[Bradders]

There is perhaps an argument that there more people go out an carry out said riskless sanity saving activies, the more foot and vehical traffic there is, the more normal day to day life then appears and the more our perception of risk drops. Then more people believe it's ok for them to go and carry out their riskless sanity saving activity, which isn't perhaps now quite as safe because lots of people are doing it too (or decide it's not fair that some are out and they aren't and decide to go out too, as evidenced on this thread) and so on.

This isn't to say that I don't agree that the transmission risk in climbing is low and the mental and physical benefits are high. I'm lucky enough to have a crag 2 minutes from home, so may well be out. This is just an argument I've been having with myself that perhaps RSSAs aren't as safe as they appear. But it's a very hypothetical one...

I really can't see that happening, fundamentally because the actual risky activities WRT to Covid transmission are (in no particular order):

1. Visiting family (banned)
2. Going to the pub (banned)
3. Going to work (banned for most people)
4. Kids in school (banned)
5. Going shopping (banned for all but essential stuff)
6. Spending lots of time indoors with people you don't live with (banned(? Can't think of anything that's still allowed...)
7. Large gatherings (banned)

Sure I've missed a few things, but you get the point. Ultimately it means that even if there was some perception of normality, which might lead you to return to normal activities, you can't do any of those normal activities.

That argument also only makes sense if the activity (climbing outside on your own) is  transmission risk. Which it isn't. So even if loads of people were doing it, it still wouldn't drive up infection rates.

My suspicion is that they've only put limits on exercise outdoors because it's easy to scapegoat people for it, because it's more visible. For example people getting stuck in the Peak in the snow, or walking up Snowdon; easy to call out, meanwhile people are crammed into shopping centres!

[Johnny Brown]

3. Going to work (banned for most people)

Would like to see some stats on this. I'd be very surprised if 'most people' is anything like 50% of the working population.

Reading the guidance, the idea there any sort of distinction between recreation and exercise is laughable. You might be able to come up with extremes that sort of only fall into one category (a picnic), but the vast majority are both. Even any definition of one activity would depend on who is doing it and why. I can't see police attempting to enforce any grey areas.

[twoshoes]

There is perhaps an argument that there more people go out an carry out said riskless sanity saving activies, the more foot and vehical traffic there is, the more normal day to day life then appears and the more our perception of risk drops. Then more people believe it's ok for them to go and carry out their riskless sanity saving activity, which isn't perhaps now quite as safe because lots of people are doing it too (or decide it's not fair that some are out and they aren't and decide to go out too, as evidenced on this thread) and so on.

This isn't to say that I don't agree that the transmission risk in climbing is low and the mental and physical benefits are high. I'm lucky enough to have a crag 2 minutes from home, so may well be out. This is just an argument I've been having with myself that perhaps RSSAs aren't as safe as they appear. But it's a very hypothetical one...

I really can't see that happening, fundamentally because the actual risky activities WRT to Covid transmission are (in no particular order):

1. Visiting family (banned)
2. Going to the pub (banned)
3. Going to work (banned for most people)
4. Kids in school (banned)
5. Going shopping (banned for all but essential stuff)
6. Spending lots of time indoors with people you don't live with (banned(? Can't think of anything that's still allowed...)
7. Large gatherings (banned)

Sure I've missed a few things, but you get the point. Ultimately it means that even if there was some perception of normality, which might lead you to return to normal activities, you can't do any of those normal activities.

That argument also only makes sense if the activity (climbing outside on your own) is  transmission risk. Which it isn't. So even if loads of people were doing it, it still wouldn't drive up infection rates.

My suspicion is that they've only put limits on exercise outdoors because it's easy to scapegoat people for it, because it's more visible. For example people getting stuck in the Peak in the snow, or walking up Snowdon; easy to call out, meanwhile people are crammed into shopping centres!

I get your point, but I don't agree. People meeting family and friends indoors may be banned but absolutely still happened through the previous shutdowns. (I certainly know people who did so.) There were also people going into offices unecessarily. And if the news is to be believed then large gatherings were being broken up by the police. The more 'normal' and busy the outside world appears, the more people are going to continue justifying these things to themselves.

I do completely accept this a hypothetical argument. But I'm not convinced that because an activity has a very low risk of covid transmission it's necesssarily 'safe'. I won't, however, be criticising anyone's choice to climb and may well do so myself, as I said.

[tomtom]

UKC logbooks reveal a few people who either (a) don't care or (b) don't realise people can see what and when they have been climbing....

Presumably you're referring to people who you know to live a long way from whatever it is they've climbed. As far as I can see there is no reason not to go climbing if you can do it in your area (however that might be defined).

Nope - that's entirely your presumption.

So why have a go at them? Climbing is allowed, given certain restrictions.

Hi Will - please don’t assume I’m having a go - im just Im just stating the obvious.

That either they don’t care if people see their logbook updates (which could be that they don’t give a shit - or that they think what they are doing is right - that’s up to them) or they don’t know that people can see the updates. (My op could have had can see after the first don’t care - but it said it after the second don’t see - anyway that’s what I meant!)

[Stu Littlefair]

Or, if we are obliquely referring to people travelling from England to N Wales to go bouldering, perhaps they don’t realise it’s against the law.

Which would be a bit dumb of them.

Seriously though, regardless of whether you think your plans fit the guidelines, or if you just choose to ignore them as they are only guidelines, can we agree that posting stuff on social media or your logbooks is just going to be annoying for everyone?

[Bradders]

3. Going to work (banned for most people)

Would like to see some stats on this. I'd be very surprised if 'most people' is anything like 50% of the working population.

Yes you're quite right, typed quickly without thinking. I don't think that changes the point I was making though.

[Ru]

The BMC have published some guidance - the link is below - but it really just copy pastes the government guidelines. No real steer at all. Nothing new from what has been discussed earlier in this thread

No new legislation had been published when the article was written so there was literally nothing else to go on. I see they have been published in the last hour (I've not yet had chance to read them).

[Will Hunt]

UKC logbooks reveal a few people who either (a) don't care or (b) don't realise people can see what and when they have been climbing....

Presumably you're referring to people who you know to live a long way from whatever it is they've climbed. As far as I can see there is no reason not to go climbing if you can do it in your area (however that might be defined).

Nope - that's entirely your presumption.

So why have a go at them? Climbing is allowed, given certain restrictions.

Hi Will - please don’t assume I’m having a go - im just Im just stating the obvious.

That either they don’t care if people see their logbook updates (which could be that they don’t give a shit - or that they think what they are doing is right - that’s up to them) or they don’t know that people can see the updates. (My op could have had can see after the first don’t care - but it said it after the second don’t see - anyway that’s what I meant!)

I'm still not clear as to why people shouldn't log their ticks on UKC or whatever. I never really bought the solidarity argument before. The circumstances of having young children means that I can't take climbing trips abroad and can only rarely go away for the weekend to mountain/sea cliff areas. My friends can (lockdown notwithstanding) and are often making plans or posting about their trips in common group chats that I'm a part of. I don't begrudge them that and I certainly don't give in to simple reactionary jealousy.

[Bradders]

The BMC have published some guidance - the link is below - but it really just copy pastes the government guidelines. No real steer at all. Nothing new from what has been discussed earlier in this thread

No new legislation had been published when the article was written so there was literally nothing else to go on. I see they have been published in the last hour (I've not yet had chance to read them).

Located here if anyone wants to read:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/8/made

Or rather that's the amending legislation which needs to be read in conjunction with the previously existing tiers based legislation that came into force in December.

[largeruk]

No new legislation had been published when the article was written so there was literally nothing else to go on. I see they have been published in the last hour (I've not yet had chance to read them).

Located here if anyone wants to read:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/8/made

Or rather that's the amending legislation which needs to be read in conjunction with the previously existing tiers based legislation that came into force in December.

The last sentence of the "Explanatory Note" at the end: "No impact assessment has been prepared for these Regulations." 

[tomtom]

Or, if we are obliquely referring to people travelling from England to N Wales to go bouldering, perhaps they don’t realise it’s against the law.

Which would be a bit dumb of them.

Seriously though, regardless of whether you think your plans fit the guidelines, or if you just choose to ignore them as they are only guidelines, can we agree that posting stuff on social media or your logbooks is just going to be annoying for everyone?

I wasn’t referring to anyone - but yes - your last point is right to me. Will - I’ve no idea where you’re coming from. Probably best we leave it at that?

[spidermonkey09]

The solidarity aspect is a thing whether you accept it or not though Will. Humans don't act like atoms, it's not a case of "giving in" to emotions. Even if you feel you aren't susceptible to it in a climbing sense, you will be in other aspects of life. However that element has been done to death back in March and isn't hugely relevant here as the circs are different and the attitude of climbers and the BMC is different.

That said, me, Bradders and Davo (probably loads of others) are living proof that the solidarity aspect carries some weight. I didn't climb in April and adhered very closely to the rules. Since then any semblance of a national effort is gone and compliance is rock bottom. I just went to the shop and the amount of mask absenteeism was unbelievable. Obviously n=1 but when I look at that, the numerous NYE parties happening in my road, government inadequacy, my strong suspicion that this is not going to be "done" in February or even March, then I increasingly come to the conclusion that driving an hour to go bouldering is nothing. I don't know, but the thought of not going out for months again is not a good one right now!  As such I think we are actually on the same page mostly, I just think the behavioural /psychological aspect is hugely relevant.

[petejh]

I'm having trouble working out what I think about recreation at the moment. Which is what climbing is - nobody should deceive themselves that climbing is essential exercise. Climbing, skiing, hillwalking, golf, jet skiing, horse-riding, fishing, swimming, etc. are outdoor recreation.

Going out the door for a walk or a run to stop bodies and minds deteriorating are essential exercise. Working on your outdoor projs so you hit the spring season going well is not. Tiny added risk of transmission etc. and I can't take seriously anyone arguing about the risk of transmission from bouldering or routes within a household partenrship.
 
But still something about the attitude among people jars with me more this time around than it did in March. Maybe it's just that I suspected most people were obeying the restrictions in March and this time I suspect there isn't the same level of compliance, despite the risk of overwhelming the NHS being higher now than in March due to the new variant.

What would all the middle-class climbing snobs say if all the chavs they look down their noses at were en-masse jet-skiing and quad biking (yep, stereotyping)..? In terms of call-out risk I think they'd be about ball-park with going climbing and hillwalking.. certainly would be with the hordes currently out skiing in Snowdonia. Since when was ski-touring a low risk activity in terms of placing demand on the health service? But hundreds of people currently deem it to be OK. I bet a lot of them would look down their noses at someone going out motorcross riding.

The relative risk of going out climbing makes sense to me as it did in March, but the solidarity argument feels stronger to me this time around, maybe because there's less of it! I was all for going out locally to boulder then (still am), but I feel conflicted about how many are flouting the rules to go into the mountains.
 

[spidermonkey09]

Interesting post Pete, particularly in the sense that our respective views on the solidarity aspect have reversed since March!

[petejh]

Yep. Just read your post and chuckled that we've reversed!

I think I'm maybe a bad example - I'm quite contrarian (hopefully not to the point of being a reckless twat). It feels to me now that compliance is much less common than in March. Perhaps I thought I wasn't making any difference in March because most were complying with the new scary thing. Now they're not, yet I think the relative risk is higher this time.

[Will Hunt]

Whether the exercise of essential or not is immaterial. With the exception of, I think, shopping, there is no distinction in this guidance between those activities which are essential or non-essential, only between those which are reasonable and unreasonable.

[Stu Littlefair]

FWIW Pete in your position I would be getting out climbing.

The line between recreation and exercise is clearly blurry, but given the minimal risk involved it seems fine to me to take a loose definition of exercise.

Funny what you say that you have no sympathy with the transmission argument - it must be a difference in perspective. When I’ve been out at the crag I’ve seen plenty of examples of behaviour that would constitute a transmission risk - e.g groups of 10+ closely packed at the bottom of a single problem for hours.

However I suspect most people who are wavering about climbing or not are not the types who will indulge in such behaviour!

[mrjonathanr]

The relative risk of going out climbing makes sense to me as it did in March, but the solidarity argument feels stronger to me this time around, maybe because there's less of it! I was all for going out locally to boulder then (still am), but I feel conflicted about how many are flouting the rules to go into the mountains.
 

because if collectively, we don't all pull together and restrict ourselves, we're jiggered?

[petejh]

Whether the exercise of essential or not is immaterial. With the exception of, I think, shopping, there is no distinction in this guidance between those activities which are essential or non-essential, only between those which are reasonable and unreasonable.

I know.

It's immaterial in the legislation (I think, I haven't read in detail whether they define exercise versus recreation - Ru?).

It isn't immaterial from the solidarity argument. Is it.

[tomtom]

The guidelines make a distinction between exercise (allowed) and leisure (not allowed).....

The line as you point out rightly Pete is blurry between the two...

[Johnny Brown]

See my earlier point about definitions - it's impossible. For instance there was a suggestion among birdwatchers first time around that taking your binoculars on your daily walk was an outrageous transgression of the spirit of the rules. I really thought we'd moved on from the idea that a bit of simple exercise is all you need for physical health and mental health be damned.

[petejh]

FWIW Pete in your position I would be getting out climbing.

The line between recreation and exercise is clearly blurry, but given the minimal risk involved it seems fine to me to take a loose definition of exercise.

Funny what you say that you have no sympathy with the transmission argument - it must be a difference in perspective. When I’ve been out at the crag I’ve seen plenty of examples of behaviour that would constitute a transmission risk - e.g groups of 10+ closely packed at the bottom of a single problem for hours.

However I suspect most people who are wavering about climbing or not are not the types who will indulge in such behaviour!

I think that's something that happens more in the Peak than anywhere else. Parisellas maybe one of very few venues in Wales I can think of that may have groups in close vicinity (but 10+ would be highly unusual at the moment). 

I'm up for bouldering, and simple cragging with my partner. As for going into the mountains to mixed climb or ski, I can't help compare to how people would view jet-skiing, motorcross, cross country horse-riding, downhill mtn biking etc. etc. in risk terms.

[Johnny Brown]

Pete, I know you're in Wales but not in the right place to be allowed to go into the mountains? I have to say, given your posts earlier in the year, the idea you don't approve of others doing so from their door isn't a great look. But you are a committed contrarian, I'll grant you that.

[cheque]

Let’s not forget that this lockdown is taking place in winter, in Britain. No matter what stance we each take on climbing it’ll be a moot point most of the time because the rock will be wet anyway.

[petejh]

Pete, I know you're in Wales but not in the right place to be allowed to go into the mountains? I have to say, given your posts earlier in the year, the idea you don't approve of others doing so from their door isn't a great look. But you are a committed contrarian, I'll grant you that.

Hold your horses Adam. I'm not against people walking out of their door and skinning up the Carneddau or Snowdon for a ski. That number is about 20 people who live in Bethesda and Beris if I'm being generous. There are loads of people travelling in to go skiing - I'm unsure how I feel about this. I'm far from a judgemental type though, just expressing that I feel conflicted, because at this time when a sense of some solidarity 'might' be important - not least for your mental health that you're so concerned about, we have a lack of it. It's well known that shared hardship is better endured (it's how armies get through), I thought as a card-carrying communist you'd be up on that