[abarro81]

Stabbsy, I'm confused by your post - you talk about not going shopping due to self isolation but you went out running part way through? Maybe this is a semantics thing but I view self isolation as literally not leaving your property for the relevant period.

I'm also not sold on the argument that grandparents not seeing their grandkids is somehow more/less important than other things currently being given up, since that comes down to personal priorities. that may be v important to them but others may not have grandkids/parents or may simply care more about picnics and climbing than seeing family

[Oldmanmatt]

China and Korea are not seeing huge second waves. We need to wait and see in the UK but the main lockdown might still be enough, if we come out of this with a ready and vigilant health system.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

Japan and Hong Kong will be worth watching as they exoect an upturn

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096478/japan-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-by-state-of-health/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china-hong-kong-sar/

It’s way too early. Even the Chinese haven’t fully lifted restrictions. Not to mention, they managed to restrict it to a regional outbreak.

In a few months, when this is established in third world countries (and probably the US), with a massive reservoir of potential reinfection?

Like I said, we’ll find out.
But, way too premature on that call Offwidth.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope for the best. My biggest take away from events so far? Limitations of modelling and capacity for the chaotic nature of real life to confound the most logical, most sensible or even most probable arguments. 

[Stabbsy]

Stabbsy, I'm confused by your post - you talk about not going shopping due to self isolation but you went out running part way through? Maybe this is a semantics thing but I view self isolation as literally not leaving your property for the relevant period.

I'm also not sold on the argument that grandparents not seeing their grandkids is somehow more/less important than other things currently being given up, since that comes down to personal priorities. that may be v important to them but others may not have grandkids/parents or may simply care more about picnics and climbing than seeing family

Valid question, but here’s the guidance - basically what everyone else is now doing but without the shopping. The difference between “normal” and self isolation was more significant at the time we started.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-advice/

Yep, grandparents point possibly isn’t relevant. I guess I was trying to make the point that everyone is making sacrifices - maybe not very well.

[Johnny Brown]

Well...

You took from that, what you wanted to take from that.

To be fair he did hand it to me on a plate:

While we are at it, we need to stop wasting resources on pointless measures such as closing remote parks and natural reserves, where few people come close to one another anyway. ...

These closed environments represent the sort of scenario we need to target—not British couples out on a jaunt to Sugar Loaf, Pen-y-Fan and other rustic destinations.

I've self imposed a 2km radius around the house for my runs and I feel much better about it.

Yep, I've limited myself to the Porter valley. But it is BUSY because everyone else is doing the same, and there are limited narrow paths with gates and stiles etc. Whereas I know lots of places within a ten minute drive that do not approach any remote communities and would be deserted even on a bank holiday. And the government and BBC have repeatedly stated it would be fine for me to do so. I'm afraid I'm never going to agree that the police targeting dog walkers at Curbar was the best use of their time right now.

It's a real shame last weekend coincided with the first well-forecast high pressure spell of the spring. If it had been as normal I think we could have had slower transition with a more sensible result.

I'm also not sold on the argument that grandparents not seeing their grandkids is somehow more/less important than other things currently being given up

Agreed, we're having regular video chats which is actually more contact then we have normally. But the internet is not a useful substitute for time in nature, the potential benefits of which - to the physical and mental health of the population - outweigh the miniscule increased risk of RTA's and broken ankles.

[Offwidth]

China and Korea are not seeing huge second waves. We need to wait and see in the UK but the main lockdown might still be enough, if we come out of this with a ready and vigilant health system.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

Japan and Hong Kong will be worth watching as they exoect an upturn

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096478/japan-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-by-state-of-health/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china-hong-kong-sar/

It’s way too early. Even the Chinese haven’t fully lifted restrictions. Not to mention, they managed to restrict it to a regional outbreak.

In a few months, when this is established in third world countries (and probably the US), with a massive reservoir of potential reinfection?

Like I said, we’ll find out.
But, way too premature on that call Offwidth.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope for the best. My biggest take away from events so far? Limitations of modelling and capacity for the chaotic nature of real life to confound the most logical, most sensible or even most probable arguments.

I'm not calling it Matt: I'm really saying we don't know and it might not happen, if we are lucky. SARS was stopped..One thing that I do think will happen is any cross-world reinfection will be sharply reduced by massive increases in border controls and quarantine for the next year or so.

I agree even the best modelling needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Richard J made an interesting contribution on the discussion on the Oxford paper of the other channel "On the "differential equation vibe" of the models, these are continuum models that in their simplest form look very much like chemical rate equations, appropriate for what chemical engineers would call "continuously stirred tank reactor" conditions.  Cities and nations aren't continuously stirred, though, so there are issues about how the spatial and stochastic characteristics of the spread are handled.  I know there's a bit of an effort starting now to coordinate contributions from modellers from other fields, for example in network dynamics, traffic modelling, some using agent based techniques and handling the very big data sets about personal mobility and interactions mobile phones give you."

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/oxford_uni_cv_epidemiology_study_-_good_news-717454

[abarro81]

Stabbsy - interesting, hadn't clocked you were allowed out to exercise when in self-isolation, cheers for the link

[Stabbsy]

Stabbsy - interesting, hadn't clocked you were allowed out to exercise when in self-isolation, cheers for the link

My wife’s a GP and was keen we followed guidance to the letter - it would pretty hypocritical if she was advising patients one thing and doing something else. I think the exercise wording has changed slightly since everyone else got put into lockdown, but the message is the same.

[Paul B]

Yep, I've limited myself to the Porter valley. But it is BUSY because everyone else is doing the same, and there are limited narrow paths with gates and stiles etc. Whereas I know lots of places within a ten minute drive that do not approach any remote communities and would be deserted even on a bank holiday. And the government and BBC have repeatedly stated it would be fine for me to do so. I'm afraid I'm never going to agree that the police targeting dog walkers at Curbar was the best use of their time right now.

The example I gave you on twitter was Pendle Hill. I've just looked at the 5mile radius from Barley which is the easiest way up and it encompasses everything from Clitheroe (me), Northern Yob on the other side of the hill and not least the entirety of Burnley. You can't summit without going over a stile. Last weekend it was estimated that ~1200 people visited.

I completely get your point about what is and what isn't likely to cause an issue but I don't see how you can legislate/enforce nuances such as someone who knows the area they're visiting very well and has the common sense to know where to go (e.g. you) and those that don't (i.e. 1199 others).

What do you think Malham cove would look like today if you suggested people could drive a short distance for exercise? My bet would be rammed.

What I'm seeing is people lack common sense (I can provide examples if required but the one that should strike a chord is people in my peer group still suggesting going bouldering).

It's a real shame last weekend coincided with the first well-forecast high pressure spell of the spring. If it had been as normal I think we could have had slower transition with a more sensible result.

Perhaps you're correct but I've never seen ~Quernmore, and all of the Trough of Bowland villages as busy as last weekend, ever. The parking I mentioned above is something I pass semi-regularly. Again, I've never seen it as busy.

Yeh, I get what you were saying and I totally agree. The first course of action for these sites (and any non-essential business) should be to shut down as soon as practical. Then only re-open once they've carried out a new risk assessment and can prove they'd be able to comply. Which most wouldn't. But unfortunately a lot have attempted to hide behind the mixed messages from the government and continue with business as usual for as long as they can get away with it.

Call my cynical but I think it's revealing the true colours of many Contractors (and perhaps those in the wider construction industry e.g. Clients are also unwilling to say 'stop').

Almost everyone (in the water industry at least) has a tagline along the lines of "nobody comes to work to get hurt", "we're safe AF", but I think we're now finding out which of those actually believe it (morally) and those that say it (to get work). The latter seem to take risks where they can.

[Stabbsy]

Well...

You took from that, what you wanted to take from that.

To be fair he did hand it to me on a plate:

While we are at it, we need to stop wasting resources on pointless measures such as closing remote parks and natural reserves, where few people come close to one another anyway. ...

These closed environments represent the sort of scenario we need to target—not British couples out on a jaunt to Sugar Loaf, Pen-y-Fan and other rustic destinations.

I disagree on closing remote parks. As I said in my earlier post, we need to remove the incentive for people to travel and, if it has that effect, it's a sensible action in my opinion. If you could guarantee you weren't going to meet anyone then I'd agree that the risk of an RTA/broken ankle probably is outweighed. The problem is that we live in a country with areas of high population density where a large proportion of people are mobile. If you let one person out, you have to let everyone out and that's where the problems start.

Whether we should be using resources to police it is another question. The ideal scenario would be that people would listen, understand why it's necessary and follow the rules, freeing police up to concentrate on other stuff.

I've self imposed a 2km radius around the house for my runs and I feel much better about it.

Yep, I've limited myself to the Porter valley. But it is BUSY because everyone else is doing the same, and there are limited narrow paths with gates and stiles etc.

Exactly why I've not been running up Porter Clough. It's straight outside the door and my normal way out to the Peak, but I can pretty much guarantee I'll meet people and won't be able to pass at distance. The bridleway up Clough Lane is OK, but I've basically stuck to roads. The roads round the Porter and Mayfield have been fairly quiet other than the occasional d**khead in a (pseudo) sports car.

Whereas I know lots of places within a ten minute drive that do not approach any remote communities and would be deserted even on a bank holiday. And the government and BBC have repeatedly stated it would be fine for me to do so.

As do I, but should we be allowed out because we know places that are quiet and everyone else have to stay in because they don't?

I'm also not sold on the argument that grandparents not seeing their grandkids is somehow more/less important than other things currently being given up

Agreed, we're having regular video chats which is actually more contact then we have normally.

We're doing the same with the video chats, but it isn't the same. Both sets of grandparents are local and have seen her pretty much weekly since birth. It's a big change for them and for her.

[petejh]

Call my cynical but I think it's revealing the true colours of many Contractors (and perhaps those in the wider construction industry e.g. Clients are also unwilling to say 'stop').

Almost everyone (in the water industry at least) has a tagline along the lines of "nobody comes to work to get hurt", "we're safe AF", but I think we're now finding out which of those actually believe it (morally) and those that say it (to get work). The latter seem to take risks where they can.

This is the environment I feel that I'm navigating. But I've always felt that this is the reality of the construction/industrial world. Maybe I'm just more cynical!

It comes back to the moral dilemma I posted about 100 pages back, which this event forces on society.


JB, bit surprised to see you post that about going out into nature. I mean I totally agree with you, going to these places is basically harmless (and beneficial to you/ your family). But this event just obviously forces you to comply or be a part of the problem. Because the model of infectious spread is a system in which you and your family's good sense and local knowledge is an irrelevant drop in the ocean of mass population behaviour. Peoples' behaviour follows other peoples' behaviour. If you, why not everyone.

[Will Hunt]

I've blown hot and cold about this since the start. As it stands now, with the guidance as it is, I can see the following things are out.
Driving to a crag/walk
Sport
Trad
Bouldering with sub prime landings or where you might go high.

But then I think, what about if you lived at the foot of Baildon Bank (some climbers do)? Why not go for a potter or do a bit of traversing or have a session on Pinch 32?
If I still lived with my parents I'd be a 20 min walk from Pex and could do some laps on the Pisa Wall traverse.
For my own situation, I can see my local bouldering spot from the upstairs window of my house. It's not great but I could have some session there on some crap lowballs (there's actually a 7B+ there that I could have a go on). The main issue is that I'd only bother climbing there if I drove, so it's out. I actually went for a run up there this morning and don't think I was ever more than 3km from the house as the crow flies.

Then I remembered that I live a 0.8 mile walk from the very uninspiring Gilstead Crag. I could walk there on quiet residential roads and have a go at a new lowball 7A that's been done there. Why not?

[petejh]

I think the biggest issue  is other people seeing you doing whatever it is you're doing be it bouldering/leading or hanggliding; and thinking 'fuck it' and doing whatever it is they like doing. This spreads, like coronavirus, into more and more people thinking fuck it and doing what they like doing.

The point being, don't do anything other than stay at home or walk around locally; or if your little bouldering crag is within a local walk and is low risk and nobody goes there, then don't be seen by anyone..

Obvs other risks are social contact or risk of accident - clearly both are low likelihood in the case of being lucky enough to live local to a bouldering venue where you can do low level stuff. I'm lucky enough to be able to walk to a few places, haven't climbed in two weeks but I probably will in the next 2 months. If I had to drive to get there, or if the places were in the public eye, or if the bouldering wasn't 'low risk', then I wouldn't go.

[Will Hunt]

Therein is the problem. The closest shithole is popular with dog walkers.

[kelvin]

Northamptonshire - home of no crags whatsoever.

We were walking yesterday, I'm currently moored just SE of Northampton and the countryside is quite lovely, lots of footpaths and it's easy to avoid people and villages - we had a walk through a bit of a strange small wooded valley at the top of a hill. Spotted some limestone on one side, all overgrown and broken, overhanging in one part. It turns out it was a quarry, very many years ago. I got rather excited for an hour or so.
We've been walking withing a three mile limit of the boat mooring, which seems fair but I'm so happy we moved just before all this started - I think in the town, I may have gone a little stir crazy with just the local park to walk round.

I've been surprised at the amount of people who've said they'd pop by tho 🤔

[Bradders]

I think the biggest issue  is other people seeing you doing whatever it is you're doing be it bouldering/leading or hanggliding; and thinking 'fuck it' and doing whatever it is they like doing. This spreads, like coronavirus, into more and more people thinking fuck it and doing what they like doing.

The point being, don't do anything other than stay at home or walk around locally; or if your little bouldering crag is within a local walk and is low risk and nobody goes there, then don't be seen by anyone..

Exactly this, to which I would add the risk of people reacting very negatively to whatever you're doing. As an example, the other day I witnessed a woman come out of her house to scream at a couple for the perceived crime of nothing more than sitting on a bench. How would she or others like her react to someone climbing?

There's a dry stone wall just round the corner from my house. I've thought several times it'd be worth a go, however I think it's not unlikely I'd have the police called on me given its proximity to other houses!

It's interesting to see the evolution of arguments in this thread. Less than a week into lockdown, with the official advice having been strengthened, and we're already looking for loopholes....

[Will Hunt]

It's hardly a loophole if it's clearly allowed under the government's guidance, which it is. In fact the arguments against it aren't about whether it presents a risk of infection or to the NHS, but about what impact it might have on non-climbers who don't know what they're looking at. Not the strongest arguments. Given the context of where the crag is, I would have thought it would be obvious to observers that a climber hadn't traveled to get there.

I think the point of this thread, and why I've to'd and fro'd about the answer to the original question is that climbing is incredibly broad, covering everything from urban shuffling on graffiti-ridden crags to onsight soloing E9. National organisations and government naturally communicate most effectively by easy to communicate edicts, but these don't necessarily stand up to nuance.

[teestub]

What would you say the maximum allowable distance to walk to a crag would be Will?

[Will Hunt]

That is a very good question.

[Stu Littlefair]

Thing is Will, lots of things are clearly allowed by the guidance, but don’t follow the spirit of the guidance. Which is to stay inside as much as possible.

It’s quite scary how a little bit of non compliance, or a bit of extra travelling can spoil everyone’s efforts to control the outbreak.

This vid shows some neat examples with a (very) toy model.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=gxAaO2rsdIs

[Bradders]

Loophole comment wasn't directed at you necessarily Will. As much to myself as anyone 

[gollum]

I would suggest unless you can walk, run or cycle up a particular route or problem it is not only counter to the spirit of the government’s position, but also the letter of it.

[Will Hunt]

I would suggest unless you can walk, run or cycle up a particular route or problem it is not only counter to the spirit of the government’s position, but also the letter of it.

Well, as a point of fact, that's not actually right. The guidance is that you should only leave home for limited purposes, one of which is to take exercise once a day "for example a run, walk, or cycle".

[Will Hunt]

I witnessed a woman come out of her house to scream at a couple for the perceived crime of nothing more than sitting on a bench.

Maybe the assailant was a member of UKBenches.com, a forum for bench-sitting enthusiasts which had recently come to a consensus that sitting on benches is off the cards for now? The victims could be bench fans who were new to the scene and hadn't checked UKBenches to see what they could and couldn't do?






I'm not really making any point at all in this post.

[gollum]

Unless I misunderstand the words “a” and “or” I would hold my position and think it is a point of fact. There is no “and”

[kac]

When they announced the rules they did also say one form of exercise once a day. I would have thought the walk to get to the boulders would be one form of exercise and bouldering another. This can get so much worse if people take the piss - both in deaths and restrictions. I had a message from a friend in Italy today. At weekends they can't even leave the house anymore and certainly can't go running or have picnics in the countryside. It good that it sounds like nearly everyone in our community is doing the right thing even though we are clearly desperate to get out!