[teestub]

1. Virus that is killing a proportion of the population (not good), massive global reaction despite the fact that the vast majority of the world will definitely emerge out the other side relatively unscathed, and, the rest of the planet's ecosystem is either benefiting from, or not even blinking about.

2. Environmental issue that is going to have far-reaching, cross-cultural, multi-demographic catastrophic impacts, and potentially making the planet uninhabitable to humans: meh, too expensive, need oil, must consume. Multiple species extinctions ongoing, looming meltdown of the economies as we know them. Carry on!

This comparison has come up a few times and I guess it’s just easier to get people to change their behaviour in the face of something with the potential to kill 1% of the population of the country in a year, than it is to get them to care about the general and ongoing decline of the environment. Also a lot easier for the government to legislate to change people’s behaviour for a fixed short amount of time and stay relatively popular than it is to bring in the wide ranging and, for some, very painful changes that would be needed to tackle climate change.

I guess probably also quite hard to move on to a utopian post oil environmentally friendly economic model if you’ve been hammered by a pandemic.

[turnipturned]

1. Virus that is killing a proportion of the population (not good), massive global reaction despite the fact that the vast majority of the world will definitely emerge out the other side relatively unscathed, and, the rest of the planet's ecosystem is either benefiting from, or not even blinking about.

2. Environmental issue that is going to have far-reaching, cross-cultural, multi-demographic catastrophic impacts, and potentially making the planet uninhabitable to humans: meh, too expensive, need oil, must consume. Multiple species extinctions ongoing, looming meltdown of the economies as we know them. Carry on!

Also a lot easier for the government to legislate to change people’s behaviour for a fixed short amount of time and stay relatively popular than it is to bring in the wide ranging and, for some, very painful changes that would be needed to tackle climate change.

Is it?

I

[SA Chris]

I'd say it was easier, especially when legislating against high carbon producing activities (cheap flights, personal vehicle use) would directly affect people's lifestyle, as well as their own financial implications for both the population and themselves.

[Anti]

Well, this virus seems to be particularly deadly to the demographic (sterep)typically responsible for these problems in the first instance I suppose, hence the panic.

Anyway, how're walls in England planning to re-open? We haven't got a date in Wales yet but I'm curious to see what the new landscape is. How far in advance are people imagining having to book, what'll be the price increases, will there sitll be coffee, tea, pizza and such like served? I imagine walls make more money of selling pizza and mars bars to parents and  belay classes to beginners than they do a miserable wanker like me.

[T_B]

I ate out twice at the weekend. Tbh the onus is on the individual to accept the risks of being indoors with other people. No amount of measures will keep you socially distanced at all times or ‘safe’. There’s more that they can do to protect staff of course but my guess is people will quickly get used to indoor climbing again, leave their number each time and hope they don’t get a call.

[TobyD]

My personal opinion is that face coverings are bullshit to appease people and make everyone feel fluffy that we doing something collectively to combat the disease. Just wish folks would change their habits, lifestyles and behaviours as rapidly and deeply for the much MUCH bigger threat to humanity, ecology and the environment that we have been facing for the last few decades...

1. Virus that is killing a proportion of the population (not good), massive global reaction despite the fact that the vast majority of the world will definitely emerge out the other side relatively unscathed, and, the rest of the planet's ecosystem is either benefiting from, or not even blinking about.

2. Environmental issue that is going to have far-reaching, cross-cultural, multi-demographic catastrophic impacts, and potentially making the planet uninhabitable to humans: meh, too expensive, need oil, must consume. Multiple species extinctions ongoing, looming meltdown of the economies as we know them. Carry on!

But it's ok, we can get back to drinking in pubs and shopping. 

Whilst I agree with you that people are totally neglecting the magnitude of environmental issues, I think you're wrong about masks and the impact of the virus. Whilst the lasting impact in the west is likely to be economic, the impact in many poorer countries will be far worse in terms of healthcare. Not only directly but if available resources are taken up with CV 19 cases, millions more may well die of diahorrea, dysentry etc

[SA Chris]

Not to mention staying away from hospitals in fear of being infected. If you think it's been bad with this happening here, it will be considerably worse in poorer countries.

[Ged]

You could argue that if we're at the stage where masks are making a difference, the wall shouldn't be open. Of course we don't usually know we're at that stage until it's too late.

The evidence behind cloth masks is pretty flimsy at best, so add in people breathing heavily and bring there for a long time, it's hard to see how they'd make a massive difference if people are asymptomatic

I think your info is out of date:

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

ARY KEY POINTS
• Cloth face coverings are effective in reducing source virus transmission, i.e., outward protection of others, when they
are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly

I think that's the key point from what I've read and listened to. They can work in ideal circumstances, but they very often won't be used in the specified way. Too thin, not fitted properly, not washed frequently, and frequently removed. Not to mention the apparent increase in people touching their face when wearing one. Sorry can't find link for that.

Saw a hilarious /frightening example today. Two people out for a walk together. Clearly trying to do the right thing by staying 2 metres apart, and wearing masks. One help out their bottle of water to the other, who took it at arms length, lifted up their mask, and took a swig.

[Oldmanmatt]

You could argue that if we're at the stage where masks are making a difference, the wall shouldn't be open. Of course we don't usually know we're at that stage until it's too late.

The evidence behind cloth masks is pretty flimsy at best, so add in people breathing heavily and bring there for a long time, it's hard to see how they'd make a massive difference if people are asymptomatic

I think your info is out of date:

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

ARY KEY POINTS
• Cloth face coverings are effective in reducing source virus transmission, i.e., outward protection of others, when they
are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly

I think that's the key point from what I've read and listened to. They can work in ideal circumstances, but they very often won't be used in the specified way. Too thin, not fitted properly, not washed frequently, and frequently removed. Not to mention the apparent increase in people touching their face when wearing one. Sorry can't find link for that.

Saw a hilarious /frightening example today. Two people out for a walk together. Clearly trying to do the right thing by staying 2 metres apart, and wearing masks. One help out their bottle of water to the other, who took it at arms length, lifted up their mask, and took a swig.

Dude, you have to read further into that paper.

Edit:
More abrupt than intended, bit busy.
There’s far more to it and many other sources now. Protection goes both ways, although it remains that preventing “out” is more effective than “in”.

The Oxford meta is just the most recent. This from another meta, published in the Lancet:
“ Hence, the results of our current review support the implementation of a policy of physical distancing of at least 1 m and, if feasible, 2 m or more. Our findings also provide robust estimates to inform models and contact tracing used to plan and strategise for pandemic response efforts at multiple levels.
The use of face masks was protective for both health- care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect- modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. ”

www.thelancet.com Vol 395 June 27, 2020
Articles

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf

[tomtom]

Well it’s just come out that we’re all going to have to wear masks in shops (good) as of the 24th July - so can’t see how that would be different really from in/at a climbing wall...

[sdm]

Whilst the lasting impact in the west is likely to be economic...

We aren't in a position where we can even be confident of this yet.

Some of the stories coming out of China and Italy regarding lung damage, heart problems, stroke risk, kidney failure, psychological problems,  blood and skin issues, extreme post viral fatigue etc etc among young fit people who had mild or asymptomatic cases are very sobering.

Hopefully these turn out to be rare complications rather than the norm but so far we have no idea what the long term implications are of having had covid-19.

[sdm]

Real science of sport podcast on masks:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/09kc9g33kpWDycQ1ukkdI0?si=vKbKp2TqSKC0OBh9yM2-7g

Their findings that wearing a mask increases the perceived difficulty more than actual performance is in line with what I found when I experimented with wearing a mask for some board sessions.

It felt like I was having to try harder, especially on a hot day but I climbed one of my hardest problems of lockdown wearing a mask and also had one of my best ancap sessions too. For limit bouldering, I doubt a mask is going to have any impact on performance beyond the psychological.

I expect a mask would have the biggest impact on a hard aeropow session due to the increased heart rate and longer duration.

On a bit of a tangent, the Real Science of Sport podcast episode "Watt the FTP" on energy systems is focused on cycling but is well worth a listen.

The episodes on Red-S with Mary Caine and Amelia Boone were good too.

[GraemeA]

I had my first visit to a local wall last night. Had to reserve a time slot (ended up climbing later than I'd liked) and had to wear a mask throughout. It was really good to be back indoors again and I look forward to doing it once a week. Wearing a mask while climbing though was the biggest ball-ache - gets so hot...

Are you based in Ireland? Gravity are saying masks mandatory and Ang & Ricky said t'other day that everyone was complying. I guess anyone that doesn't want to comply now goes to The Wall, who aren't saying masks are mandatory and aren't using time slots.

[Duma]

I believe coops is in America

[GraemeA]

I believe coops is in America

Then he (she?) is allowed to shoot someone if they insist coops wears a mask :-)

[Coops_13]

I believe coops is in America

Then he (she?) is allowed to shoot someone if they insist coops wears a mask :-)

Haha, in America but fortunately not American...

[Hoseyb]

https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/chalk-deactivates-the-virus-on-holds/

This seems like good news!

[tomtom]

Though it’s not actually CV they tested...

[IanP]

Though it’s not actually CV they tested...

According to the article is was a CV (coronavirus) they tested, but wasn't the specific coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 which causes Covid-19.  A quick google says there are 7 known coronaviruses.

[tomtom]

Sure - according to the WHO “ Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).”

All of the above have different levels of transmissivity - and behave in different ways - so whilst I think the article makes a good point and a novel test of chalk on A coronavirus - it’s still not The coronavirus in question. Good news - But not a silver bullet of research was my reading.

Though as the pandemic has progressed and more research comes in it seems that close contact/airborne transmission via droplets is the main path not touching things.

[IanP]

Sure - according to the WHO “ Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).”

All of the above have different levels of transmissivity - and behave in different ways - so whilst I think the article makes a good point and a novel test of chalk on A coronavirus - it’s still not The coronavirus in question. Good news - But not a silver bullet of research was my reading.

Though as the pandemic has progressed and more research comes in it seems that close contact/airborne transmission via droplets is the main path not touching things.

Agree, not conclusive but interesting and potentially positive.  Seems ABC may have significantly jumped the gun (doesn't look like paper has been peer reviewed yet) and link appears to have been removed.

[mrjonathanr]

It’s great that some coronaviruses don’t survive long contact with chalk. Whether CV19 does we have no knowledge because it hasn’t been studied as far as I can tell. Nice to hope, but evidence is lacking.

TT’s point about air transmission is a concern. This article (linked by someone here I think) gives some really good analysis. It’s from May, the idea that airborne transmission is only now being accepted seems quite odd. It’s worth reading.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

[Fiend]

Just been to the Depot and it was all very smooth. As with any of the current guidelines that all the plandemic anti-masker loons are bleating on about as if we're living in fucking North Korea, the requirements are obvious and very minor compared to, say, another sodding lockdown: One way system in and out, hand sanitiser at door, wear a face mask at reception / shop (cafe not open), keep socially distant, check out so they know numbers. Pretty painless to be honest - far easier than unskippable 5 minute induction videos or having to wear a fucking top during summer training.

Wall was quiet in general, they've got some app or website thingy with a meter showing how busy it is which seems very useful. People were behaving inside, a few had masks on, the staff were doing occasional wiping down of tables. All new problems / circuits up which were sore on my skin due to freshly washed holds. New comp wall blobs look great fun.

[teestub]

Sounds good Fiend, thanks for the report. I think this situation is going to be way more manageable in big open walls like Depot Manc compared to smaller venues.

I wonder what reduction the new limits are vs the number of people they usually have in? I see Manchester is set at 200, can’t imagine there ever being many more in there except at super busy times. Pudsey is set at 70 which is deffo a lot less than a winter Tuesday! https://www.theclimbingdepot.co.uk/leeds/news/capacity-counter

[IanP]

Sounds good Fiend, thanks for the report. I think this situation is going to be way more manageable in big open walls like Depot Manc compared to smaller venues.

I wonder what reduction the new limits are vs the number of people they usually have in? I see Manchester is set at 200, can’t imagine there ever being many more in there except at super busy times. Pudsey is set at 70 which is deffo a lot less than a winter Tuesday! https://www.theclimbingdepot.co.uk/leeds/news/capacity-counter

I would imagine weekday evenings from September onwards would often exceed 200.  Checked a few times this morning and the capacity counter got just over 100 I think - from Fiends comments and a couple of mates sounds like it was pretty quiet today.