[Johnny Brown]

Ta. From what I've read 'shall' is still the preferred term of the EC, and hence in all EN standards.

[sdm]

Engineering standards (BS:EN) use shall for requirements, should for recommendations, shall not for prohibitions and may for permissions (this one can get a bit complicated).

Must is not used because of ambiguity as to whether it refers to a requirement of the standard or external constraints.

Will is not used because of ambiguity over the future tense.

[Oldmanmatt]

Engineering standards (BS:EN) use shall for requirements, should for recommendations, shall not for prohibitions and may for permissions (this one can get a bit complicated).

Must is not used because of ambiguity as to whether it refers to a requirement of the standard or external constraints.

Will is not used because of ambiguity over the future tense.

True, Will can be quite ambiguous at times but he’s usually just contrary.

[Johnny Brown]

Must is not used because of ambiguity as to whether it refers to a requirement of the standard or external constraints.

Ah that's the knowledge I was after, thanks!

[Jerry Morefat]

Well this thread has certainly turned into a fascinating discussion on what constitutes best practice when it comes to regulations in many industries  . However, I'm no closer to knowing that, in topping out Ulysses on Sunday, whether this will take me from Derbyshire to south Yorkshire and if it does, whether it's best I downclimb from the top.

[Bradders]

Is there any climbing wall specific evidence? I think extrapolating from gyms in general doesn't tell you a lot about walls as they're fundamentally different.

There might be some, but I think it'll be mostly useless as it'll probably focus on simple case numbers, as opposed to what we should actually be interested in; how many people actually suffer a serious / life-changing / enduring illness, or end up dying from it. Based purely on my rough idea of the demographic of climbing gyms (generally <50yrs old, fit and healthy, etc.), my guess is that number will be vanishingly small.

I'm getting more and more sceptical about lockdown generally. I simply cannot see that it's worth the cost (on all levels), and I suspect that we're still doing it because a) people are still scared because they've been missold statistics they don't understand, b) the scientists are emotionally attached to their original approach, and c) the politicians are vulnerable to the idea that the whole episode leaves blood on their hands.

To be clear I don't think it's a conspiracy of any sort. I just don't think lockdown can be the way.

So I'll be going climbing indoors and out, hopefully in a gym, which I've been doing since they re-opened. But I'll be careful, wash my hands, keep my distance, work from home, wear my mask (pretty horrible when you're doing mileage), and I'll not see my elderly or vulnerable relatives. I think all those things are more effective than shutting everything down.

[tomtom]

Ib) the scientists are emotionally attached to their original approach

Please please Bradders or anyone else - don’t ever believe ideas like this. That’s an argument straight out of climate change conspiracy theory thinking and just not the case. 

(That’s not having a go at you nick - just the idea)

[Bradders]

Yes to be fair TT I vastly oversimplified that, although lockdown very much remains the default, which I can only assume is because the scientists are still recommending it, and I'm bewildered by the wholehearted acceptance of it when there are alternatives.

I'm also very sceptical of the idea that scientists aren't susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy just like the rest of us.... not a dig at any scientists on here of course!

[tim palmer]

when there are alternatives.

Are there?

[Will Hunt]

I'm intrigued by what the alternatives are. I thought we'd been doing them all summer but R had stubbornly kept increasing beyond 1.

[Paul B]

With Manchester and Sheffield both in tier 3 by Sat night, will be interesting to see how many follow the GUIDANCE to not leave their area, to climb in the Peak on Sunday...

Can someone point me at what defines 'their area'? This might seem pretty straightforward but after the various nuances between Lancs (it was done on a ward by ward basis) since July I genuinely don't understand what that means.

[Bradders]

I'm intrigued by what the alternatives are. I thought we'd been doing them all summer but R had stubbornly kept increasing beyond 1.

Well, there's two things there. One is the complete failure of our test and trace system, the other is the focus on R and case numbers, when those really aren't the best metric in my view;

how many people actually suffer a serious / life-changing / enduring illness, or end up dying from it.

Already there's evidence coming out that survival rates are dramatically improved compared to the first wave (e.g. if you're aged 50-69 and have to go into intensive care, current 28 day survival rates have improved from 62% to 80%, and early discharge rates have more than doubled - source)

To try to link this back to climbing given the thread; a high R number in a climbing gym = highly unlikely to result in any serious / etc. illness IF those people who do catch it there make sure not to go and cough on their elders, whereas a high R number in a care home = big trouble.

when there are alternatives.

Are there?

...to full lockdowns, yes! The problem is people seem so completely bought into the lockdown idea that anyone suggesting something different, even by a small degree, is accused (to use Boris' vernacular) of intending to "let the virus rip".

I'm not saying lockdowns don't work. They clearly do in suppressing the virus, but that's all they do, kicking the can down the road. I'm saying there is a better balance to be struck that allows the vast majority of people to continue earning a living etc., and protects the people who need protecting.

[galpinos]

Ta. From what I've read 'shall' is still the preferred term of the EC, and hence in all EN standards.

That tallies with my experiences on TC 136 WG 5.

[galpinos]

These are genuine questions, not being argumentative, I'm keen to hear of any solutions......

when there are alternatives.

Are there?

...to full lockdowns, yes! The problem is people seem so completely bought into the lockdown idea that anyone suggesting something different, even by a small degree, is accused (to use Boris' vernacular) of intending to "let the virus rip".

Could you say what they are? The Tier system we are using at the moment has been discredited by the CMO and CSO. The Tier 2 style restrictions in Manchester have made no difference, numbers actually increased. So what are you proposing?

I'm not saying lockdowns don't work. They clearly do in suppressing the virus, but that's all they do, kicking the can down the road. I'm saying there is a better balance to be struck that allows the vast majority of people to continue earning a living etc., and protects the people who need protecting.

Is kicking the can down the road not the whole idea? The more deaths/severe illness we can avoid until we get a vaccine is a good thing is it not?

The only thing that seems to have worked, looking at the world in general, is a full lockdown followed by a properly aggressive TT&I regime once numbers are low enough. Our opportunity to do this has passed though, we did the first past, sacrificed a lot and but failed to do the TT&I part, burning through the goodwill of the public and jeopardising the success of adherence to future lockdown/restrictions.

[tomtom]

Maybe this is more for the general CV19 thread - but - whilst local lockdowns have not "reduced" levels of CV19 transmission (with the exception of Luton) - they are probably helping to keep rates of transmission (and thus R) at fairly sensible levels (1.5 instead of 3 as it was back in March) hopefully making the onset of this peak more gradual than the one in March. We'll never know what the curve looked like in the spring peak - but if the present one looks scary that one would have been horrific.

An interesting difference between then and now - is that the March peak played out first in London and then spread north (hospital peaks in Manchester were c.1 month later than London IIRC) and was further sustained through April and May in care homes (via the disastrous release untested patients back to carehomes policy - amongst other things).

This time around - its switched - with geographically the North getting it first - before it will ultimately sweep down to London/rest of the country. It will be interesting to see how well it is kept out of other areas - in the spring wave - it was everywhere but we didnt know about it. So there were hotspots in places like Barrow - and even the small village Nr Ullswater where we have connections (30+ cases) - and in many other spots too. I suspect this time around, now we can test more - and people are much more aware of the risks and preventative measures that we won't get so many outler outbreaks in odd/unusual places.

My money is still on a full lockdown (maybe with some school - primary - being open) in mid Nov lasting until after new year. The cat is well and truly out of the bag and TTI is playing a big catch up game again...

[teestub]

Can someone point me at what defines 'their area'? This might seem pretty straightforward but after the various nuances between Lancs (it was done on a ward by ward basis) since July I genuinely don't understand what that means.

I think this has the borough boundaries so you can check the areas to a decent level https://covid19.esriuk.com/datasets/esriukcontent::district-borough-unitary-1?geometry=-1.740%2C53.435%2C-1.054%2C53.815

[tomtom]

It’s not a good look for the govt when one of the police chiefs says he doesn’t fully understand it on the front of today’s Mail or Express...

[galpinos]

My money is still on a full lockdown (maybe with some school - primary - being open) in mid Nov lasting until after new year. The cat is well and truly out of the bag and TTI is playing a big catch up game again...

How will Boris manage that without looking like he's giving in to the Labour position? Remember, politics is more important than public health.....

[Ru]

Must is not used because of ambiguity as to whether it refers to a requirement of the standard or external constraints.

Ah that's the knowledge I was after, thanks!

I was referring to public-facing usage/contractual drafting, and UK legislation where "shall" has fallen out of favour. I didn't know that about engineering standards. The current parliamentary counsel drafting guidelines recommend that "shall" is not used unless there is a legacy reason for it, so you don't see it much in UK legislation any more. Interesting that the engineering standards take the opposite view.

[tomtom]

My money is still on a full lockdown (maybe with some school - primary - being open) in mid Nov lasting until after new year. The cat is well and truly out of the bag and TTI is playing a big catch up game again...

How will Boris manage that without looking like he's giving in to the Labour position? Remember, politics is more important than public health.....

At the point when the hospitals are overflowing... and starting to make decisions about who its most worth trying to save...

Manc Nightingale opened this afternoon I heard.

Look (not you nick - but in general) I really hope it doesnt come to the above - but it really does start feeling like March all over again.

[Will Hunt]

I'm intrigued by what the alternatives are. I thought we'd been doing them all summer but R had stubbornly kept increasing beyond 1.

Well, there's two things there. One is the complete failure of our test and trace system, the other is the focus on R and case numbers, when those really aren't the best metric in my view;

how many people actually suffer a serious / life-changing / enduring illness, or end up dying from it.

Already there's evidence coming out that survival rates are dramatically improved compared to the first wave (e.g. if you're aged 50-69 and have to go into intensive care, current 28 day survival rates have improved from 62% to 80%, and early discharge rates have more than doubled - source)

To try to link this back to climbing given the thread; a high R number in a climbing gym = highly unlikely to result in any serious / etc. illness IF those people who do catch it there make sure not to go and cough on their elders, whereas a high R number in a care home = big trouble.

when there are alternatives.

Are there?

...to full lockdowns, yes! The problem is people seem so completely bought into the lockdown idea that anyone suggesting something different, even by a small degree, is accused (to use Boris' vernacular) of intending to "let the virus rip".

I'm not saying lockdowns don't work. They clearly do in suppressing the virus, but that's all they do, kicking the can down the road. I'm saying there is a better balance to be struck that allows the vast majority of people to continue earning a living etc., and protects the people who need protecting.

I can see the thinking there, and the idea that the vulnerable can be shielded while everyone else cracks on is appealing to those of us who could take advantage of a more liberal lifestyle: but. It starts to fall apart when you consider the practicality of it across the broader population.

Consider that:

Lots of the people who need shielding in some way are not the elderly who were staying at home doing jigsaws anyway. I can think of loads of people in their 20s and 30s who have health conditions that make them vulnerable. The world is a scary place to them - more so if they have to be confined to quarters because the disease is prevalent in their area.

Segregating these people is not entirely practical. They can't be sealed away semi-permanently from the rest of society because they have basic needs for food, exercise, social contact etc.

Inter-generational contact for my family is almost entirely social, but for huge numbers of families it is much more essential than that as grandparents will provide childcare which, if paid for privately (i.e. sending the children to nursery or a childminder), would make the work not economically viable. It costs about £50 to send one child under the age of three to nursery for the day. Even if the children are in school, many parents will rely on grandparents to look after the children between school closing and the parents coming home from work. The worst off in society rely on this most (they can't afford after-school clubs) and are the least able to dodge childcare needs (they work in jobs with less flexible working patterns).

Lots of houses in lower-income areas are inter-generational.

Etc


Chris Witty addressed this issue directly when the tighter restrictions first started to come in recently. He made the point that an increase in cases in younger people was the canary in the mine for increased cases and hospital admissions in the elderly because the young inevitably acted as a vector between the bars/clubs/gyms/schools/climbing walls and their elderly/more vulnerable relatives.

[Bradders]

Sorry for the delay replying (I was trying to think of some alternatives  ).

Yes age-based shielding is the major measure I was thinking of, but all of the other bits and pieces (hand washing, mask wearing, distancing, etc.) are part of the puzzle and should help. Again I think the problem here is the implementation of those measures; I mean as an example why on earth did all university education not move online for this year?!

It's a good point Will about reliance on family for childcare etc. However, it's an issue that could be addressed if, for example, we didn't lock down and pay people's wages and instead used that money to pay for free childcare. Let's face it, either way the grandparents aren't going to see the grandchildren, but at least the parents could keep their livelihoods.

I was completely supportive of the original lockdown, and I was amazed by the number of people who said they'd still gone climbing during the lockdown, after it lifted. But where I'm coming to now is a concern that lockdowns are a completely blunt instrument that suppress the virus at the expense of literally everything else, and I'm not convinced it's worth that sacrifice when, for instance, we do now have better treatment methods, the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy, the small number of people who need intensive care are now more likely to recover quicker/not die from the virus, and looking back historically deaths from respiratory illnesses are around average for the time of year at the moment.

[tomtom]

Sorry for the delay replying (I was trying to think of some alternatives  ).

Yes age-based shielding is the major measure I was thinking of, but all of the other bits and pieces (hand washing, mask wearing, distancing, etc.) are part of the puzzle and should help. Again I think the problem here is the implementation of those measures; I mean as an example why on earth did all university education not move online for this year?!

It's a good point Will about reliance on family for childcare etc. However, it's an issue that could be addressed if, for example, we didn't lock down and pay people's wages and instead used that money to pay for free childcare. Let's face it, either way the grandparents aren't going to see the grandchildren, but at least the parents could keep their livelihoods.

I was completely supportive of the original lockdown, and I was amazed by the number of people who said they'd still gone climbing during the lockdown, after it lifted. But where I'm coming to now is a concern that lockdowns are a completely blunt instrument that suppress the virus at the expense of literally everything else, and I'm not convinced it's worth that sacrifice when, for instance, we do now have better treatment methods, the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy, the small number of people who need intensive care are now more likely to recover quicker/not die from the virus, and looking back historically deaths from respiratory illnesses are around average for the time of year at the moment.

Did you hear Hancock saying yesterday that 5-10% of all those infected (whether asymptomatic or not - and irrespective of age and severity of initial illness) were experiencing a form on long-covid.

I think there may be some real long term implications of this for our health - and the NHS/spending for years to come if we let it 'rip'...

[mrjonathanr]

No sugar, Sherlock.

[tomtom]

No sugar, Sherlock.

Yes - my last sentence was typed without much thought! (mid zoom)