UKBouldering.com
places to visit => indoor walls => Topic started by: Andy F on July 09, 2020, 05:13:59 pm
-
Good news plastic lovers. You can get your fix from the 25th.
-
Good news for rock lovers too
-
Good news for rock lovers too
Yup. Less crowded at the crag 👍👍👍
-
Be interesting to see if the guys who've been getting out for the first time during shut down continue getting out or retreat back indoors. Based on the guys I know, I suspect the former!
-
Be interesting to see if the guys who've been getting out for the first time during shut down continue getting out or retreat back indoors. Based on the guys I know, I suspect the former!
The lure of nice coffee and parkour problems might prove greater than dank gritstone quarries :D
-
Was chatting to a friend about this a few days ago, seeing how it's being done in other countries (booking time slots etc) and us both having our own woodies now I can see very few times I can be arsed to go through the effort of going to the wall. If it's raining - board. If it's not raining - rock.
It's a shame, because I enjoyed my local wall when it's grim and I can spend all Sunday there or something, it had good scenes and a good atmosphere, but that'll be gone anyway I suppose.
-
I can see very few times I can be arsed to go through the effort of going to the wall. If it's raining - board. If it's not raining - rock.
It's a shame, because I enjoyed my local wall when it's grim and I can spend all Sunday there or something, it had good scenes and a good atmosphere, but that'll be gone anyway I suppose.
I reckon a lot of people are feeling like this mid summer, but come mid winter when we are into our 12th straight week of rain, a change of scene from the board might be pretty enticing!
If anyone is keen to support their wall, but sufficiently risk averse not to be heading back any time soon, then it could be a good time to buy a punchcard to use later in the year so the wall gets the financial boost it needs now.
-
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...
-
Struggling with the mask thing, strictly speaking they are not “required”, but I really think they should be used.
Thoughts?
-
Struggling with the mask thing, strictly speaking they are not “required”, but I really think they should be used.
Thoughts?
Surely it's got to be a risk based thing:
- If you, or others are isolating - no access
- If you are "at risk" - probably shouldn't be going to the wall
- Wash hands before & after
- Employ good climbing hygiene "no touching face/sneezing/coughing etc.
- Regular (Daily? Hourly? disinfecting of holds)
The way I see it you are: a) trying to reduce the likelihood of anyone with Covid being there in the fist place
b) protecting staff & climbers by reducing risk of spread (above measures)
c) Doing your best to stay afloat
You're never going to be able to eliminate the chance of someone pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic climbing. Will the wearing of masks help this? Probably/possibly. Is it a proportionate response? That's the million dollar question.
I think it makes sense in the context of general shopping - as there will be a higher percentage of "at risk" people going, but in a climbing wall - climbers are already accepting an increased risk of contraction by going. I'd say "recommend, but not mandate", but I'm sure others with have different opinions.
-
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
-
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 (https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24)
-
Yup - this is the message that needs to get out - wearing one can save other people not yourself... You are doing a good thing by wearing one..
-
Real science of sport podcast on masks:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/09kc9g33kpWDycQ1ukkdI0?si=vKbKp2TqSKC0OBh9yM2-7g
-
Yup - this is the message that needs to get out - wearing one can save other people not yourself... You are doing a good thing by wearing one..
I’d turn this sentiment around and say you’re being selfish by not wearing one. Expecting other people to wear one to protect you and your family but not willing to do the same in return.
-
Struggling with the mask thing, strictly speaking they are not “required”, but I really think they should be used.
Thoughts?
I'd say yes for the staff, no for the punters. But have public messaging encouraging people to wear one whilst belaying. Maybe even make it a requirement to wear one on the way in and in the changing areas, but not to be fussy about having one on while climbing/on the mats between goes.
-
Maybe even make it a requirement to wear one on the way in and in the changing areas, but not to be fussy about having one on while climbing/on the mats between goes.
This seems a compromise. I suspect the key things isn’t masks, it’s ventilation, as aerosols will build up over time anyway. Sort the ventilation out, even planning slots to open all the fire doors might help.
-
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...
Imagine what its like wearing one for 10 to 12 hours on a 28 degree ward.
Struggling with the mask thing, strictly speaking they are not “required”, but I really think they should be used.
Thoughts?
Surely it's got to be a risk based thing:
- If you, or others are isolating - no access
- If you are "at risk" - probably shouldn't be going to the wall
- Wash hands before & after
- Employ good climbing hygiene "no touching face/sneezing/coughing etc.
- Regular (Daily? Hourly? disinfecting of holds)
The way I see it you are: a) trying to reduce the likelihood of anyone with Covid being there in the fist place
b) protecting staff & climbers by reducing risk of spread (above measures)
c) Doing your best to stay afloat
You're never going to be able to eliminate the chance of someone pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic climbing. Will the wearing of masks help this? Probably/possibly. Is it a proportionate response? That's the million dollar question.
I think it makes sense in the context of general shopping - as there will be a higher percentage of "at risk" people going, but in a climbing wall - climbers are already accepting an increased risk of contraction by going. I'd say "recommend, but not mandate", but I'm sure others with have different opinions.
Yes. I really can't see how you would disinfect holds, I think this is impractical. Touch is only a risk if you touch your nose or mouth afterwards.
I'd suggest that insisting people wash hands on the way in, improve ventilation and limit numbers.
-
Maybe even make it a requirement to wear one on the way in and in the changing areas, but not to be fussy about having one on while climbing/on the mats between goes.
This seems a compromise. I suspect the key things isn’t masks, it’s ventilation, as aerosols will build up over time anyway. Sort the ventilation out, even planning slots to open all the fire doors might help.
I’ve spent large chunks of my life designing ventilation systems for a variety of situations and have just redesigned and built the ventilation for my wall. To achieve what you seem to envision, by ventilation alone, you’d pretty much have to have each climber in a “booth”.
The rather simple layout in the bouldering room at the Bunker (the wall is wrapped around the perimeter of the mats) means I can create a favourable air flow by using fans to push air downwards over the center line of the mats, outwards towards the walls and it should then flow up towards the extraction in the ceiling. Fresh being drawn in from the entrance area, because the matted area is negative pressure.
But, that’s really just a “general” flow, in reality, without physical barriers, there’s an almost incalculable number of things that will screw up that flow (not least, bodies moving and breathing) and dead spaces (under the roofs) etc.
Don’t think this isn’t true outdoors, by the way. If you’ve ever paid attention to the way the air moves on a foggy/misty day around obstacles etc. A “still” day outdoors at a crowded crag will leave you breathing somebody else’s expired gases.
I mean, have you ever tried to find the smoke free spot around a campfire, on an evening with even the lightest breeze?
Making people wear masks, at all times, provides those individual “booths”, or a reasonable facsimile of.
The logic of it doesn’t bother me.
I can’t imagine asking/insisting that people to do it.
I have absolutely no issues about doing all kinds of strenuous shit, in all kinds of restrictive face coverings, because over the years my work has called for exactly that. However, my partner is, absolutely, claustrophobic and gets stressed just wearing a cloth mask in a shop.
Please note, I have glossed over some fairly complex considerations above.
-
Surely it's got to be a risk based thing:
- If you, or others are isolating - no access
- If you are "at risk" - probably shouldn't be going to the wall
- Wash hands before & after
- Employ good climbing hygiene "no touching face/sneezing/coughing etc.
- Regular (Daily? Hourly? disinfecting of holds)
The way I see it you are: a) trying to reduce the likelihood of anyone with Covid being there in the fist place
b) protecting staff & climbers by reducing risk of spread (above measures)
c) Doing your best to stay afloat
You're never going to be able to eliminate the chance of someone pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic climbing. Will the wearing of masks help this? Probably/possibly. Is it a proportionate response? That's the million dollar question.
I think it makes sense in the context of general shopping - as there will be a higher percentage of "at risk" people going, but in a climbing wall - climbers are already accepting an increased risk of contraction by going. I'd say "recommend, but not mandate", but I'm sure others with have different opinions.
How much increased risk do you think is acceptable to impose on the staff?
They haven't chosen to be there and they are the ones who are there all day and are at the highest risk. Choosing not to do the bare minimum to protect them by wearing a mask seems incredibly selfish.
My problem with the argument that everyone should accept a certain level of risk is that not everyone is in the same situation and therefore not everyone can afford to accept the same level of risk. But the person who chooses to accept the highest level of risk imposes that same level of risk on everyone else they come in to contact with.
If one person decides it is an acceptable risk for them to climb without wearing a mask, they
a) impose the increased infection risk on all staff and
b) exclude other people from climbing indoors full stop if they are not able to accept that increased risk.
-
How much increased risk do you think is acceptable to impose on the staff?
They haven't chosen to be there and they are the ones who are there all day and are at the highest risk. Choosing not to do the bare minimum to protect them by wearing a mask seems incredibly selfish.
My problem with the argument that everyone should accept a certain level of risk is that not everyone is in the same situation and therefore not everyone can afford to accept the same level of risk. But the person who chooses to accept the highest level of risk imposes that same level of risk on everyone else they come in to contact with.
If one person decides it is an acceptable risk for them to climb without wearing a mask, they
a) impose the increased infection risk on all staff and
b) exclude other people from climbing indoors full stop if they are not able to accept that increased risk.
Can I pinch that?
Very succinct.
For us, the decision will rest with directors and staff, together, unless the big boss overrules all, which she might.
Ultimately, which ever way we go, it means us imposing an environment on somebody.
My current thoughts:
Because wearing a mask to protect yourself is not equal to wearing a mask to protect others, and therefore the allowance of choice as to wearing a mask for either reason is not as effective as mandate to wear masks at all times, I lean to a blanket mask at all times.
Aerosol and droplet transmission and motion are very different. If aerosol transmission at low concentrations/exposure times is proved common, then any activity indoors without individual booths, is not viable.
-
Can I pinch that?
Of course.
For us, the decision will rest with directors and staff, together, unless the big boss overrules all, which she might.
Ultimately, which ever way we go, it means us imposing an environment on somebody.
My current thoughts:
Because wearing a mask to protect yourself is not equal to wearing a mask to protect others, and therefore the allowance of choice as to wearing a mask for either reason is not as effective as mandate to wear masks at all times, I lean to a blanket mask at all times.
:agree:
Aerosol and droplet transmission and motion are very different. If aerosol transmission at low concentrations/exposure times is proved common, then any activity indoors without individual booths, is not viable.
If we learn that aerosol transmission is high risk, all indoor activity will be high risk regardless of control measures until we have a vaccine or a helpful mutation.
-
To achieve what you seem to envision, by ventilation alone, you’d pretty much have to have each climber in a “booth”.
I didn’t envisage anything beyond improved air flow? Sounds like you have a good plan.
-
To achieve what you seem to envision, by ventilation alone, you’d pretty much have to have each climber in a “booth”.
I didn’t envisage anything beyond improved air flow? Sounds like you have a good plan.
It wasn’t written as grumpily as it reads...
I did get a little grouchy, when sketching out hypothetical flows, because everything screws up everything else. Trying to ventilate a specific point in open space, without physical barriers, sucks (excuse the pun).
I abandoned initial, fancy, solutions as impractical and ended up with “pump lots of it out, drag it in from a known place and try not to cross over too much”.
-
How much increased risk do you think is acceptable to impose on the staff?
They haven't chosen to be there and they are the ones who are there all day and are at the highest risk. Choosing not to do the bare minimum to protect them by wearing a mask seems incredibly selfish.
My problem with the argument that everyone should accept a certain level of risk is that not everyone is in the same situation and therefore not everyone can afford to accept the same level of risk. But the person who chooses to accept the highest level of risk imposes that same level of risk on everyone else they come in to contact with.
If one person decides it is an acceptable risk for them to climb without wearing a mask, they
a) impose the increased infection risk on all staff and
b) exclude other people from climbing indoors full stop if they are not able to accept that increased risk.
Can I pinch that?
Very succinct.
For us, the decision will rest with directors and staff, together, unless the big boss overrules all, which she might.
Ultimately, which ever way we go, it means us imposing an environment on somebody.
My current thoughts:
Because wearing a mask to protect yourself is not equal to wearing a mask to protect others, and therefore the allowance of choice as to wearing a mask for either reason is not as effective as mandate to wear masks at all times, I lean to a blanket mask at all times.
Aerosol and droplet transmission and motion are very different. If aerosol transmission at low concentrations/exposure times is proved common, then any activity indoors without individual booths, is not viable.
Been thinking a bit about this over the weekend. Went to a cafe on Saturday to get some sandwiches and a coffee, the staff were all wearing masks, but as soon as they went through the back to the food prep area, they all slipped them down under their chins.
I had a look on the Food Standards Scotland website and they say:
13. Scottish Government has suggested that face coverings may have some benefit in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Does this means that my staff should be using them?
On the 28 April, the Scottish Government issued new advice that there may be some benefit for the general public to wear textile face coverings over the mouth and nose to reduce the risk of them spreading COVID-19 to others (particularly when asymptomatic). It was suggested that this could be applied as a precautionary measure in situations where physical (social) distancing presents a challenge in enclosed environments such as public transport or shops. This new Scottish Government advice is based on limited evidence and is not mandatory.
Based on currently inconclusive evidence, FSS considers the use of textile facial coverings, or indeed face masks, to be of limited value for protecting staff in food business environments. Face masks and/or coverings should never be used as a replacement for hygiene and distancing measures in any food business.
In food production and manufacturing premises, FSS recommends that facemasks should only be considered for occasional defined tasks for which additional precautions are considered appropriate. In these specific cases, they must be fit for purpose, and training provided to wearers to ensure they are fitted, worn and disposed of correctly. For further information please refer to our guidance.
It is important to highlight that the new advice from Scottish Government on the use of textile face coverings is not intended as an infection prevention and control measure for workers and therefore does not apply to food businesses.
We are aware that some food retail and catering businesses in which there is a need for interaction with the general public may wish to consider the use of masks, especially when staff are unable to be physically distanced from individuals they do not normally come into contact with. These should be used in a way that is consistent with the business’s health and safety requirements. It is also important to highlight that the failure of staff to wear face masks hygienically and to ensure that they are changed regularly could have a detrimental impact on infection control and food safety.
https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/consumers/food-safety/coronavirus/questions-and-answers-covid-19#%E2%80%9CScottish%20Government%20has%20suggested%20that%20face%20coverings%20may%20have%20some%20benefit%20in%20preventing%20the%20spread%20of%20COVID-19.%20Does%20this%20means%20that%20my%20staff%20should%20be%20using%20them? (https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/consumers/food-safety/coronavirus/questions-and-answers-covid-19#%E2%80%9CScottish%20Government%20has%20suggested%20that%20face%20coverings%20may%20have%20some%20benefit%20in%20preventing%20the%20spread%20of%20COVID-19.%20Does%20this%20means%20that%20my%20staff%20should%20be%20using%20them?)
So...clear as mud. I'm guessing if you open with mandatory face coverings, there will be grumbles from a few, but you will be full to capacity and those grumblers will most likely come anyway, or come back when things ease up.
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. :alky:
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :alky:
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
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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 (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I believe coops is in America
-
I believe coops is in America
Then he (she?) is allowed to shoot someone if they insist coops wears a mask :-)
-
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...
-
https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/chalk-deactivates-the-virus-on-holds/ (https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/chalk-deactivates-the-virus-on-holds/)
This seems like good news!
-
Though it’s not actually CV they tested...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
You wot? There must be comfortably over 100 on Tuesday nights in winter. Especially when they've reset an easy circuit.
-
You wot? There must be comfortably over 100 on Tuesday nights in winter. Especially when they've reset an easy circuit.
Yes, that’s what I said.
-
Ffs! So you did.
-
I was watching those meters with interest... nice idea.
I was waiting to see the gauge turn into a skull and crossbones when Fiend checked in - but unfortunately that didn’t happen.
-
😂😂 not my work... pulled from Insta
(https://i.imgur.com/78aNu4B_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
-
pulled from Cofe’s Insta
-
pulled from Cofe’s Insta
Indeed. Didn’t name him as wasn’t sure he’d want to be named. Great satire all round.
-
Excellent.
-
Brilliant!
-
I wonder what reduction the new limits are vs the number of people they usually have in? Pudsey is set at 70 which is deffo a lot less than a winter Tuesday!
You wot? There must be comfortably over 100 on Tuesday nights in winter.
Yes, that’s what I said.
Ffs! So you did.
:lol: These four lines basically sum up how internet discussions can go so badly wrong. Usually the person in Will's position wouldn't admit it and just double down then get hundreds of people piling 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!
I think I must have read the first sentence and my brain carried forward the sense of it into the next sentence.
You can all pile in now.
-
http://sheffield.howfullismywall.info/