[galpinos]

Truth. Although if the genie is out the bottle now and people continue to like being outside more than they did before we're all fucked!

I'm sure there's enough of us grumpy old bastards on here to make them feel unwelcome and send them running back to the warmth, flat whites and the pumping soundtrack of the wall.

[spidermonkey09]

I think the recent posts on sharing/not sharing just highlight how unequal the exposure risk to covid is. It’s very apparent when you look at the risk some people have no choice to be exposed to.

Afaik many people posting here work mainly or entirely from home. I do, 95% since March. I’m lucky.

Person A, working mainly from home, sat under boulder. Person B, turns up. They don’t work from home. To earn money and keep their job they have to a encounter lot of others on a daily basis - on a scale of one or two others, to being crammed with many others in confined indoor spaces with poor ventilation. Forget ‘covid-safe’ it’s a workplace myth and just box ticking to make managers feel like they’ve done something positive. ‘Covid safe’ is a bit like saying ‘flu-safe’ - it isn’t and can’t be.

Person A is a bit miffed that on their time off from home-working when they go outdoors bouldering other people don’t respect not sharing the boulder problem they’re on.
Politeness is important to grease society, but I think person A needs some perspective.

Yeah I think this is all very true. Person B is quite understandably not going to see what the problem is given their experiences at work.

[Stu Littlefair]

... I think person A needs some perspective.

This is all very true, but it's perfectly possible to turn it around. To say that person A needs some perspective implies that person B is "right" and person A "wrong". We all need a bit more understanding IMO.

In the specific example of sharing problems, I would hope to be asked, and I would always say yes. But if people don't give as much space as they could, they should expect to get an earful, regardless of what their day-to-day risk is like. In fact, if their day-to-day risk is high they should arguably be more considerate of others, not less.

[petejh]

I think this is where the getting some perspective comes in - people who spend their days having to share offices, canteens or other indoor spaces with many others, at considerably more risk than home workers, will understandably find the whole outdoor bouldering sharing/not sharing scene slightly absurd. But yes understanding *is* important, that's why I said

Politeness is important to grease society

[Stu Littlefair]

That’s why I said both need some perspective.

For those sharing work spaces day to day, an afternoon at the Tor might be the least risky thing they do all week.

For a home worker it might be the most risky thing they do each week.

Each needs to understand the other.

Edit: to imply perspective only works one way suggests that the office worker is right, and the home worker wrong. But the fact that we are only just keeping things under control suggests that averaged over the whole society we are just about taking the right amount of risk.

So neither are right or wrong, it’s just understanding that people may feel differently.

The office workers behaviour might really upset and scare a timid homeworker. The way you frame this implies you think the home worker should just get a grip.

Maybe you don’t mean this, but it’s how I read your posts and it’s a position that’s wrong from both a statistical and a human point of view.

[mrjonathanr]

I think this is where the getting some perspective comes in - people who spend their days having to share offices, canteens or other indoor spaces with many others, at considerably more risk than home workers, will understandably find the whole outdoor bouldering sharing/not sharing scene slightly absurd. But yes understanding *is* important, that's why I said

Politeness is important to grease society

It is a fair point you make, but personally I don’t find it works this way for me. Most weeks I get emails telling me that child X or Y that I taught for 2 hours earlier in the week at a distance of 3m (So no need to isolate) has now tested positive.

I am not confident I can happily roll those dice forever, so I am more risk averse, not less. Work risks I can do very little about. Others I do my damnedest to manage.

As regards distancing at boulders, I appreciate not getting on something can be frustrating. I would ask, and accept no as an answer, in the unlikely event that I wanted to share space with someone. On the few occasions I have been out recently, I have just waited till that bit of rock is free.

On the Plantation Pebble on a sunny afternoon, that’s quite a wait.

[seankenny]

The problem with the Person A vs Person B argument above is that it's being considered in an individualistic paradigm, and considering individual risk isn't entirely right here. We have a society-wide "budget" of contacts that will keep the virus in check, and if we exceed that budget then the numbers go up. So if we want more of one thing, education, then we need to have less of another thing, say eating out.

What we do as individuals matters not just in terms of individual risk but also the collective budget, particularly for younger people who may not be at risk themselves but can be part of a chain of contacts that eventually carries the virus to someone who is in a high risk group.

To my mind, this means both people in the example have a responsibility to keep contacts down when they are not necessary, regardless of what they were doing during the week. We shouldn't punish the factory worker - stuff needs doing, both for society and individual survival, so they add unavoidably add to the big UK-wide budget of contacts. But that doesn't mean the homeworker, who's been avoiding spending the contacts budget, gets a free ride to avoid social distancing. What matters is the big contacts budget which we can all do something to reduce.

[mrjonathanr]

Basically, the pandemic is a disaster. Make an effort to avoid fuelling the damn thing.

[petejh]

The office workers behaviour might really upset and scare a timid homeworker. The way you frame this implies you think the home worker should just get a grip.

Maybe you don’t mean this, but it’s how I read your posts and it’s a position that’s wrong from both a statistical and a human point of view.

No I don't think there's a right or a wrong, if it reads that way -  I don't actually think it does? - then that wasn't intended.

What's being discussed here is the sort of thing that can lead to etiquette being established, and people who then break said etiquette being made to feel they've done something bad. I don't think etiquette should be established by only one group of very privileged people. That's all.

The person you're getting miffed at out at the boulders for wanting to enjoy the same thing as you may be feeling a bit shit and looking for some life-enhancing freedom, because they had to spend the whole day with 20 other workers in proximity all coughing and shouting and talking and nobody really gave a shit about coivd. And apparently that's considered an essential activity and the risk is a necessary one so that people with lots of capital can continue to have lots of capital.

But heaven forbid if people may want to introduce any extra covid risk into their frivolous, joyous, life-enhancing activities. But I'd place higher value on the frivolous life-enhancing stuff then the workplace stuff.

I agree with the idea of a 'contacts budget' and have been living my life with pretty much that concept in mind this year. But some people are being forced by market forces to unwillingly blow their 'contacts budget' many times over, just to get by and keep their job.
There is also a 'freedom to enjoy yourself' budget which it's important not to restrict too much.

[mrjonathanr]

Obviously 'let he who is without sin' etc..; it's so very easy to prance about on a high moral horse, but I think you are a bit soft on people here.  People forget themselves, get caught up in the moment, and so on. And perfection is unattainable unless you are a hermit, but there is a false opposition here.

You can have a bad Covid-infested day at the office and still make an effort to avoid being a vector of transmission at the boulders / wall / anywhere else you need to go to relax.

[Stu Littlefair]

That is how it came across to me, but lord knows the internet’s not the best place for nuance.

I’d agree with what you wrote 100% if the etiquette being established by the privileged was anything more than “don’t be a dick”.

I don’t see anyone saying that they don’t want people joining them on a problem. I’ve only seen people saying it’s nice to ask first. And I would add giving them as much space as possible.

Everyone’s entitled to get out in their free time and enjoy themselves at the crag, but if someone has an objection to being considerate of others, then they’re an arse, plain and simple.

And that applies to someone who refuses to share problems for no reason just as much as someone who assumes I want them to sit on my mat next to me and use my chalk. 

[petejh]

Agreed.
All I'd add is that outdoor bouldering, even with strangers sharing the same problem, is so low risk for catching covid* compared to most other daily activities excluding being a hermit that I don't believe the fear is rational.


* https://indoor-covid-safety.herokuapp.com/

[dunnyg]

I think it would be reasonably rational for people with shit immune systems who are hermiting but still want to get out. We are out there. In my case fear is a bit strong. Its just probability after all.

[Will Hunt]

I completely understand that different people will have different feelings towards sharing boulders, so I've not said anything as I don't want to seem like I'm judging (I'm not). However I do think Pete is right when he says that the risk of sharing a boulder is probably nil. Maybe there's a risk on a totally still day in some limestone hole, but very likely not on 99% of problems.
I understand that others will feel differently. I'd go so far as to say (not talking about any individuals here) that people are becoming quite institutionalised into strict social distancing now - beyond what the evidence would suggest is sensible.

[Stu Littlefair]

Totally agree that the risk outdoors is very low, but to describe it as probably nil is not an evidence supported position at all. To quote SAGE:

Outdoor transmission remains low risk through aerosol and indirect contact routes, but face- to-face exposure (e.g. ≤2m for a prolonged period) should still be considered a potential risk for transmission via respiratory droplets.

Provided everyone doesn’t behave like the risk is “probably nil” then the risk is probably nil. But I’ve literally had people wait for their turns standing on my mats, whilst wiping their snotty nose on their hands. In these scenarios the risk is probably not probably nil and I’ll probably ask you to keep some distance. Probably.

[Will Hunt]

Sure. Obviously being outdoors has no bearing on risk when coughing or otherwise dropletting on someone. I should have said probably close to nil providing you take SD precautions.

[tomtom]

For the armchair outside mixing is fine posters - there are famous examples of outdoor superspreader events. (White house rose garden - 25 cases associated with it)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_COVID-19_outbreak

Now two strangers sitting apart underneath a lump of blustery rock isn’t the same. But this is an outside event where people sat next to each other that led to considerable transmission.

Whilst on this thread I’ve heard of several examples of people unhappy/uncomfortable with people/groups joining them and have left - I’ve not heard of any examples of ‘Boulder hogging’. As C Widdy said - reducing transmission is all about reducing contacts. Perhaps those willing to walk away - or say something if they are uncomfortable should be applauded rather than chided. 

[Oldmanmatt]

For the armchair outside mixing is fine posters - there are famous examples of outdoor superspreader events. (White house rose garden - 25 cases associated with it)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_COVID-19_outbreak

Now two strangers sitting apart underneath a lump of blustery rock isn’t the same. But this is an outside event where people sat next to each other that led to considerable transmission.

Whilst on this thread I’ve heard of several examples of people unhappy/uncomfortable with people/groups joining them and have left - I’ve not heard of any examples of ‘Boulder hogging’. As C Widdy said - reducing transmission is all about reducing contacts. Perhaps those willing to walk away - or say something if they are uncomfortable should be applauded rather than chided.

Ok.

Yes and no.

When we redesigned the vent for the wall, we went through the various incident investigations available and the recommendations very thoroughly,
It really doesn’t take very much air flow to massively reduce chances of infection.
That isn’t always enough though. One study of an event at a restaurant, highlighted that “flow” wasn’t enough. The restaurant had reasonable vent exchange rates, but drew in air at one end of the room and extracted from the other. The event lead to several infections down stream of the spreader (and, surprisingly, a smaller number up stream). Up shot being “vertical” beats ‘horizontal” for room vent.
Outdoors, even on an apparently still day, unless you are in a large cave with a narrow entrance (ie, not outdoors); the air flow is going to be very chaotic. Think about foggy, still, days. If you actually watch the fog, it’s really not very still at all. Anyway, outdoors, there will be a large vertical component to the air movement and such chaotic, high, dispersal; that infection over even quite short distances becomes really quite unlikely, for small, mobile, groups with reasonable distancing.
The Rose garden incident was quite a specific set of circumstances. About the worst outdoor scenario you could imagine. Large number of people, not enough distancing, sat and static, with heads at similar levels, for an extended period, in a sheltered spot. Then all the unmasked, undistanced, social interaction that occurred before and after etc.
Ultimately though, imagine how bad the same event would have been if it had occurred indoors!
Basically, whilst it shows the limitations of the Outdoors as an infection mitigation strategy, it doesn’t inform you much about your individual risk as a boulderer at a crag with a few other people, even on a still day.
You could be very unlucky and meet a statistically unlikely cloud of sufficiently virus laden particles and even more unlucky to actually inhale them, but the same is true on a pavement or any outdoor public space. Or even a well ventilated indoor space. Even indoors, the worst scenario is one where people remain static for extended periods. It’s like blindfolded dodgeball. If everyone stands still, too close together, and blindly lobs unlimited balls in random directions, the more people and the closer they stand, the more balls are going to make contact. Reduce the number of people, spread them out, make them mobile and the chances of a hit drop dramatically. Ventilation (in particular chaotic air flow) acts like randomly deployed obstacles, in the dodgeball analogy, deflecting or outright stopping (even sucking up and totally removing) the balls.
Add masks (effectively reducing the number of balls you can throw) and the risk is going to be so low, it’s not worth thinking about.

It’s not zero. You could be unlucky. But just as a thought experiment, the crag, even with a small group of, say, less than 10, is a significantly less risky environment than an even slightly busy pavement, which is already a low risk  environment.
Just don’t all huddle under the same overhang when it rains,

[Will Hunt]

For the armchair outside mixing is fine posters - there are famous examples of outdoor superspreader events. (White house rose garden - 25 cases associated with it)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_COVID-19_outbreak

Now two strangers sitting apart underneath a lump of blustery rock isn’t the same. But this is an outside event where people sat next to each other that led to considerable transmission.

Whilst on this thread I’ve heard of several examples of people unhappy/uncomfortable with people/groups joining them and have left - I’ve not heard of any examples of ‘Boulder hogging’. As C Widdy said - reducing transmission is all about reducing contacts. Perhaps those willing to walk away - or say something if they are uncomfortable should be applauded rather than chided.

Similar to what OMM said. I'd be interested to hear about transmission events that were comparable with socially distanced bouldering.

[36chambers]

How else do you approach someone who's climbing where you want to climb without saying "Hey, don't mind if I join you do you?".

At the very least it's that crucial ice breaker and it obviously gives them a chance to say otherwise.

I've been caught off guard once or twice in the past when someone has arrived to where I'm climbing and they don't say anything more than "hey"... and then after a long silence I'm like "nice weather huh"

[Stu Littlefair]

Similar to what OMM said. I'd be interested to hear about transmission events that were comparable with socially distanced bouldering.

If you are really interested Will, you can read a long review of it here - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188417v2.full.pdf

As always with these things the evidence is patchy, inconsistent and difficult to interpret as there are many confounding factors. Did the study take place before social distancing restrictions were in place? How effective is contact tracing outdoors when most interactions are with people you would fail to trace later?

But it basically says outdoor transmission is less likely, but far from impossible.

e.g

- in a study in Japan before SD was implemented, 10% of cases traced were from outdoor transmission 
- but a similar study of 7000 cases in China found only 1 transmission event was outdoors, following a conversation 

The biggest study of over 20,000 cases finds around 5% rise from outdoor transmission, or "transmission from events with an outdoor element". 2% arise from purely outdoor transmission.

So it's definitely small, but non-zero. If your only contact with others each week was climbing at the crag you'd be damn unlucky to catch covid, but a damn fool to give your gran a kiss and a hug because you think you "can't" have caught it.

[Stu Littlefair]

When we redesigned the vent for the wall, we went through the various incident investigations available and the recommendations very thoroughly,
It really doesn’t take very much air flow to massively reduce chances of infection.

Matt, this is a very thoughtful answer, but also very focused on aerosol transmission. I think you'd be *very* unlucky to get infected outdoors via aerosols or through surface transmission.

The risk, low as it is, will be from droplets; the larger droplets are much less affected by airflow and your risk from this mode outdoors is not much reduced from indoors.

The numerical modelling hand-waving done to date come up with figures like 1 cough within 2m = 30 minutes of conversation at 2m in terms of risk.

[Oldmanmatt]

When we redesigned the vent for the wall, we went through the various incident investigations available and the recommendations very thoroughly,
It really doesn’t take very much air flow to massively reduce chances of infection.

Matt, this is a very thoughtful answer, but also very focused on aerosol transmission. I think you'd be *very* unlucky to get infected outdoors via aerosols or through surface transmission.

The risk, low as it is, will be from droplets; the larger droplets are much less affected by airflow and your risk from this mode outdoors is not much reduced from indoors.

The numerical modelling hand-waving done to date come up with figures like 1 cough within 2m = 30 minutes of conversation at 2m in terms of risk.

Yes.
But this is where turbulent flows begin to have an influence, especially the vertical components. Helping to arrest that lateral movement. Shortening the cone, if you will.
 This is largely assumption on my part, that the principles I would use to design a vent system in a galley (where we aim to control propagation of various gaseous and air borne particulates (obviously, the primary control is keeping the galley pressure negative with respect to the rest of the ship) in an environment where you can’t just open a window). Of course, when you’re paying in the several tens of millions for your yacht, you don’t expect to be able to smell the Chef frying his Mackerel for lunch, unless you are standing beside him.
We use all kinds of tricks and rules of thumb to mitigate such propagation and not just in the galley, all kinds of potentially flammable or otherwise harmful vapours and emissions need controlling in various machinery spaces, equipment compartments and tanks; all of which are unlikely to be ‘naturally” ventilated in any way.
Confined space entry and the like are actually the straightforward examples, designing the ventilation in total for a large multi-use vessel is mind bending. I was lucky enough to be a junior on the team that put together the NBCD systems for the Type 23 Frigates, which was an eye opener.

Anyway, what I’m saying is, if you push air down here, suck it out there, direct it through this space here, swirl it that way now and send that stream into opposition to that one or obliquely into those streams etc etc etc, you can really knock droplets down quite quickly.

[Will Hunt]

Similar to what OMM said. I'd be interested to hear about transmission events that were comparable with socially distanced bouldering.

If you are really interested Will, you can read a long review of it here - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188417v2.full.pdf

As always with these things the evidence is patchy, inconsistent and difficult to interpret as there are many confounding factors. Did the study take place before social distancing restrictions were in place? How effective is contact tracing outdoors when most interactions are with people you would fail to trace later?

But it basically says outdoor transmission is less likely, but far from impossible.

e.g

- in a study in Japan before SD was implemented, 10% of cases traced were from outdoor transmission 
- but a similar study of 7000 cases in China found only 1 transmission event was outdoors, following a conversation 

The biggest study of over 20,000 cases finds around 5% rise from outdoor transmission, or "transmission from events with an outdoor element". 2% arise from purely outdoor transmission.

So it's definitely small, but non-zero. If your only contact with others each week was climbing at the crag you'd be damn unlucky to catch covid, but a damn fool to give your gran a kiss and a hug because you think you "can't" have caught it.

Nice one, Stu. Some interesting stuff therein. Reading it gives me confidence that sharing a boulder while socially distancing and hand sanitising is spectacularly unlikely to result in transmission. I respect that other people might be of a different view or have a different attitude towards risk. I'm not going to barge into someone's boulder bubble.

[tomtom]

Most of the Peak is now in T4 it would appear. Does this mean you shouldn’t or cannot travel into there for leisure?