[abarro81]

basically you've just described the ideal behaviour from an epidemiology point of view. We should all strive to get as close to this as we can manage, and we'll get out of this sooner.

Stu - I think we're in agreement there, but I don't think that's how the guidance is being presented or being interpreted and applied by the average punter. I then look at the local park/street and figure that we won't be out of this quick, so I may as well make it more sustainable/less shit medium-term. Gov should just have gone full lockdown and not fucked around.

[tomtom]

OMM - maybe the larger walls can work with this more easily by reducing the density of holds (e.g. one problem every 2-3 m wide) and limiting the entry..

This reduces the use per problem - and allows problems to be cleaned and allowed to be used etc..

Christ, it would be a fucker to do though and this would obviously screw the income for a wall - but give them some path to opening/generating revenue...

[petejh]

Re the Pirmin thing: yes he's made himself look a total prick in the way he has communicated his activities (Again. See also: whining when Ondra downgraded his route) But climbing locally with his wife on a quiet sector in the woods is perfectly ok under Bavarian lockdown rules & explicitly confirmed as such by the polizei.

I already mentioned this (in a fit of jealousy) further up the thread; here's the actual frankenjura.com link with the quote from the head of the local cop shop when explicitly asked about climbing:

Solange sich die Natursportler an die allgemeinen Regeln der Verordnung zur Ausgangsbeschränkung halten, sind von der Polizei Ebermannstadt keinerlei Beanstandungen zu erwarten.

... roughly

As long as people pursuing outdoor sport stick to the general rules of the lockdown declaration, then they don't need to worry about any objections from the Ebermannstadt police.

Yep, he's not breaking the German rules (unless he brought along a photographer to get shots of him climbing - maybe to justify this third person is why he mentions it's his job to go out climbing).

If your business plan is to piss off the majority of your sport's community and make it look like you're an attention-seeking nob then he's excelling at his job.

[petejh]

Stu, I agree with you in principle that we should all just try to get the transmission down as low as quickly as possible. But.. This is isn't happening out there IRL. In real life people are still going to work in completely needless jobs. I was out on my bike yesterday and lost count of number of window cleaners at work, builders, random shops like 'The Pound Shop' in Llandudno open because they sell a bit of food or some vitamins (I can only assume!). This is nothing like a total lockdown (as you're aware).

We're more like in a lockdown if you're scared/rich/very moral/lazy/or an academic working from ivory tower home

The work thing makes me conflicted.. just been talking to clients this morning and it looks like we're going to gets people back on projects in early May. Is it essential, is it fuck. But it's a commercial pressure.

[tomtom]

Stu - I think we're in agreement there, but I don't think that's how the guidance is being presented or being interpreted and applied by the average punter. I then look at the local park/street and figure that we won't be out of this quick, so I may as well make it more sustainable/less shit medium-term. Gov should just have gone full lockdown and not fucked around.

This is an issue Barrows - and its a bit of a mixed message.

There is a big DOOM laden advertising effort at the moment to STAY at HOME (adverts to me on the TV, isnta, facebook, even spotify etc..) - but then slightly fluffier advice from the government as widely reported by all the major news outlets that driving an hour for a walk is OK.... #facepalm etc..

[petejh]

I think the most important bit is the result TT. Is it getting R0 down? Yes, according to latest briefing. Then the measures are working and doing what they're designed to do, despite all the fudge and inconsistency. Some government advisers have already expressed on record how the public have followed the lockdown regs more closely than the models estimated they would. I think the fluffiness in the guidance around being able to move around on the edges of what's OK just reflects that the measures are working, whether we obey them strictly as individuals or not. If the R0 wasn't dropping to below 1 then the measures (and their enforcement) would be stricter. Only my opinion.

[Stu Littlefair]

There are two issues with using other people’s loose application of a lockdown to justify your own loose application.

The first, and biggest, is that it only leads in one direction. And it ain’t the right one.

The second I need to think more about and perhaps model, but I suspect that if a decent minority of us execute a strict lockdown, then that can have a disproportionate impact on Ro, by breaking chains of infection. Think of if as trying to be the one domino that doesn’t fall...

I’m quite sympathetic to people going to work and thinking their business is essential when it’s not. People have to feed their families somehow.

Those of us fortunate enough to be in the position I am - stable job, work from home should try and be the domino that doesn’t fall, for everyone’s sake.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think the most important bit is the result TT. Is it getting R0 down? Yes, according to latest briefing. Then the measures are working and doing what they're designed to do, despite all the fudge and inconsistency. Some government advisers have already expressed on record how the public have followed the lockdown regs more closely than the models estimated they would. I think the fluffiness in the guidance around being able to move around on the edges of what's OK just reflects that the measures are working, whether we obey them strictly as individuals or not. If the R0 wasn't dropping to below 1 then the measures (and their enforcement) would be stricter. Only my opinion.

This.

We have no treatment, no vaccine.

Does anybody think, that even if we locked down to an actual house arrest scenario, we would actually defeat the virus?

Controlling the rate of spread, trying to shield the most vulnerable, keeping casualties at a level the medical services can just about deal with, is all we can do.

They’re going ahead with fitting out of the Devon Nightingale, despite the apparently “reasonable” growth rate here.
I wondered if that wasn’t with the intention of creating “COVID Hospitals” in the medium term, to shift the infected out of general hospitals.

The number of total infections required to reach herd immunity (if that’s even a thing) is going to take a year or so. Almost as long/the same as the likely timeline for vaccine development.

[Paul B]

I think this is pertinent:

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) has now issued guidance for police officers in England to explain the reasons that someone could "reasonably" leave their home during the COVID-19 lockdown.

They stress it simply helps officers to interpret on the original government advice.

The document released doesn't necessarily change the Goverment's stance (their guidelines, or what they'd ideally like the public to do) it just clarifies to the Police what they actually have power to act upon (to keep Judge Dredd in check). Or have I misunderstood that?

EDIT: I forgot to say I think the overall effect will be to undermine the lockdown as it clearly shows the disparity between what's 'allowed' and what's 'desired'.

Can we change to topic title to ‘Pedantry during Covid 19’

and I didn't even get chance to type my post defining hazard/risk/severity.

Like the people who, earlier in this thread ascertained that cycling was safer now due to there being less traffic on the road. I kinda get that to a certain extent but there is a very counter argument here. How many people drive a little quicker on roads that they think are quieter? Does that not increase the likelihood that there would be more dangers for cyclists? Especially those that are maybe a little rusty on the old steeds.

Until Ru posted (or maybe Bonjoy got there first?) I'd honestly not considered people dusting off their bikes and then having a crash. People driving a little faster? Farmers forgetting they share the road with others? Sure, they're fair points both of which I probably didn't consider for the first couple of rides.

[petejh]

There are two issues with using other people’s loose application of a lockdown to justify your own loose application.

The first, and biggest, is that it only leads in one direction. And it ain’t the right one.

The second I need to think more about and perhaps model, but I suspect that if a decent minority of us execute a strict lockdown, then that can have a disproportionate impact on Ro, by breaking chains of infection. Think of if as trying to be the one domino that doesn’t fall...

I’m quite sympathetic to people going to work and thinking their business is essential when it’s not. People have to feed their families somehow.

Those of us fortunate enough to be in the position I am - stable job, work from home should try and be the domino that doesn’t fall, for everyone’s sake.

First point: Agree in principle, but only up to a point. There's a point in time - which it seems none of us can know for sure - beyond which you choosing to apply a very strict interpretation of lockdown will be like the last Japanese still fighting WWII in the jungle in 1948. Stoic, admirable and pointless - unless you just really like not doing much except working from home and not going climbing/traveling/surfing/mtn biking/clubbing/pubbing/shopping/socialising etc.
(I'm not suggesting we're at or near that point but we're moving in its direction).

Second point: Work-wise - if I wanted to look at things quantitively (and sound like a bit of a dick) then I'm potentially responsible for having more of an impact in reducing R0 than an office worker choosing to stay at home. I *could* have had teams working throughout this lockdown. I chose to stop all our work out of principle. That means I'm directly responsible for preventing 4 - 8 people interacting with who knows how many other people, over a period of the last 4 weeks and a further 3-4 weeks. So 8 weeks of 8 people interacting with who knows how many other people.

[abarro81]

The second I need to think more about and perhaps model, but I suspect that if a decent minority of us execute a strict lockdown, then that can have a disproportionate impact on Ro, by breaking chains of infection. Think of if as trying to be the one domino that doesn’t fall...

This would be interesting to know. My instinct is that it wouldn't have that disproportionate impact, but I wouldn't know where to start with building a model that knew enough about how people move around and interact to be able to produce something reliable on this Q.

Does anybody think, that even if we locked down to an actual house arrest scenario, we would actually defeat the virus?

OMM- I don't really get your point.  I think Stu's point on R is that this is like compound interest. Let's assume that a "cycle" is 7 days, after which people get symptoms and isolate to stop infecting. Let's say you want to get new cases down to <1% of where you started to then initiate a contact tracing phase. If R= 0.9 this takes ~45 cycles, i.e. ~45 weeks. If R = 0.5 this takes ~ 7 weeks... so locking down hard makes sense in almost all circumstances surely.

[Stu Littlefair]

Pete - I agree with everything you’ve written in that post.

Alex - that is exactly my point.  I really wish we’d just locked shit down hard and fast.

I just ran a very quick/crude model based on network theory where 30% of people restricted themselves to contacts only within their household, whilst the rest of the country did nothing. I assumed 25-30 contacts per day outside the household and 3-5 within. R0 dropped from 2.7 to 1.6, and the “effective” population size dropped by a third. So a small fraction of people doing their bit does make an impact.

[sdm]

OMM - maybe the larger walls can work with this more easily by reducing the density of holds (e.g. one problem every 2-3 m wide) and limiting the entry..

This reduces the use per problem - and allows problems to be cleaned and allowed to be used etc..

If anything, increasing the density of problems would be better.

The more problems there are, the more people would be able to climb without sharing the same holds.

Or just get Johnny Dawes in and set loads of no handed slabs.

[abarro81]

R0 dropped from 2.7 to 1.6, and the “effective” population size dropped by a third. So a small fraction of people doing their bit does make an impact.

That's only a slightly disproportionate impact though right? 30% being rigorous = 40% reduction in R0 (vs intuition of 30%).. Does it get more disproportionate at lower numbers staying home, e.g. 10%?

EDIT: actually, 33% (relative) disproportionate impact on R0 probably is quite major if you articulate it that way

[tomtom]

Nice examples of R0 changing over time (Hong Kong example in this article)

https://qz.com/1834700/rt-the-real-time-r0-guiding-how-to-lift-coronavirus-lockdowns/

[Fultonius]

Any thoughts on sharing home walls (scheduled, limited to 1 person per time, maybe max 1 per day, wipe down afterwards?)

[Johnny Brown]

I would have thought wash hands thoroughly before and after, don't touch your face etc. Seems the virus doesn't do well in low humidity so I can't see it being present in big numbers after a night marinading in chalk.

[Oldmanmatt]

The second I need to think more about and perhaps model, but I suspect that if a decent minority of us execute a strict lockdown, then that can have a disproportionate impact on Ro, by breaking chains of infection. Think of if as trying to be the one domino that doesn’t fall...

This would be interesting to know. My instinct is that it wouldn't have that disproportionate impact, but I wouldn't know where to start with building a model that knew enough about how people move around and interact to be able to produce something reliable on this Q.

Does anybody think, that even if we locked down to an actual house arrest scenario, we would actually defeat the virus?

OMM- I don't really get your point.  I think Stu's point on R is that this is like compound interest. Let's assume that a "cycle" is 7 days, after which people get symptoms and isolate to stop infecting. Let's say you want to get new cases down to <1% of where you started to then initiate a contact tracing phase. If R= 0.9 this takes ~45 cycles, i.e. ~45 weeks. If R = 0.5 this takes ~ 7 weeks... so locking down hard makes sense in almost all circumstances surely.

Ummm...

Because that lockdown would need to be global and/or our borders sealed after that, until such time as the virus was eradicated or “beaten”.

Resurgence is pretty damn likely and unless we developed an excellent testing and tracing and isolation protocol for all 68M of us and any visitors, we won’t get ahead of it.

That’s the findings of the study I linked to earlier.

Harsh lockdowns only resulted in higher peaks on resurgence.

This bitch wanders around almost unnoticed in most and for around two weeks in everybody who go on to develop symptoms.

Plus, we still don’t know the exact source.

Add to that, a harsh lockdown now, will make the later lockdowns harder to reinstate.

The current level is already wavering.

You actually think we can just eradicate it by house arrest?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/14/science.abb5793


Oopps..

Caveat, incase we’re heading to pedantic stuff again, I’m assuming nobody is advocating permanent lockdowns.

[Stu Littlefair]

R0 dropped from 2.7 to 1.6, and the “effective” population size dropped by a third. So a small fraction of people doing their bit does make an impact.

That's only a slightly disproportionate impact though right? 30% being rigorous = 40% reduction in R0 (vs intuition of 30%).. Does it get more disproportionate at lower numbers staying home, e.g. 10%?

EDIT: actually, 33% (relative) disproportionate impact on R0 probably is quite major if you articulate it that way

I wouldn’t take the exact numbers too seriously, the model is far too crude. But it does illustrate that our efforts are not wasted, even if others don’t lock down as strictly. And an R0 drop of that size makes a MASSIVE difference.

The SAGE committee seems to think that R0 is currently between 0.5 and 1. What happens next will depend to an enormous degree about where we sit in that range. If it’s nearer 0.5 than 1, I’m pretty optimistic about being let out to play soon.

[Will Hunt]

So my rule is still simple; if there's a chance - even a small one - that you'd have more contact than walking round someone at a wide berth. Don't do it unless you absolutely need to.

This is where I think the non sequitur is. When you went out on your run/cycle there was a chance - even if only a small one - that you would contract the disease or in some way become a burden. You might have tripped on a tree root/loose paving slab/rabbit hole/discarded nuclear device and hurt yourself. You might have crashed your bike or been crashed into. You might have been overtaken by somebody and caught a lungful of their breath. Even if they were in their car with the passenger window open, a few viruses might have wafted your way. So I would say that you've broken your own rule if not the law or my own moral rules.

I don't want to pick on you because I think that everybody who is at the more hard line end of the spectrum on here has broken their own rules in some way. I don't even think that what you've done is wrong. The issue I have is saying that you expect X of yourself and others while actually doing just a bit less than X.

[Stu Littlefair]

Will, I suspect you are being a bit of a dick here for the sake of argument.

Is your point really that I cannot suggest that people get as close to possible as perfect, because I myself have not been completely perfect?

The point I thought was quite clear is that the risk from going out for a short walk run/jog etc really is extremely minimal. It's quite proper to say "try and take no more risk than that", without having to deal with the counterpoint, "ah, but the risk is not zero".

If we followed your version of "logic", we could not accept the merit of putting more gear in, because the gear might fail anyway.

[highrepute]

Any thoughts on sharing home walls (scheduled, limited to 1 person per time, maybe max 1 per day, wipe down afterwards?)

I always have to wipe down after a board session

[tomtom]

In general (not going to crags to climb) I wonder if one of the real issues in the coming months will be getting those who've had it (or think they have) to comply with lockdown rules..

My (n=1) experience of this is in our road of 10 houses where three have probably had it and all been through isolation etc.. Everyone is careful - except one family who are far more blase than everyone else. OK - they're not taking the piss but certainly going out more than once a day - and going to the shops 2 or 3 times a week. In the grand scheme of things thats nothing compared to many - but I see it as part of the creeping breakdown of the lockdown(!?).

[gme]

UKC posted an article today that to me justifies going climbing if you want to, and definitely allows for JBs trips to the peak.

I assume its been correctly researched and states its not against the rules to drive out to somewhere to exercise but the journey should be less time than the exercise, climbing ticks this box i guess.

It says that whilst guidance does not state that climbing is allowed (yoga is apparently) it also doesn't specifically state it isn't.

You can go out more than once a day and you can go out for more than an hour.

I am now very much back to thinking that if i avoid any contact with others and stay local i can go climbing.

Following new guidelines from government and the HSE we have lads out working again, only a few and all thoroughly risk assessed and controlled. We expect the numbers to increase each week with only the issue of accommodating stopping us. Applying what i know re this via work i cant see how going climbing shouldn't be allowed.

We need to be careful that if we apply our own rules to the situation, and act self-righteously, we will get left at the back of the list when it comes to re opening everything up. Talk of all the reasons we cant go, such as touching holds and leaving the virus on them (seems very unlikely to me) could be very counter productive in the long term.
 
And for what its worth cycling seems far more dangerous than climbing and a good friend in S&R backs that up by saying he goes pick up far more mountain bikers than climbers.

[tomtom]

I thought the title was quite clear though?

Lockdown Rules - Still Ambiguous, but the Right Thing is Clear