[petejh]

I can't understand the gulf in approaches. One is quietly supportive and the other is actively unsupportive.

Obviously one big difference is that in Cornwall....
there is a large local surfing community, many of whom are able to access the water without travelling. The presumption in climbing has been that no such people exist and it's all about preventing the masses rushing to National Parks. And yet that issue exists for surfing/ bodyboarding etc too, only they've managed it more successfully. Likewise MTB.

This nicely articulates the impression I’ve always had of the BMC - that they see their role as representing people who live far away from where I climb.
Fair enough, most people live in urban areas. But it helps explain why I often feel the BMC is irrelevant to me. I saw value in their access work. But this event has just strengthened my feeling of disassociation with the whole point of the organisation.

[Paul B]

and was largely shouted down by peple assuming I didn't grasp the basics. I suspect that surfing culture retains much more of a independent/ rebel streak than climbing nowadays.

That's a bit of an unfair representation of what happened. People disagreed with you and you disagreed with them. Everyone seemed to agree on an emerging lack of clarity/conflicting information; there have been many subsequent pieces of information and almost daily developments since.

[SA Chris]

Polzeath has a population of about 1000 in total, not sure if over 50 of them are surfers free during the day.

https://www.piratefm.co.uk/news/latest-news/3088355/50-surfers-spotted-at-polzeath-amid-lockdown/

The article gives an idea about perception of if this is acceptable too.

[spidermonkey09]

This thread is increasingly a circle jerk of Pete slagging the BMC and JB telling us all how right he was and remains...in his opinion  

Joking aside, I am glad you and Ru are getting involved with shaping BMC policy/guidance going forward. 

[Johnny Brown]

JB telling us all how right he was and remains...in his opinion  

Err.. I think that was the first time. And I'm thinking of randoms on twitter more than the more sensible people on here. But for the record I don't think I was 'right' and therefore others were 'wrong', but people were clearly not ready to have this conversation back then, they wanted to talk about the right action then, which is fair enough.

[Stu Littlefair]

JB is right here. I wasn’t at all up for having this conversation initially - when we had no idea if we’d be anywhere near getting R below 1. Now we know we can, it does open space for thinking if there are things we can lobby for without making a significant impact to transmission.

I’ll admit though, that picture of Chris’s does make me squeamish. All those surfers who’ve travelled to get there, and many of them clearly hanging out having a chat to other surfers. Eek.

I worry about slackening off too soon, particularly as to get out of lockdown we will need to get cases down to the level where contact tracing stands a chance.

But I also worry about people just getting fed up and doing things that are far worse for transmission than a spot of climbing.  I know several examples of people I know who are smart and disciplined and are sneaking round* to their friends gardens for a drink and a chat, for example.

*their words, not mine

[spidermonkey09]

JB is right here. I wasn’t at all up for having this conversation initially - when we had no idea if we’d be anywhere near getting R below 1. Now we know we can, it does open space for thinking if there are things we can lobby for without making a significant impact to transmission.

I’ll admit though, that picture of Chris’s does make me squeamish. All those surfers who’ve travelled to get there, and many of them clearly hanging out having a chat to other surfers. Eek.

I worry about slackening off too soon, particularly as to get out of lockdown we will need to get cases down to the level where contact tracing stands a chance.

But I also worry about people just getting fed up and doing things that are far worse for transmission than a spot of climbing.  I know several examples of people I know who are smart and disciplined and are sneaking round* to their friends gardens for a drink and a chat, for example.

*their words, not mine

I agree. I'm joking 

I also agree with all of that post. Cycling in Leicester just now it was abundantly clear that there is some serious slackening happening!

[Johnny Brown]

I’ll admit though, that picture of Chris’s does make me squeamish. All those surfers who’ve travelled to get there, and many of them clearly hanging out having a chat to other surfers. Eek.

My thinking at the moment is that such situations simply cannot involve a significant risk of transmission, because if they did so would so many others (e.g. Supermarkets) and therefore R would be much higher than we think, meaning either we'd either be fucked - which we aren't - or it would mean the virus is much more widespread and less deadly than we think. But I'd be interested in others opinions.

[petejh]

My thinking at the moment is that such situations simply cannot involve a significant risk of transmission, because if they did so would so many others (e.g. Supermarkets) and therefore R would be much higher than we think, meaning either we'd either be fucked - which we aren't - or it would mean the virus is much more widespread and less deadly than we think. But I'd be interested in others opinions.

Age group and underlying health conditions could have a role to play. The two variables that most strongly predict hospitalisation or death from covid.

Most surfers, climbers and other outdoor active types (I know pensioners of ukb, not all!) are under 50, and healthy. My vision of the next 12 months looks like, to put it starkly,  healthy younger people get back to relative normality, while older people and people with poor health don't. Or do, and suffer more severe health consequences.

Which is pretty much what I said here in February - mitigation.

Either that or 12 months of lowball secret traversing.

[danm]

I think you're probably right there Pete, and it's likely to provoke some serious social tensions, given that we won't all be in it together anymore if not everyone is able to go back to work and recreate in a manner which resembles what they did before.

[Johnny Brown]

Pete, that would still come under my second option though wouldn't it? Higher R, more healthy asymptomatic carriers, good news in terms of mortality rate and herd immunity. But yes it'll be awhile before the old are out of the woods, although I still think they'll be safe to walk in them!

[mrjonathanr]

I know several examples of people I know who are smart and disciplined and are sneaking round* to their friends gardens for a drink and a chat, for example.

*their words, not mine

Hoping to stay safe when the virus isn’t looking, presumably?

[abarro81]

Presumably sitting a few m away from each other i.e. socially distanced visiting? Our neighbours were doing something similar the other day.

[Bonjoy]

Our street does a regular Sunday eve SD street party! We don't join in.

[petejh]

JB yes this is my assumption.

More tightly controlled  transmission among highest risk. Normal or marginally reduced transmission among healthy under 50s, or perhaps 60s.
It seems the only sustainable way of life now that we've experienced our first peak. Monitoiring of hospitalisations, testing and tracing, and short-term regional lock-downs are probably our routine. The advisers have already told us how it's going to be, they know. It's no secret.

I predict (even more of) a booming trade in winter sun covid getaways for over 60s. Feet up on the balcony of a socially distanced compound on the Costa Blanca.

[abarro81]

The more this thread goes on, the less I buy any argument (NHS capacity, MR, transmission risk Vs rest of life) against local climbing...

[Stu Littlefair]

Adam, we can do a rough back of the envelope check of your hunch, based on numbers I remember from some papers.

Before lockdown we had an R~3. This was based on around 90 contacts over an infectious period of about 3 days (from mobility surveys). So each typical contact had a roughly 3% chance of infection.

R is now about .5 and estimates are that daily contacts are around 5, so each contact has an infection probability of 3% still.

If we imagine a business as usual scenario for a typical climber they might have about 5 contacts at a crag. These will have a non-zero chance of infection but much less than 3%. This is where we have to guess a bit, and where there is scope for argument. 

Assume one day at a crag during the infectious period, and a .5% chance of infection from those 5 contacts to reflect best practice at the crag. Then we expect climbers R to go from .5 to .75.

Obviously you can quibble with those numbers, but probably not by a factor of 10 in either direction.

So it gives you an idea of what the impact on transmission might be amongst the climbing population. Something like .05 to .3 added to R.

What to do with that information is a separate judgement call I guess.

[petejh]

Focusing on the impact of behaviours on transmission is one thing, but what’s most important surely is impact of increased transmission on ultimate number of deaths/serious ill health?

If the R is 1 or more among healthy under 50s, but deaths/serious ill health isn’t seriously higher than usual, then that’s acceptable isn’t it?
Provided we can, at the same time, keep R below 1 (and as low as possible) among the high risk. That’s where the testing and tracing becomes vital.

Basically herd immunity/mitigation/whatever you want to call it.

[Bonjoy]

Assume one day at a crag during the infectious period, and a .5% chance of infection from those 5 contacts to reflect best practice at the crag. Then we expect climbers R to go from .5 to .75.

Obviously you can quibble with those numbers, but probably not by a factor of 10 in either direction.

Okay, quibble incoming.
It's literally no hardship for me to go climbing on my own at places I'm very likely to meet nobody, climber or otherwise.
This sort of day accounts for a large chunk of my time climbing outside in a normal year anyway.
I dare say this sort of solo esoterica hunting will get more popular once climbing is more clearly allowed. So I'll be more likely to meet other lone wolves, but given we'll probably both be keen to stay solo I'd imagine we will give each other a wide berth.
People who don't do this sort of climbing perhaps underestimate quite how much of it there is out there. Even popular crags often have ill frequented corners which don't see a climber for years on end.
If you're happy to do this sort of climbing it will not, I believe, be hard to practice very strict SD, even with some increase in popularity. It's irked me from the outset that hermits like me get lumped in with all the sweaty catwalk bumlickers, as if we're in some way practising the same sport in any meaningful sense.
I appreciate I'm an outlier etc.
I think my point, other than general griping, is our R value can be virtually as low as we want it to be. If society dictates climbers raising their value by 0.25 as per your fag packet calculation is too much, the answer need not be that we give up on the idea of climbing.

[Will Hunt]

I dare say this sort of solo esoterica hunting will get more popular once climbing is more clearly allowed. So I'll be more likely to meet other lone wolves, but given we'll probably both be keen to stay solo I'd imagine we will give each other a wide berth.

I think I've made this point before, but what point hasn't been made at least 50 times on this thread?

I've been trying to promote venues and problems which are off the beaten track for years. Maybe I'm not very good at it, but I have very much come to believe that most climbers would rather go road biking than go to a crag that was sub Premier League or Championship level.

There will be a slight increase in traffic at all the Windy Choss Cloughs, but provided that no Peaky Instascrotes make a video, they will remain relatively untrammelled.

[mrjonathanr]

In about 3 pages time we will all have settled happily back at our starting positions, comfortable in the knowledge that they have been justified through rigorous debate.

[Stu Littlefair]

If the R is 1 or more among healthy under 50s, but deaths/serious ill health isn’t seriously higher than usual, then that’s acceptable isn’t it?
Provided we can, at the same time, keep R below 1 (and as low as possible) among the high risk.

Like having a non-pissing section of the pool?

[Stu Littlefair]

Jon - I agree absolutely with everything you say, but do you think it’s realistic that this is what will actually happen?

I think it will to a certain extent, but not enough to keep Malham, the Pass and the Tor quiet.

It’s probably better to accept that and take a really strong line on crag etiquette to try and stop transmission at “busy” crags. There’s a good role for the BMC here perhaps. Something like the bouldering 10 commandments they did.

[Bonjoy]

No, you're right, I expect not.
I totally agree that clearly defined SD crag etiquette, reinforced by peer pressure is the way forward. I don't expect other climbers to give up on the forms of climbing they value. I just hope that more intrinsically safe sectors of the community dont keep getting dragged in and out of the mire while the new normal gets sorted.

[TobyD]

I had a read through this thread last night, and I still have no idea about what I think about going climbing at the moment.  When I'm not thinking about work, it seems reasonable with strictly defined precautions. When
I am working with people in peak district villages mostly 75-100 years old, or with neurological conditions, the thought of the reappearance of thousands of people from all over the country seems absolutely insane. Its not so much the climbing it's the people from all over suddenly using the small village shops etc that these people depend on. Ultimately I'm not sure there's a good choice either way, and I'm still undecided.