with a vengeance once measures are lifted. The Imperial College paper warns of this. It’s a delicate balance.

1
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Point of order on the nature of the virus. Those who are immuno-suppressed are the at risk category. The human race has no immunity to this virus, yet. Lack of activity isn't necessarily making you more susceptible to catching it. 

Heart disease and diabetes were also on the list of factors influencing outcomes.

 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020

Have you also considered the example you set to others by continuing to climb? They see you climbing therefore think it’s ok for them to climb too?

1
In reply to JHiley:

> Heart disease and diabetes were also on the list of factors influencing outcomes.

Because they're often immuno-suppressed. It's why the over 70s were targeted. Biology doesn't really care about how sprightly you feel. 

If what you're suggesting is that not going climbing might suddenly bring on heart disease and diabetes my advice would be to do some exercise and lay off the chocolate!

Interesting that Tim Peake is popping up on social media promoting the Scouts 'things to do inside' website. Guy knows a thing or two about being couped up. 

Post edited at 17:27
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

It isn't about whether I as an individual can accept a nuanced approach. It;s whether we as a nation and our government  can afford to tolerate a nuanced approach with a disaster like this bearing down on us. 

I honestly  believe that a large section of society (the pub goers, the Llanberis/Roaches climbers) don't accept that the virus presents such a massive threat to the countryas it does.

To be fair I was the same ten days ago: went to the pub a few nights a week, wasn't overly concerned at people climbing on Stanage, decided on reflection that Cheltenham was probably Ok........but I take a very different view of it all now.

Hopefully a lot of people who are carrying on as normal will have a very rapid change of heart and rather sooner than in ten days' time.

In reply to Tom V:

Cheltenham? Charlie Austin regrets it. 

In reply to Tom V:

Hi

Its been a really difficult day in Malham, a lot of the locals have got very stressed and upset about the number of visitors, it may be worth staying away, tomorrow especially. The Parish council are generally very positive about climbing, would be a great pity to rock the balance.

 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> If what you're suggesting is that not going climbing might suddenly bring on heart disease and diabetes my advice would be to do some exercise and lay off the chocolate!

Well no. I doubt not-climbing has any meaningful effect on fitness. I was responding to what Tom-V seems to be advocating (or maybe just predicting?) which is a complete lockdown including an enforced ban on exercise and occasional 1 : 1 social contact.

 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I doubt any blanket ban would prevent all exercise but would seek to confine it to one's own immediate locality. I thought that's what the french model did ( and what we are probably heading for).

To make reference to someone else's post - is it any wonder that the residents of small villages like Malham are distressed by large numbers of visitors thwarting their efforts to isolate themselves and their community?

Post edited at 17:51
In reply to JHiley:

> Well no. I doubt not-climbing has any meaningful effect on fitness. I was responding to what Tom-V seems to be advocating (or maybe just predicting?) which is a complete lockdown including an enforced ban on exercise and occasional 1 : 1 social contact.

Ah, roger that. Didn't pick up on Tom's point. Looking at evidence elsewhere do you not see lockdown as inevitable? 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Not all of the "full" lockdowns have banned solo exercise.  France hasn't, for example.

Post edited at 17:57
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Not all of the "full" lockdowns have banned solo exercise.  France hasn't, for example.

Correct. Climbing has been though, no? 

 Al Randall 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Not all of the "full" lockdowns have banned solo exercise.  France hasn't, for example.

Solo exercise is that what they are calling it these days

Al

 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Sorry if I've been vague; whatever terminoligy I've used I envisage a French type restriction and I expect it before next weekend.

To be even more clear; this has never been about whether climbing as such has been banned: it's about a multitude of seemingly innocent activities, all of which have their enthusiasts  who will be similarly deprived when a ban comes into force.

In the hierarchy of essentials for life , apart from food, drink, shelter and so on, exercise definitely has its place. But it does not need to be climbing.

Post edited at 18:23
 alex_arthur 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha,

Competence will remove some risk but it’s naive and arrogant to think it can remove it to even a remote level. Many are also unknowingly incompetent. Have you heard of the dunning Kruger effect?

While I’m sure your individual risk is small, as I think mine would be, the multiple of many small risks becomes significant. There is also  risk involved with driving to crag and the risk of encouraging others to do the same.

Post edited at 18:18
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Ah, roger that. Didn't pick up on Tom's point. Looking at evidence elsewhere do you not see lockdown as inevitable?

Not really. South Korea seems to have got on top of a fairly large outbreak using measures which make even the current UK rules seem draconian.

I do think the UK does need stricter measures because despite the released stats it seems likely we have more cases than they did. I think there's still a lot that could be done that isn't being done. My concern with the French method is that it may not be sustainable or might cause more harm than good.

In reply to JHiley:

> Not really. South Korea seems to have got on top of a fairly large outbreak using measures which make even the current UK rules seem draconian.

You mean South Korea that had a mass testing programme based on WHO advice? The advice our government flatly refused to do? Take it on the chin etc. Then the science changed (the science didn't change). 

> I do think the UK does need stricter measures because despite the released stats it seems likely we have more cases than they did. I think there's still a lot that could be done that isn't being done. My concern with the French method is that it may not be sustainable or might cause more harm than good.

Let's hope, but the science is suggesting the genie is out of the bottle. We missed the boat on what should have been done. 

Post edited at 18:24
 AdrianC 21 Mar 2020
In reply to griffer boy:

I get the feeling that the recent busy days have been the outdoor community's answer to panic buying.  Get a day in before there are no more for a while.

 ian caton 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

I can't believe this thread. Stay away from other people to the max. In Italy over 50% of infected people do not show symptoms. You have no idea if you are infected or not. You have no idea how many people are infected or where they are or what they look like.

Did you see the head of the Chinese delegation to Italy saying the Italians just weren't being serious? "Public transport still running, economic activity still going on and people wandering around without face masks."

800 dead in Italy today. What does it take? Don't drive, you need to fill up with gas. Stay close to home. Get out for some exercise when there are few people about. 

We are headed for total lock down, you can see why. 

Post edited at 18:33
1
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

>  Bear in mind that imposing measures too soon can be counterproductive due to less herd immunity - so the virus comes back with a vengeance once measures are lifted. The Imperial College paper warns of this. It’s a delicate balance.

I don't think I buy this. I was under the impression that the 'herd immunity' strategy had been binned because the death toll would be way too high to be justifiable. The issue is being able to hold effective restrictions in place for long enough for the number of cases to be supressed, and hope like hell for a vaccine.

In reply to Tom V:

> In the hierarchy of essentials for life , apart from food, drink, shelter and so on, exercise definitely has its place. But it does not need to be climbing.

Indeed. I can live without climbing for six months or however long it takes (and I do have brace of Beastmakers arriving on Monday ). But if I can't escape the solitary confinement of home for some vigorous exercise in the hills, I'm probably going to go nuts...…..

Post edited at 18:55
 Huddy 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ian caton:

https://www.facebook.com/100007642863230/posts/2575790899352314/?d=n

car parks should be closed

madness. 
this isn’t a holiday. 

1
 ian caton 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Huddy:

That's f'ing mind blowing.

But hey radical individualism. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> BBC News - Coronavirus: People urged not to visit Highlands to flee virus

If people are entirely self contained in their campervans and maintain social distancing, it is hard to see why there should be a problem unless the numbers become ridiculous. I've spent the last 24 hours in the southern highlands (entirely self contained, dossed in car, chose quiet hills) and I did notice quite a lot of campervans parked up for the time of year.

2
 GerM 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What do you think the chances are of a climbing related accident in Snowdonia today given the numbers of people reported to be out and about having fun?

In reply to Robert Durran:

> If people are entirely self contained in their campervans and maintain social distancing, it is hard to see why there should be a problem unless the numbers become ridiculous. I've spent the last 24 hours in the southern highlands (entirely self contained, dossed in car, chose quiet hills) and I did notice quite a lot of campervans parked up for the time of year.

I think you've said it in your first sentence. It's the numbers; everyone can justify it anyway they chose. It reminds me of that meme that was doing the rounds: you're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. Sincerely hope you had a good day out.

Post edited at 19:01
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

My impression and that of others is that the numbers have already become ridiculous, as someone else said, the climbers' version of panic buying. Time to put a stop to it all  and stop wondering if a certain rock type holds the virus longer than another,ffs.

However imperfect the French model is, it's better than what we've got. There comes a point where you have to take responsibilty out of people's hands and I think we reached it some time earlier this week.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I think you've said it in your first sentence. It's the numbers; everyone can justify it anyway they chose. 

I'm not arguing with that.

In reply to alex_arthur:

I agree re single set of rules. At present, climbing is not banned. This may change. If it does, I imagine it would be a blanket ban and we would all need to respect it. 

 Lord_ash2000 21 Mar 2020
In reply to GerM:

Well it's difficult to put a number on it but on any given day I'd say pretty low. Far more likely to have someone injured walking up the pyg track I'd imagen. Sure a scroll back through mountain rescue reports would give you some idea if anyone could be bothered trawling through. 

In reply to Tom V:

You may be right re enforced lockdown but I actually doubt it. It’s not part of the official strategy. Social distancing is but that’s softer. I think what will happen over the next week or so is it will self regulate as people reduce their activities. Judging by comments on here, FB and my local climbing club emailing list, it seems that most climbers are putting a halt to climbing for now (whether they will still be holding out when the sun is shining in June, July, August is a different question!). But not everyone - some will carry on. I certainly hope to carry on, once the weather warms up a bit. I suspect the same will happen with other areas of life, such as shops and public transport. So numbers will be much reduced and there won’t be a need for a formal ban. These things take a few days to sink in and take effect.

The Pass being rammed today is not surprising as it always is on nice days. Fair to say that’s mostly general members of the public walking up Mount Snowdon. They could deal with that particular issue by banning parking and ticketing. Again, over time it might self regulate, though perhaps not in that particular case.

The other aspect is the legislative and political framework. Pretty sure the government doesn’t have the necessary legal powers to enforce a lockdown and there’s nothing on it in the emergency bill. It could be introduced later of course but the fact that it hasn’t been is indicative. Partly this is due to the softer approach favoured by the UK - if you do a total lockdown, there would be little herd immunity and it will flare up again once restrictions are lifted. They must be watching China very closely. And partly it’s because Johnson has a libertarian side to him, as indeed does the entire British political establishment. France, Italy and Spain etc have a historically tougher approach to the relationship between the state and the individual, so it’s not surprising they’re gone with stringent measures. That is not generally the British way, if you look at history.

I may be wrong. We shall see.

2
In reply to Robert Durran:

Enjoy your solo wanderings.

Local super market, virtually no food, no beer, very little wine. Only went to get something for dinner.  Stripped bare by selfish b******s, I was responsible and did not stockpile.

So I am now going to be selfish and will continue to walk/climb until we are truly locked down.

11
 Tom V 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

You said earlier that you were disappointed that some climbers don't seem to understand the notion of probability.

My biggest disappointment is that as a bunch of people who politically tend to reject the selfish individualistic right-wing model, as a bunch of people who profess to care for the planet and the environment, as a bunch of people who champion the rights of those sections of society which are vulnerable and in need of a bit more care, we are still talking along the lines of "I'll stop when I have to and not before". 

This past couple of days has been a real eye-opener.

Post edited at 19:38
In reply to Tom V:

> My impression and that of others is that the numbers have already become ridiculous.

It certainly seems so in some places. It is hard to legislate against that without a total ban - and I would certainly (though with heavy heart) respect that. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Clearly there’s risk of transmission to/from your partner. How high, no one knows. But consider the likelihood that you or your partner have it and the likelihood that you or your partner will transmit it. For example, I live alone, work from home (or not at all at present) and now that the walls are closed by *only* contact with other people is going to Tesco or for a walk. I’m using gloves and contactless. The risk of infection seems low. If I climb with someone who is in a similar position, the risk of transmission would be low. However I wouldn’t climb with a doctor or someone else who is in regular contact with vulnerable people or just lots of people. Zero risk does not exist but let’s not loose sight of probability. 

3
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Yes, there’s a bit of a ‘the village is closed’ attitude from some places. Understandable but really, what is the chance of a climber at Malham infecting a resident of Malham? They will walk through the village twice, that’s it. Pubs are closed anyway.

8
 ian caton 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

How are you going to know that you aren't infected, asymptomatic and chucking virus everywhere you go? 

1
In reply to Misha:

> Clearly there’s risk of transmission to/from your partner. How high, no one knows. But consider the likelihood that you or your partner have it and the likelihood that you or your partner will transmit it. For example, I live alone, work from home (or not at all at present) and now that the walls are closed by *only* contact with other people is going to Tesco or for a walk. I’m using gloves and contactless. The risk of infection seems low. If I climb with someone who is in a similar position, the risk of transmission would be low. 

Yes, but all transmission counts and has exponential repercussions, and in the coming weeks more and more people are going to become infectious. I'm coming round to thinking that it is hard to justify climbing with a partner

In reply to ian caton:

> How are you going to know that you aren't infected, asymptomatic and chucking virus everywhere you go? 

It is a little concerning that people aren't getting this isn't it?

As to what are the chances of transmission? Some people would do well to look at the graphs. 

 Huddy 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

Did you read the post. 
it‘s the use of the toilet/takeaway/petrol station etc. 
The virus is spreading. This isn’t just person to person, it’s person to surface to person. 
surely this isn’t to tricky to grasp? 
I’m sure if you had a family member on the NHS front line you’d be taking a slightly different view. 

In reply to ebdon:

Parking around Curbar gap was at bank holiday levels yesterday afternoon, and the Burbage/Stanage area today was similarly overwhelmed with cars and people: as busy as I’ve ever seen it. Groups of people bouldering together in close proximity, old folks walking with kids and grand kids, no one actively giving each other a wide berth. Basically, we’re f****d. 
 


 

In reply to JHiley:

Sorry you’re right, the gradual timing comment related to mitigation. Now they are looking at suppression.

Towards the end of the paper is this ominous statement:

”However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.”

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Correct. Climbing has been though, no? 

Unless you've got a crag in your back garden, in a practical sense yes, but more because you can't go to the crag than because you can't climb on it.

 Frank R. 21 Mar 2020

I suggest people read this:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Summary of the article: Strong coronavirus measures today should only last a few weeks, there shouldn’t be a big peak of infections afterwards, and it can all be done for a reasonable cost to society, saving millions of lives along the way. If we don’t take these measures, tens of millions will be infected, many will die, along with anybody else that requires intensive care, because the healthcare system will have collapsed.

1
 neilh 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha

It becomes self forcing when the penny drops after people have been hospitalised etc etc.

For the over 70’s there is something like a 40% plus chance of them being hospitalised. Never mind the death rate. 
 

that then makes people think. 

In reply to Huddy:

Yes but you can reduce the risk by using gloves and paper towels as well as washing hands obviously. I can do a climbing trip and call in at a petrol station once or not at all. That is a tiny increase on the amount of interaction I have with door handles and the like in an average week. I live in an apartment block and have to go through several doors just to get out of the place, which I intend doing every day for my own sanity and to buy food. I will use gloves and the door handles are being disinfected once a day but given there are 400 flats in the block I suspect each trip out is a mini biological weapon for my fellow Brummies. Or not. May be I should abseil from the balcony and prussic back up?

2
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Towards the end of the paper is this ominous statement:

> ”However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.”

This is my concern. I don't particularly care about going climbing when the chips are down but I don't think its realistic to stop all recreational activity and interaction between people who care about each other for months on end.

The only reason I've commented with respect to climbing is basically: If the advice is to stop climbing (one of the least problematic activities) that pretty much means we're being asked to stop everything. Italy has been fully locked down for nearly two weeks and cases are still going up at an ever increasing rate.

Post edited at 20:22
In reply to Frank R.:

It's interesting that people seem to consider that an engineer/mathematician is an expert in COVID19!

But that aside, he does have a point.  What he doesn't understand, though, is that the UK Government doesn't actually have the power to make executive orders, we simply don't have the concept (and long may that last).  There is a (very large) Bill going to be passed on Monday which will give them those specific powers, and then things will become enforced by law, I'd say.

Post edited at 20:23
 tehmarks 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

What's really irking me, as someone who is all for continuing to climb and get out, is the way in which people are doing it. It's not hard to rock up at a quiet crag on your own, directly from your house by car, having brought a stove and some food from your house. Perhaps discreetly dossing around the crag or in a suitable field, and not having to come into contact with anyone.

Is that what people are doing though? No, of course not. They're flocking to the usual mega-busy places, quite possibly wandering around the local communities and provisioning while there, and generally not considering the potential consequences of their actions on small rural communities. That is selfish in the extreme. Unbelievable.

In reply to JHiley:

> This is my concern. I don't particularly care about going climbing when the chips are down but I don't think its realistic to stop all recreational activity and interaction between people who care about each other for months on end.

> The only reason I've commented with respect to climbing is basically: If the advice is to stop climbing (one of the least problematic activities) that pretty much means we're being asked to stop everything. Italy has been fully locked down for nearly two weeks and cases are still going up at an ever increasing rate.

The lockdown came into place when the authorities realised the same measures we're now putting in place (social distancing etc), didn't work because people weren't adhering to them. Effectively the damage was done already. Italy, as an example before the lockdown, is of one not to follow. Seems we're not listening. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Exactly. 

 Huddy 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

Your trip out of your apartment is unavoidable- you need to eat. 
 
You don’t need to go on a climbing trip. This falls under the bracket of unnecessary travel. 
Are you seriously trying to suggest that all those people traveling to malham today hasn’t increased the risk of transmission? 

the more movement the more the virus spreads. It really isn’t that difficult. 

1

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-further-measures-on-social-distancing

"Public urged to stay at home and limit all but essential travel - people who can work from home should do so" 

 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to tehmarks:

I'm rapidly coming round to Tom-V's view that we just can't trust people en-masse. Individually its fine to say 'I'm just going to burbage' but then throw in the other climbers and ten times as many walkers and it just doesn't make sense anymore.

Not really sure how to enforce it though. The 'non-climbing/real-world' people I've been in contact with are being far less disciplined than even the most 'selfish individualistic' posters on here.

I'll re-assess before I finish self isolation. No doubt the situation by then will be something else entirely.

In reply to JHiley:

> This is my concern. I don't particularly care about going climbing when the chips are down but I don't think its realistic to stop all recreational activity and interaction between people who care about each other for months on end.

> The only reason I've commented with respect to climbing is basically: If the advice is to stop climbing (one of the least problematic activities) that pretty much means we're being asked to stop everything. Italy has been fully locked down for nearly two weeks and cases are still going up at an ever increasing rate.

I know I've replied already to this, but I dug this quote from Twitter. Relevant to the Italian question. From Daniel Friebe cycling journalist. 

"Chilling  Q&A with the man leading the fight against coronavirus in a Bergamo hospital. On how it got so bad there: "My view: 40,000 bergamaschi going to the San Siro for Atalanta vs Valencia on Feb 19. In buses, trains, cars. A biological bomb.”

We didn't even shut the pubs until last night. 

 tehmarks 21 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I agree. Though, hypocritically, I'll be doing pretty much exactly what I say myself next week. But I don't intend on troubling the locals for shopping, or parking, or anything. I'll pick an unlikely crag with good bivi opportunities, drive straight there from home, and enjoy the solitude carefully. Or go into the quieter parts of the hills for a couple of days walking, fully-provisioned. Little risk to myself, little risk to anyone I come across.

1
 GerM 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The risk may be low, but it is real. The more people doing it the greater the chance of putting pressure on local resources.

https://www.facebook.com/llanberismrt/posts/3535354009870995?__tn__=K-R

Accident on Main Wall today.

 Andy Moles 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> There comes a point where you have to take responsibilty out of people's hands

I have to admit that based on reports of today, I'm starting to agree.

In reply to Andy Moles:

> I have to admit that based on reports of today, I'm starting to agree.

It seems it has been. Updated government advice today against all non-essential travel (including within UK.) So unless you more or less live at the crag......

Post edited at 21:20
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to GerM:

> The risk may be low, but it is real. The more people doing it the greater the chance of putting pressure on local resources.

> Accident on Main Wall today.

…Facepalm

In reply to Robert Durran:

It was actually issued yesterday, surprised they didn't shout more about it then:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200320191027/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-further-measures-on-social-distancing

It says updated on 21st but it doesn't seem to have changed substantially.

Note: UKC has done something weird with that URL - you'll need to copy-paste it and remove the space.

Post edited at 21:33
 Lord_ash2000 21 Mar 2020
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> ..... Basically, we’re f****d. 

It wouldn't surprise me if at some level people already know that. They reckon it's probably only a matter of time before we end up on full lock down now, the virus will spread regardless and people would rather get out and do stuff while they still can without the threat of fines etc. 

1
 HardenClimber 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Yes.... with any Infection Control issue you can always see decide on common sense  reasonable exceptions etc.... and it fails. Restrictions need to be seen as absolute, otherwise the control fails. (just look at all the hordes mixing today).

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> It wouldn't surprise me if at some level people already know that. They reckon it's probably only a matter of time before we end up on full lock down now, the virus will spread regardless and people would rather get out and do stuff while they still can without the threat of fines etc. 

When you say regardless what you mean is the virus will spread quicker because people didn't do the right thing. Selfish wankers. 

1
In reply to Andy Moles:

> I have to admit that based on reports of today, I'm starting to agree.

Based on what I’ve seen today I’ve also reassessed what I’m comfortable doing.  I’ll only be heading to Leek for essential shopping and as infrequently as possible.  I’ll be avoiding well-known walking and climbing venues and staying as local as possible. I think likely we won’t leave our own property most days (we’re lucky to have plenty of room).

 I was shocked by the number of people I saw today who seemed utterly unaware that anything unusual was happening.

 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

The main page 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults

Is still looking way more lenient than that particular press release. If the advice has really changed to say no-one goes out at all except to get supplies they need to seriously increase their communication efforts! More importantly they need to get out and start handing out some fines or something or the overwhelming majority of people are just going to ignore it. Most people still aren't keeping to even the moderate social distancing/ self isolation measures in place earlier this week.

In reply to JHiley:

You seem to be yet another person who doesn't understand that the Government does not presently have the legal ability to "hand out fines" on these matters.  This is why they have just given advice so far.  The UK does not have the concept of "executive orders" - laws have to go through Parliament.

The Coronavirus related Bill will go through Parliament on Monday giving them that right, at which point this is likely to change.

Actual bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0122/20122.pdf

Discussion of rationale: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts

Post edited at 22:39
 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

What in anything I've posted suggests I don't understand how laws are made? Your describing the 'how' of the process. I'm describing the end result.

In reply to JHiley:

This:

"More importantly they need to get out and start handing out some fines or something"

very much implies they should just send the Police out there and start fining people now.  They can't, there is no legal basis to do so, yet.

 JHiley 21 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

So I think we're now in the nit-picking everything to death phase of a thread which may be even more depressing than the actual coronavirus.

In reply to JHiley:

Not really.  I'm hearing a lot of "why can't the Police do this" and "why can't the Police do that" and am quite surprised how few people know that "executive orders" are a tool available in most countries...but not here.  And I am very glad of that.

A law is being passed for that purpose on Monday.

Post edited at 23:03
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:

>  I was shocked by the number of people I saw today who seemed utterly unaware that anything unusual was happening.

I now think that the sooner we go into an Italy/France style lockdown so that people get the message the better. Advice isn't working.

In reply to JHiley:

> Italy has been fully locked down for nearly two weeks and cases are still going up at an ever increasing rate.

You seem to be implying that Italy's lock-down is therefore ineffective. I don't know whether you actually think that or not but for the avoidance of doubt...

Any measure taken to reduce the spread or impact of the virus will take several weeks to be seen in any statistics.

This is because of the various time lags: it takes a few days (average is about 5) between catching the virus and having any symptoms. Even assuming people are tested as soon as they have symptoms, it takes more days (I think it's 4) for the test to produce results. Once people with the virus have been tested it then takes several days (I have no idea how many) before they might die, and it takes even longer to fully recover and be declared free of the virus.

So the test results released today actually relate to people catching the virus at least 9 days ago (and probably mainly more than 2 weeks ago). Today's deaths probably relate to people who caught the virus 3 weeks ago, and today's recoveries probably relate to people who caught the virus well over a month ago.

I'm not sure about the actual amounts of the time lags but I think you can see what I mean. The end result (at the moment) is that it's still too early to know whether Italy's lock-down is working effectively, wait another week then it should become much clearer.

All these time lags mean you have to be very careful with some of the statistics, but there's nothing in them to indicate that things are actually better than we fear. Everything in the numbers points to the situation in the UK becoming horrendous within the next month. Personally, I think the government have been woefully lacking in bringing measures in quickly enough, and many more are going to die from this than necessary simply because of the government's delays.

In reply to Huddy:

I imagine it increased the risk of transmission somewhat. No one knows by how much. We can however take sensible steps to minimise it. For example, fill up using gloves and contactless and wash hands afterwards. Get food for the trip at home as part of the normal shop (if there is any left in the shop!).

For sure, it won’t be zero risk but you have to consider probability. Who am I going to transmit it to? I will have *zero* in person contact once back at home (currently with parents and effectively self isolating!). Certainly not to the residents of Malham, in this example - simply walking through a village won’t transmit the virus to anyone. Could transmit to my climbing partner possibly or vice versa. This is where it’s important to know who you are climbing with. If they also work at home etc and follow best practice, the risk is low that they would go on to spread it. Not zero of course but again you have to consider probability. So it’s not like each time I go to Malham, an OAP will die somewhere, especially if they are themselves taking precautions as advised by the government.

If people want zero risk, they shouldn’t go out at all: home delivery, no going for a walk or a run or anything else. If the government judges that the general coming and going of people (already much reduced in many places) still poses a  significant risk, they will introduce additional restrictions.

I do agree that honeypot crags / areas aren’t advisable at the moment. That is not the same as not going anywhere at all. Bit cold for me to be out climbing right now anyway, so this is all a bit hypothetical.

4
In reply to JHiley:

I’d say you can’t trust people en masse, hence any restrictions have to be blanket. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

> It seems it has been. Updated government advice today against all non-essential travel (including within UK.) So unless you more or less live at the crag......

It’s a bit inconsistent. The underlying guidance document hasn’t changed, whereas the press release is rather draconian and implies that you shouldn’t even go for a walk on the street. This is one of the reasons I’ve personally stayed away from climbing since getting back to the UK on Tuesday - it’s a fast evolving situation and the dust needs to settle a bit. My arguments are hypothetical and I stand by them but as I’ve said I will take the latest government advice into account - once it’s all consistent and clear!

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

Can’t see anything re fines for walking around etc as in France and that wasn’t in the bill summary I looked at a couple of days ago either. So I don’t think they’re actually going down the enforcement route, for now. This is one of the reasons I don’t think we’ll see a mandatory lockdown in the coming days. May be in a few weeks, once it gets really bad. New legislation will be needed.

You are right that a lot of people don’t have a good understanding of how the law works in the UK and just assume that measures can be brought in pretty much overnight as in Italy. That is not the case. Even with the pub shutdown, they asked for it rather than ordering it and to ensure compliance are relying on cooperation, public pressure and the threat of using the licensing laws. 

 salad fingers 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

Schedule 20(1) of the legislation will provide police and public health officers with the power to enforce sensible public health restrictions, which include enforced testing and isolation, and fines for non-compliance. They will be able to enact this on any 'potentially infectious' persons, which is pretty much everyone!

So, my interpretation is that this new legislation can be used, albeit indirectly, to effect home quarantine.

 elsewhere 22 Mar 2020

Italian region of Lombardy has introduced stricter measures in a bid to tackle the spread of coronavirus.

Under the new rules announced late on Saturday, sport and physical activity outside, even individually, is banned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51991972

 jethro kiernan 22 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Things are getting a little heated in Llanberis, face book is full of anger about the number of visitors. If these numbers continue then the pitchforks and torches will be coming out, there are already photos of camper van number plates appearing on FB pages it’s only a matter of time before some hothead decides to take matters into their own hands.

on a personal level I was hoping to spend some time in my local mountains with the kids following  the sensible BMC guidance  because I was expecting it to be quiet, unfortunately I’m not going to be able to because some idiots thought it was a good idea for four people to get in a car drive from Sussex up to Llanberis then fall off main wall! So I feel compelled not to add to the problem until things settle down.

can folks please stay within their NHS registration area and not travel, stick to the BMC and MTN rescue guidelines. The Highlands and Gwynedd are not happy with the number of people travelling and self isolating in these remote communities  and climbers will get caught up in this wave of bad feeling, stay local and for the moment just be sensible until things settle down.

 alex_arthur 22 Mar 2020
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Our grandparents were asked to go to war. We are being asked to stay near to home. It’s not that hard, we can do this.

 Huddy 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

The reality is that those individuals making the trip to "honey pot" locations aren't heeding the advice of practising social distancing and avoiding unnecessary travel are unlikely to take the measure that you have outlined.  

At the micron scale airborne partials behave differently to the particles that we are familiar with.  As such, the virus can remain airborne and viable for several hours.  Therefore all those people walking along the grass path out of the field car park/ pavements through the village/ to the toilet are increasing the chance of transmission. "Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2004973

At a time when the NHS are facing the biggest challenge in its history and individuals in that organisation face unprecedented work load, stress and personal risk to their own health is it too much to ask that people don't drive to a popular location to go for a walk/climb?

If the risk of transmission linked to this kind of movement of isn't significant then we won't see the implementation of further restrictions on peoples movement - time will tell...

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

Spotted this and posted last night.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/whats-on/family-kids/places-you-can-walk-around-3968251

Part of the trail round Carsington and Cromford canal are quite narrow as well. But now it's on the www, it's going to encourage people. Same with NT offering free parking everywhere.

 TayTay 22 Mar 2020
In reply to griffer boy:

This is heartbreaking. 

I worry that we will be in as bad a situation as Italy soon. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

In reply to cwarby:

If folk want to go outside they shouldn't need the internet to find out where to go, they should be staying local and know of these places already. 

 jethro kiernan 22 Mar 2020
In reply to cwarby:

NT has closed up now, unfortunately this weekends crowds have shown the UK in a poor light and we're going to pay the price for it further down the line.

 Tom V 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

>  This is one of the reasons I don’t think we’ll see a mandatory lockdown in the coming days. May be in a few weeks, once it gets really bad.

My desperate hope is that the government aren't as short sighted as this. With large sections of the community showing an absolutely crass lack of concern for their fellow citizens by adopting the "I'll stop doing it when the proper legislation is in place" stance, action needs taking now, though it would have been better a week ago,

Post edited at 09:31
1
In reply to Tom V:

> My desperate hope is that the government aren't as short sighted as this. With large sections of the community showing an absolutely crass lack of concern for their fellow citizens by adopting the "I'll stop doing it when the proper legislation is in place" stance, action needs taking now, though it would have been better a week ago,

It does seem like the one thing we need right now is a nanny state. Why are we still going through all the phases that haven't worked in other countries? 

In reply to Tom V:

I've actually been quite shocked by the number of people who don't commit crime not because committing crime is wrong, but because they'll get caught.

1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> It does seem like the one thing we need right now is a nanny state. Why are we still going through all the phases that haven't worked in other countries? 

It's more of a police state than a nanny state, because it's to protect people from others not themselves.  A "nanny state" traditionally protects people from their own stupidity (and is something I do not support in any circumstances).  If only this only affected individuals based on their actions...

Post edited at 09:40
1
 salad fingers 22 Mar 2020

By choosing not to climb outside, and limiting other activities, we can reduce our potential to contribute to the spread of coronavirus. Every journey made to the crag (or other non-essential activities) has the potential to contribute to the spread of coronavirus. As much as we climbers like to think we’re the masters of our own destinies and can perfectly mitigate risk, we are not and cannot (optimism bias alert!). Cars break down, traffic and climbing accidents happen, other first aid incidents occur, etc. and these can happen to ourselves and to those around us, for whom I and others would feel a moral obligation to help. So, if you choose to go climbing, your actions have the potential to involve others (RAC breakdown, emergency services, giving/receiving first aid etc.) through no choice of their own.


My feeling is that we should do everything we can to reduce our individual potential to spread the virus, however trivial that may seem. The cumulative effect of the entire climbing community will be not insignificant.

We climbers pretty much get to do what we want all of the time and for once we're being asked to maybe curtail our fun for the good of wider society and people refuse. I just don't get it.
 

In reply to Neil Williams:

> It's more of a police state than a nanny state, because it's to protect people from others not themselves.  A "nanny state" traditionally protects people from their own stupidity (and is something I do not support in any circumstances).  If only this only affected individuals based on their actions...

Yeah police state would have been a better phrase. Good job there are plenty of people with time on their hands to check on mistakes on threads 😉 😂 

Stay sane. 

1
 DoctorYoghourt 22 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

 Tumultuous times, for sure.  Nobody knows where this ends, but it won't be pretty.

 We discussed the notion of going to the Roaches today.  We aren't going.  Probably have a walk locally, instead.

 For my part, I will not obey government.  I've always lived by a far higher moral code than any politician can attain, and don't need to be told how to behave.  Having spent most of my life avoiding social contact as far as possible simply because I find it extremely tedious at best, I'm not too worried about this whole thing.

 OK, my job disappeared last week, and I probably need to think about a career change, but I was getting a bit sick of being a freelance chef, anyway! The industry probably won't recover from this anytime soon, and there is nothing by way of financial assistance for self-employed folk.  The bank is drained, the car insurance is up for renewal next week, I can't go climbing and maintain a clear conscience, the swingers club is closed and there's no open mics for my band to play at.

 It's looking like back to the eighties for me.  Signing on, living on a pittance but this time no lycra tights or camping at Stoney for weeks on end.

 Grim.  But I'll keep smiling.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I actually think something should be put in place now for people to formally decline ICU treatment if (when) there is a bed shortage.

I'm only 40 but would seriously consider it, I'm an evolutionary dead end (no kids or dependents) so am presently of less value than a parent.  I also don't have any medical skills bar basic first aid.

Post edited at 11:14
1
 steve taylor 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

According to a Portland Facebook page Reap Lane today is full of climbers and their cars. Clearly climbers think they are exempt from the "essential travel only" recommendations from our gormless govt.

In reply 

 Please . WHO  Are now using the term physical distancing   

 I’m not one for political correctness normally, however some people  are  very socially isolated   In normal life others are suffering under the contingency plan .

 To socially distance them from further, casting them out as the  lepers.  is not . the  thing to do just now  

Physical distancing

1
 JHiley 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

I don't think I disagree with any of that. It was more just an expression of exasperation on my part that we haven't yet seen any light at the end of the tunnel from the fully locked down zones (apart from Wuhan where I'm still not sure what to make of it/ how much to trust what is said) And my general feeling that maintaining such strict lockdowns for months on end will not be realistic.

I prefer the 'hammer and the dance' narrative from the link posted somewhere above to the idea of shutting down society for months. However the author of the report didn't have any expertise in the field he was writing about.

 JHiley 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Name Changed 34:

Except that social distancing is a more accurate term for what is being asked for/ required. "Social media" is not a serious alternative especially given that for many people (myself included) it has its own negative mental health consequences. Rebranding it doesn't change reality.

 Al Randall 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Name Changed 34:

IMO language is very important under the current circumstances and the media has a lot to answer for in that regard.  As an example I heard a journalist saying this morning that Italy has announced a ban on "personal exercising".  Really? Is that what they mean?  Of course not they mean in public places but some may well take this at face value.  We deserve some clarity.

Al

Post edited at 12:53
 steve taylor 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Al Randall:

Language? FFS, why does UKC always end up in these downward-spiraling conversations? The original poster asked "Is climbing banned?". 

I'll make it easy. Don't go climbing outside. Especially aimed at the droves that are turning up at the hotspots this weekend. Maybe UKC should name and shame all those who log climbs yesterday and today at Portland, The Roaches, Stanage etc. ?

The govt could make it easier and just TELL everyone to stay at home (like much of the Europe is doing), I'll grant you that.

4
In reply to JHiley:

> Except that social distancing is a more accurate term for what is being asked for/ required. "Social media" is not a serious alternative especially given that for many people (myself included) it has its own negative mental health consequences. Rebranding it doesn't change reality.

That’s something you can take up with WHO if you like 

i was purely passingly a small item from Fridays press conferences 

Period  

 Al Randall 22 Mar 2020
In reply to steve taylor:

Pompous ass. Don't lecture me.  I AM social distancing. The ONLY outdoor activity I will be undertaking is to shop for food.  The only thing I've done is mention the poor communication. If your response was to the thread I would not have responded in such a way but I'm getting sick and tired of people personalising these posts.  It's a discussion.  That's the point of UKC, communication. The way things are going it's going to be our only communication method for some time so lets keep things civil.

Post edited at 13:34
2
In reply to JHiley:

> I prefer the 'hammer and the dance' narrative from the link posted somewhere above to the idea of shutting down society for months. However the author of the report didn't have any expertise in the field he was writing about.

The main point he was making (as I'm sure you realise) is that using the 'hammer' NOW gives us some time to organise, regroup, whatever regardless of whether this can be better contained in 6 months or not. Unless the virus mutates into a more deadly form, there's no way it can be worse then than it is now.

With respect to that blogsite, if you look at the bottom of the page you'll see that he's not doing it alone, he's just the front-person for a group of people some of whom (at a cursory glance) look like they do have relevant expertise. Regardless of its "expertise", the 'hammer and dance' narrative is the most sensible overall approach/explanation I've yet seen.

Which leads me onto the "why is our government not being more transparent with its thinking and reasoning" - it's hardly confidence inspiring at the moment.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The Government is being transparent with its thinking:

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response

However, I do think that guy has a point.  I don't particularly like his writing style, it's quite arrogant and talks down to the reader[1] as many senior businesspeople do (and very Americanised), but the actual content is very well researched and referenced.

[1] e.g. "What you'll take away from reading this is..." - er, how dare you presume what I'll take away from reading it?  I'll take away what I choose, thanks; I would take better to "What I present here is my considered view that...".  But if you read his other articles, that's just his style.

Post edited at 13:59
 steve taylor 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Al Randall:

Sorry Al. My response was to the thread, it was not aimed at you. 

No-one has ever called me a pompous ass before. Lots of other things, but not that.

 Al Randall 22 Mar 2020
In reply to steve taylor:

Apology accepted. I don't think on line social media is a good way to debate these matters at the best of times but for the coming months there is not going to be much else available.  We have to accept that in a debate there will be things you agree with and things you don't but that is the point of debate and discussion so slagging off content, ideas and individuals is not really logical.  Now I'm sounding like a pompous ass ?

Al

Post edited at 14:20
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Car parks are open with volunteers there, just had a walk which went through one. Loads of people out and big intergenerational groups. I guess you don't get ill on mother's Day.

Am just wondering whether to propose NHS staff crag time like Tesco's has for shopping

Post edited at 15:21
 mik82 22 Mar 2020
In reply to Misha:

>  May be in a few weeks, once it gets really bad.

It will already be really bad within 1 week. There'll be over 20,000 positive tests (so likely 200-400k actual cases) and 1000 deaths by next Saturday. 

 JHiley 22 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

So just watching the Mighty Leader's press conference making it all sound like no big deal. Which really isn't comforting. Before judging those in the outdoors too harshly, they are following the UK leadership's advice to the letter. When the UK has made such a show of having the scientists in the lead it must be understandable that people don't go above and beyond what they've been advised...

Of course, there's also the possibility that Mr Cummings is in charge and the scientists were just for show...

… o god. We're screwed.

 Tom V 22 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

If i went to my grave and the best that I could  say about myself was "Oh well, I never actually did anything that was banned" it would be a miserable end to a fairly worthless life.

Post edited at 18:34
3
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The Government is being transparent with its thinking:

Hmm, maybe the gov's scientific advisers are being transparent but that's a lot of papers to wade through. Have the government actually put all of that into intelligent layman's language; e.g. we were doing this because papers a/b/c indicated x, but then paper d came out and showed that we would be much better off doing y so we've changed tack. And, these are the measures that might become necessary and these are the timescales over which they might be implemented. Etc.

> [1] e.g. "What you'll take away from reading this is..." - er, how dare you presume what I'll take away from reading it?  I'll take away what I choose, thanks; I would take better to "What I present here is my considered view that...".  But if you read his other articles, that's just his style.

I think his style is designed to quickly let you know what you might get in the article so that you can decide whether to read it or not - a result of shorter attention spans in today's interconnected world I think - but I get your point, bit too presumptive for us Brits.

In reply to Michael Hood:

> I think his style is designed to quickly let you know what you might get in the article so that you can decide whether to read it or not - a result of shorter attention spans in today's interconnected world I think - but I get your point, bit too presumptive for us Brits.

Yeah, it's what Redditers (?) would call TL;DR (too long; didn't read).  Which is fine, but his wording is presumptuous that the reader will agree with him.  But yes, I believe it's just an Americanism.

 Davidlees215 22 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

If I really wanted I could walk or drive the one mile from my house to caley at 6am and do a few warm up climbs/ micro problems. Am I going to do it?

No, for a number of reasons. Firstly I'm self isolating due to the baby having a fever, but even if that wasn't the case it's probably not worth the effort and also I'd start off on something easy then think, that one's not too high and I've done it before and within no time I'd be pushing myself on highballs.  And just because I've never needed hospital treatment from climbing before, there's always first time for everything 

Yeah it's a bastard that I've only just got over a finger injury and was getting excited about evening climbs a couple of weeks ago. But just going to have to face the reality that I'm probably not going to climb for many months, maybe not until next summer. At least I should definitely be fully over my finger injury by then.

1
 JHub 22 Mar 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I see no value in looking at a country that elected Trump for guidance ;)

In reply to salad fingers:

I doubt that power, as drafted, could be used for a full lock down, as opposed to quarantine for this or that person or group. The Parliamentary debate on this would probably shed further light. However lockdown is a serious infringement of civil liberties and I suspect would require specific legislation. It would have to be water tight after all, including to legal challenge.

In reply to Huddy:

I would certainly agree that people should avoid crowds and honeypots.

I wonder what the effect of the wind might be, whether on a city street or in the outdoors.

In reply to Tom V:

The thing is, the sooner you introduce stringent measures, the sooner people start asking for them to be relaxed or simply breaking them. The mental, social and economic cost of a full lockdown is high so I think the government has been wise to avoid going down that road just as yet.

I suspect things will settle down in the coming days, especially now that parks, car parks and some shops are closing. Behaviour doesn’t change overnight.

In reply to JHiley:

> I don't think I disagree with any of that. It was more just an expression of exasperation on my part that we haven't yet seen any light at the end of the tunnel from the fully locked down zones (apart from Wuhan where I'm still not sure what to make of it/ how much to trust what is said) And my general feeling that maintaining such strict lockdowns for months on end will not be realistic.

Exactly. Most people right now don’t seem to get this.   

> I prefer the 'hammer and the dance' narrative from the link posted somewhere above to the idea of shutting down society for months. However the author of the report didn't have any expertise in ithe field he was writing about.

The Imperial College paper talks about an initial period of suppression followed by a period of alternating stricter and less strict measures, driven by the number of ICU admissions. It’s essentially the same thing as the hammer and the wave, it’s just that the other paper seemed to think that the hammer phase can be much shorter. It’s all based on a whole host of assumptions so no one really knows for sure.

Towards the end, the Imperial Paper notes that this is all untested ground and suppression might not work. Cherry thought...

In reply to mik82:

On 17th you said there would be 8000 positive cases within 4 days; gov.uk on 22nd stated just under 5700. What modelling are you using?

In reply to cwarby:

It's worth noting that the cases recorded for the UK are only hospitalisations now.  The actual number of cases in the field are unknown.

In reply to Neil Williams:

That's fine. But if you quote actual stats, then I just want to see the data.

 jethro kiernan 23 Mar 2020
In reply to ebdon:

Well Snowdonia national park has just had its busiest weekend in living memory according to park authorities.....thanks morons.

and as an extra bonus all the local food shops have been picked clean.

Post edited at 08:10
2
 JHiley 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

I get that doing the right thing doesn't just mean obeying the law. However my point is there are a lot of judgemental posts on here shaming people who were just following the most widely published official advice. You and Stuart have done a good job of convincing me we shouldn't be going climbing at all. Well done. That's why we have these debates. However I'm self isolating and have time to sit at a computer go through all the stats, news and opinion. 

Can you understand why people might be more inclined to listen to the scientists standing up on national TV and statements by national bodies rather than some people in a forum? Even now the advice accessible from the gov.uk website doesn't say anything to discourage 1 : 1 conversations between friends or careful venturing outdoors for recreational activity. Elfyn has (late last night) put a good post on here advising against it but as I write this the BMC advice on their website still says "people need access to the countryside for their health" and "stick to familiar areas and low risk activities" and we're seeing threads shaming people for going climbing five days ago.

By all means spread the word. No climbing everyone. Including if you live near a crag like me. But lets keep the judgemental attitude out of this (not that you've necessarily been one of the more judgemental ones)

Post edited at 12:01
In reply to JHiley:

> I get that doing the right thing doesn't just mean obeying the law. However my point is there are a lot of judgemental posts on here shaming people who were just following the most widely published official advice. You and Stuart have done a good job of convincing me we shouldn't be going climbing at all. Well done. That's why we have these debates. However I'm self isolating and have time to sit at a computer go through all the stats, news and opinion. 

> Can you understand why people might be more inclined to listen to the scientists and standing up on national TV and statements by national bodies rather than some people in a forum? Even now the advice accessible from the gov.uk website doesn't say anything to discourage 1 : 1 conversations between friends or careful venturing outdoors for recreational activity. Elfyn has (late last night) put a good post on here advising against it but as I write this the BMC advice on their website still says "people need access to the countryside for their health" and "stick to familiar areas and low risk activities" and we're seeing threads shaming people for going climbing five days ago.

> By all means spread the word. No climbing everyone. Including if you live near a crag like me. But lets keep the judgemental attitude out of this (not that you've necessarily been one of the more judgemental ones)

You're doing a good job of informing people in a rational way yourself. And definitely more light, less heat. Judging people who are scared, worried about money situations, vulnerable relatives, because they might have wanted to get their heads straight by going out climbing or for a bicycle ride, is not helpful. 

Remember people, we'll get through this together... 

But mainly apart. 

(Not mine I'm afraid). 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I guess there weren't all climbers? I heard a conversation yesterday from a young lad (non-climber) saying that he wasn't going to stay home because the virus affects old people and most voted brexit and they were sociably irresponsible when they voted so they set the example of no caring for the young, so a way to get his own back? God knows but haven't heard that argument before.... 

 jethro kiernan 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Ramon Marin:

This wasn’t an influx of climbers this was just bank holiday tourism on a grand scale, most of it day trippers from Manchester and Cheshire as most accommodation was closing down, but there were also a worrying number of people apparently self isolating in expensive motor homes in one of the Llanberis lakeside car parks  (not your usual migratory climber van conversations) the village was full of people stocking up on food and browsing in shops and no social distancing. The queue to rub your virus’s on the trig point for “mount” Snowdon was shoulder to shoulder.

this wasn’t really about herd immunity more herd stupidity.

Fortunately the pubs were shut or there would have been violence in the village 😕

I have advocated people following the BMC guidelines, they have been amended to highlight no travel basically stay within your post code/ nhs catchment area. Make the most of what’s on your doorstep, take the time to do a bit of research and stay away from the honey pots by finding somewhere obscure ,  don’t take any risk.

I cancelled a trip with the family to the Peak District this weekend because it was a no brainer, please respect the communities that are in the Highlands, Lakes and Snowdonia and stay away until it is safe to travel. You’ll always be welcome 😀

Post edited at 14:19
 JHiley 23 Mar 2020
 marktrik 23 Mar 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I live in the peak district and gave been out walking and climbing for the past couple of weeks. Bouldered on crags that are not recorded in any books and had the hill side to my self. Same for the walking, being local we know where to go where visitors don't know about.

 JHiley 23 Mar 2020
In reply to marktrik:

Well I could do something like that (albeit on Wharnecliffe no not so amazing) but I think it doesn't seem fair. I can't justify why I should be able to walk to the crag and climb just because I happen to live here when we're expecting others to avoid it altogether. I might try and build some wideboys style crack boards instead.

Post edited at 16:49
In reply to Ramon Marin:

>  I heard a conversation yesterday from a young lad (non-climber) saying that he wasn't going to stay home because the virus affects old people and most voted brexit and they were sociably irresponsible when they voted so they set the example of no caring for the young, so a way to get his own back? 

I was about as anti-brexit as it's possible to be but even I don't think coronavirus is a punishment sent to give us clearer majority in the Remaining population.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.