UKC

Who else is still not climbing due to Covid ?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 kevin stephens 31 May 2020

I’m still not climbing because I don’t have a climbing partner in my household and I don’t believe I could successfully adhere to scientific advice on social distancing with a climbing partner whilst climbing, let alone travel together to a preferred location 

Hopefully it’s not just me ?

21
 d_b 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Nope. Not just you.

1
 HakanT 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

You’re not the only one. I managed to make it on to the shielding list, so I’m not supposed to go out at all. 

1
 GrahamD 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Not just you. The climbing I could probably manage, but an individual car journey for a couple of hours just to scratch an itch seems wildly irresponsible to me.

18
 Harry Ellis 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I am climbing but doing my best to maintain 2m distance and good hand hygeine. This means limiting choice of route to single pitch or routes with massive ledges. I know a lot of people who are doing otherwise. I don’t judge them but it makes it harder to maintain my own discipline. 
So if you don’t feel you can and are not climbing, hats off to you. 
Those people who are multi pitch climbing, have you considered wearing masks? Even if just while passing and swapping gear at stances. 
Whatever you do enjoy the sunshine and the opportunity to be out enjoying it with friends. 
Take care all

5
 Andy Johnson 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm in the same position. A few people in my club seem to be getting out in the Peak, but on an individual basis. No club meets yet, which is really the only way I'm likely to get any climbing done.

To me it feels a bit early to be climbing with people I don't live with. This makes me sad, but I'm not going to take that risk.

Post edited at 10:34
2
 Andy Johnson 31 May 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

I'm thinking of getting a mat and looking for out of the way places for solo bouldering. It's obviously not without risk though, and easier said than actually done.

 Dave Cundy 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm not climbing yet.  Much of the stuff in the Avon Gorge is multipitch, or requires a retreat from a 'snug' belay.  Ditto Wintour's Leap.  I'm happy to give it another month before i go out.

It reminds me of paragliding on the first good day of spring.  Everyone was desperate to fly, so the skies above take-off were busy.  Which usually included a few nutters.  It seemed to be the prime time for pilots keeping their canopies flying slowly, close to stall (hoping to stay up in the weak lift) until they hit turbulence.  At which point they were suddenly thrown into a spin, 100 feet off the deck.

Much as it might be brilliant condition for Cloggy, Dow or Scafell at the moment, I think I'll let the masses get it out of their system first.  I have to say, as well, that after 7 months with just 2 trips to the wall (cycling malfunction, broken rib), i expect i'll be down from E1 to VS )

Post edited at 11:19
 Martin Bennett 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Me Kev. My thinking mirrors yours. Way too soon. I only wish the rulemakers knew that. I've managed an hour each at Widdop boulders and Cadshaw Small Quarry. Not, as you know, being a boulderer I've not particularly enjoyed it and, worse, it's served to show me just how much ability and confidence has drained away since I last climbed in Costa Blanca in February.

4
 Martin Bennett 31 May 2020
In reply to Dave Cundy:

> i expect i'll be down from E1 to VS )

VS Dave? Luxury. I was thinking V Diff or Severe for when I finally decide it's safe to fraternise.

 slab_happy 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Got trapped in London by lockdown, no car, can't pretend going anywhere by train just to climb is "essential travel".

 Flinticus 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Not really an outdoor climber but with the gyms closed...not the best time to start and my regular indoor partner is waiting out lockdown in Aberdeen with his girlfriend. However I am practicing abseil set ups from a massive beech tree that can be easily climbed. I'll probably move onto ascending and solo top roping.

 LeeWood 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

When lockdown was 1st announced the public were largely flippant for their own security, but better motivated by the message that 'even if you don't care about your own risk - think about transmission to the vulnerable groups - the aged etc'.

So where does your prime concern come from now ?

Personally at the start of this whole thing I was worried until the knowledge of risk categories was exposed - but finally convinced by the meeting of an 80yr old neighbour in our village - tested and confirmed cv19 - she suffered typical flu symptoms - and recovered. Not so serious after all. 

56
 Jon Stewart 31 May 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Personally at the start of this whole thing I was worried until the knowledge of risk categories was exposed - but finally convinced by the meeting of an 80yr old neighbour in our village - tested and confirmed cv19 - she suffered typical flu symptoms - and recovered. Not so serious after all. 

You're convinced by n=1 data?

We're doomed.

2
 flatlandrich 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I would dearly love to get out but thinking much the same as you. I'm actually comfortable with the the climbing part, especially single pitch, as I think the risk of transmission there is virtually zero. But, as you say, the traveling part is more of a problem. I live 2 hours+drive from the nearest rock, 3.5 hours+ from the nearest trad routes (not including the walk in) so I can't justify a day trip climbing, CV19 or not. It really has to be a full weekend, which isn't going to happen until campsites reopen. When they do they'll probably be packed and/or fully booked so I think I'll be giving them a wide berth as well. Maybe something after the summer holidays.....

 Andy Johnson 31 May 2020
In reply to LeeWood

> Personally at the start of this whole thing I was worried until the knowledge of risk categories was exposed - but finally convinced by the meeting of an 80yr old neighbour in our village - tested and confirmed cv19 - she suffered typical flu symptoms - and recovered. Not so serious after all.

With respect, I think this is dangerously complacent.

2
 kate8 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Not able to climb either. We always used public transport as neither of us drive.  I can't see us being able to get around to doing it for quite a while

 d_b 31 May 2020
In reply to Martin Bennett:

I was just getting back from 6 months off due to injury when this started in earnest. There's a very nice* mod in the avon gorge that I might be able to think about getting up.

*Not very nice.

 oldie 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

No. No car+ household is non-climbing wife.. Nearest would probably be Harrison's by train but personally feel I shouldn't non-essential travel that far by public transport. 

Post edited at 16:52
 JohnBson 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm back climbing. Easy route to get back into it, local to minimise travel and scarcity trap. Climbing with someone of a similar age, we both think we've had it although untested. Add to this we're in the less risk category.

I judge the risk of this less than seeing my parents who are older and have definitely not had it. 

Quite frankly although I had a case which almost put me in hospital I see no need to hide away forever. What happens if there is no vaccine? What if this is it? Noone really talks about it but maybe this is something we have to deal with forever.

You get one life and you can choose what matters to you. Personally I'd rather live my life to the fullest extent. 

8
 two_tapirs 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

> I’m still not climbing because I don’t have a climbing partner in my household and I don’t believe I could successfully adhere to scientific advice on social distancing with a climbing partner whilst climbing, let alone travel together to a preferred location 

> Hopefully it’s not just me ?

It's not just you.  We're not climbing as we can't guarantee social distancing with other climbers, there's a lot more people out for walks near the crags, and we don't feel it's right to climb when there is always the chance of an accident that requires rescue (unfair on the MRT) and it's very unfair on the NHS should something nasty happen.  No one expects to have an injury that requires NHS treatment, or the assistance of the MRT, but these things happen.

For us, we can wait for things to calm down as we know the rock isn't going anywhere

1
In reply to kevin stephens:

Not just you. Like yourself I don't have a climbing partner in my  household and am not convinced social distancing could be maintained with others. Desperate to get out, though I'm not convinced I'll remember how to actually climb. 

J1234 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Just a bit of easy soloing, but may I make a suggestion, when I go for my daily walks, I now take my climbing sack, maybe a good idea to keep the hill fitness up

In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm not expecting to climb any routes for the foreseeable future. But I'm back to bouldering. Using social distancing as an excuse to climb at obscure and / or moorland crags I've previously been to lazy to visit.  So far, I've not had anyone climb within 50m of me, and I don't feel the drives are particularly unconscionable.

 blackcat 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:No still not been into the hills,somehow id still feel guilty.Id rather wait a few more weeks,see what happens.Till then still happy running local and throwing the weights about.

 Misha 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I certainly wouldn’t lift share at the moment but hardly ever do that anyway as tend to climb with people who live in another area.

As for SD at the crag, it really isn’t that hard on single pitch, even if you’re fairly purist about it. From what I’ve seen, most people are being fairly pragmatic - not getting too close to each other for any length of time but not going to extremes to always maintain 2m either. I think the key thing is to climb with a small number of partners who are all at relatively low risk of catching / passing on Covid (eg working from home).

Been out last two weekends. 

Post edited at 22:25
3
 Davidlees215 31 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I've been out bouldering on my own a couple of times (fairly easy as I live very near crags) but just found it a bit disappointing after waiting so long.

Normally 90% of my outdoor climbing is trad and if I do go bouldering it's with friends. Just can't really get into it on my own and think I'll probably leave it until it's OK to meet people properly without distancing.

 phizz4 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm reminded of a story from a climbing magazine many years ago. Outdoor climbing had been banned, all climbing was on indoor walls. But, there was an underground movement that organised illegal outdoor bouldering at night. The writer was really looking forward to this but when it hapened it was wet, miserable and slippery. Older climbers like me might remember the 'fiction' story.

Post edited at 08:43
 neilh 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Hi Kevin , hope you are keeping well. Been out a couple of times locally and also a trip to Gimmer. Avoiding climbing hot spots and always drive on my own( despite the latest guidelinbes saying that you can in certain circumstances car share). All I can say is the Lakes are lovely and quiet( Langdale car park at New DG is open and not packed at all, traffic is reaaly quiet), but it is surprising how many teams are out enjoying the good weather. Just be sensible.

2
J1234 01 Jun 2020
In reply to neilh:

> ( despite the latest guidelinbes saying that you can in certain circumstances car share). 

Does it, not heard this, please tell me more. I am not being sarcastic, just not prepared to drive to lakes on my own, for a day.

 neilh 01 Jun 2020
In reply to J1234:

I am told it is car share with other people for excercise if they do not have access to a car or something like that. Not read the exact wording ( assume you can find it on govt website somewhere) as I will not car share as a matter of course.

2
J1234 01 Jun 2020
In reply to neilh:

Thanks, will not apply to me, and anyway I am trying to avoid catching and spreading, and apparently Covid does not read the small print.

In reply to LeeWood:

> When lockdown was 1st announced the public were largely flippant for their own security, but better motivated by the message that 'even if you don't care about your own risk - think about transmission to the vulnerable groups - the aged etc'.

> So where does your prime concern come from now ?

> Personally at the start of this whole thing I was worried until the knowledge of risk categories was exposed - but finally convinced by the meeting of an 80yr old neighbour in our village - tested and confirmed cv19 - she suffered typical flu symptoms - and recovered. Not so serious after all. 

I once met a guy who'd smoked all his life and never died once. Please feel free to take it up on that basis, I'd like you to.

Did it occur to you there's a reason you didn't meet the 80 year olds who died?

Post edited at 10:49
2
 Dave Garnett 01 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Been out last two weekends. 

Me too.  Only fairly local, travelled alone, climbed with people who are not high risk.  

I'm a bit concerned that as the restrictions relax further it's going to get harder to work out who is low risk and who isn't though. 

 Hutson 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm not. I live in London and don't think car sharing or getting a train is justifiable. Closest crag is Southern Sandstone and I think it's busy enough (certainly at weekends) that it wouldn't be advisable even if I could manage to cycle there and back. A day trip to the Peak would be even harder to justify.

To add to that the husband doesn't climb and all things considered I don't see how I could climb safely with someone not in my household. It is a shame and last year I finally got a small rack towards the end of the season and had several trips planned, only used it a couple of times and it now sits shiny and unused, taunting me, but that's tough. It's not about me.

1
 LeeWood 01 Jun 2020
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Did it occur to you there's a reason you didn't meet the 80 year olds who died?

Have you ever met a climber who died ? Get a grasp - it's called Real Life

22
In reply to LeeWood:

No but I met Cliff Phillips. He fell from a long way up and survived. So falling off climbing really not so bad then.

 peppermill 01 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Personally at the start of this whole thing I was worried until the knowledge of risk categories was exposed - but finally convinced by the meeting of an 80yr old neighbour in our village - tested and confirmed cv19 - she suffered typical flu symptoms - and recovered. Not so serious after all. 

You know one elderly person that's recovered so it's all nowt to worry about. Awesome.

1
 peppermill 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Nope. Firstly because I've been working a lot, secondly I'm in Scotland and thirdly I'm tempted to leave the hills for a bit until everyone else has finished going full sweaty-palm-blue-balls. 

Lots of leafing through guidebooks and making plans mind....

 wbo2 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:  Why don't you just go bouldering ?  

 LeeWood 01 Jun 2020
In reply to peppermill:

In fact in this french village of 250 where I live, there were 17 cases of which 8 tested. Several older people. No fatalities. 

Everywhere I meet with friends I ask the same questions - who do you know who had the virus ? do you know someone who died , etc. very very few direct witnesses of infection and even fewer of death.

Everything we know of this pandemic is via the media, and we know what they do with the truth. The jury is still out - is this pandemic worse than 2017/18 flu ?!

So - I ask again of you or any others here who are still hesitant to get out - are you in a hi risk category , by age or health ? I think it is unjust for you to propagate the idea that it is unsafe 'out there' - unless you can at least justify this by status of vulnerability.  

25
 Misha 01 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Stick with people who are WFH or working in a fairly socially distanced job or not working at all, as well as not having kids at school.

I don’t see the difference between driving 10 miles or 100 or more from a Covid point of view. The only real limitation is how far I’m willing to go for a day trip and that’s about two hours. Fortunately there are plenty of crags within that travelling time. So far my trips have been 60-75 miles each way, ranging from just over an hour to the best part of two hours each way, depending on the roads!

Post edited at 20:03
Le Sapeur 01 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Where to begin with this?

> Everywhere I meet with friends I ask the same questions - who do you know who had the virus ? do you know someone who died , etc. very very few direct witnesses of infection and even fewer of death.

I have had the virus and my wife was very ill with it. I know 2 people who have died. Not close, but I knew them to see.

> Everything we know of this pandemic is via the media, And where do your other news stories come from? Non media? and we know what they do with the truth. The jury is still out - is this pandemic worse than 2017/18 flu ?!

Without lockdown, yes, much much worse. We didn't have social distancing etc in 17/18 so how can you compare?

 

2
 emily roo 01 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm glad there are a few folk still not going out and about....

Shielding was easier when NO ONE ELSE WAS HAVING FUN TOO. Yes I am selfish. Yes I have FOMO. And now a large supply of home gym kit... Currently eyeing up trees to hang some gymnast rings in.

(I am however a terrible follower of rules and authority blah blah and did 500 miles on my road bike in the first 5 weeks... since then I've been too (non-covid) ill to want to leave the house. Serves me right really....)

 LeeWood 01 Jun 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Several other countries have dealt with the pandemic better than the UK - without blanket lockdown - but given the chaos and lack of preparedness the virus spread further and it may be justifiable to deal with the problem more cautiously - agreed. But in any circulation of winter flu there are always people who take it worse than others. And there are always those - in the vulnerable groups - who die.

I was both intrigued and chilled to read Monbiot on the pandemic 'The Machine Stops'. In which he states that the UK is stuck either way - whether it stays in lockdown (behaviour) or risks the exit. By that reasoning I'd say you are better off getting up and out rather than festering.

The article progresses in it's analysis of the chaos of carelessness, but asserts a new theme - there was some preparedness but that this was reversed - intentionally. This is a shocking notion.

Boris Johnson is categorised along with Trump and Bolsonaro thus-  

// For years politicians of their stripe have been in conflict with people who perform useful services: nurses, teachers, care workers and the other low paid people who keep our lives ticking //

Then in the last few paragraphs, and just as you're getting tired, Monbiot draws attention to the 'wealth extractors' - WTF ? - that all this chaos works to their benefit // This political conflict is always fought on behalf of the same group: those who extract wealth. // These groups or individuals are alledged responsible for influencing the choice of our leaders:

// Working through the billionaire press and political systems that are highly vulnerable to capture by money, in the UK, US and Brazil they have helped ensure that cavalier and reckless people are elected. Their chosen representatives have an almost instinctive aversion to investment, to carrying a cost today that could be deferred, delayed, or dumped on someone else.//

The wealth extractors are never named- but are identified by their exploitation through lobbying and loopholes, their manipulation of stock markets and investments in offshore funds - all to public detriment - of health and wealth, and with accompanying defeat of democracy. This same approach (from the wealth extractors) ...

// that has proved so disastrous in addressing the pandemic has been highly effective, from the lobbyists’ point of view, when applied to other issues: delaying and frustrating action to prevent climate breakdown, pollution, the obesity crisis, inequality, unaffordable rent and the many other plagues spread by corporate and billionaire power.//

This is the blackness of the tunnel ! - Give us some light George ... but no

// This is the tunnel. This is why the exits are closed. This is why we will struggle to emerge. //

It's time we put a name on these 'wealth extractors' . It's time we brought them to justice.

https://www.monbiot.com/2020/05/26/the-machine-stops/

9
 Yanis Nayu 01 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I don’t directly know anyone who’s had it (formally diagnosed) let alone been seriously ill or died. I know indirectly of about half a dozen people having it, and 2 people have told me they know somebody who died. 

1
 slab_happy 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Everywhere I meet with friends I ask the same questions - who do you know who had the virus ? do you know someone who died , etc. very very few direct witnesses of infection and even fewer of death.

> Everything we know of this pandemic is via the media, and we know what they do with the truth.

Are you actually suggesting that the media have made up tens of thousands of deaths, and that they haven't really happened?

1
 LeeWood 02 Jun 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

> Are you actually suggesting that the media have made up tens of thousands of deaths, and that they haven't really happened?

The important statistic to define a pandemic is mortality ie. death rate proportionate to infection rate. Without testing - esp necessary in view of asymptomatic cases - this can never be known. The values given are extrapolated to suit political purpose.

Many viral infections have circulated in previous years - without the current state of panic. The panic is based on statistics which portray rates of transmission, severity of those infected and death rates. All such statistics are open to manipulation.

12
 slab_happy 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> But in any circulation of winter flu there are always people who take it worse than others. And there are always those - in the vulnerable groups - who die.

Do you understand that this is not flu? And also that it's not winter?

The latter is not a joke question, because the excess mortality we've seen already (over 60,000) and that we're continuing to see is on top of whatever we're going to see from respiratory illnesses this winter.

Also, Covid-19 is certainly much more lethal to people who are older and/or have pre-existing health conditions, but that doesn't mean it's not tearing a horrific swathe through people who aren't in "vulnerable groups" too.

Covid-19 is known to be much more infectious than regular flu, and also much, much more lethal (estimates of case fatality rate vary wildly at the moment because of shortage of data, but all of them make it way more lethal than flu).

The lowest CFR estimate I've seen (0.66%, involving postulating a very large number of people whose symptoms are so mild they never get tested) makes it six times more likely to kill than flu. The higher estimates are 3-4% and way up.

Post edited at 10:21
1
 wbo2 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood: For the UK the best numbers to look at are ONSoverall death stats... people are still dying of cancer, flu and what have you but the large bump on top is due to the current virus problem. And that's after mitigating procedures are in place.  If we all just let the virus go at it then the problem will be a lot larger, and more problematically all those people will arrive at the hospital all at the same time so then you get winners and losers.  At your age you would be a loser.

 I live in a country where the lockdown has been relatively mild and I have been able to boulder locally pretty well all the way thro'.  But we have a low population , good resources and locked down very early,, I was working from home a full month before the UK even talked about shutting schools.  FWIW people I know have been very sick, one on oxygen, one on a ventilator

I don't know why you include that stuff on wealth extractors.  It's out of context and makes you look 'odd' to be polite.

1
 Alkis 02 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Same. I am not psyched enough to go solo bouldering right now, I don't have any other climbers in my household and my climbing partners are not comfortable tradding with social distancing. OTOH, I have built a wall in the garden, so I'm abusing my tendons that way for now.

 Luke90 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> The important statistic to define a pandemic is mortality ie. death rate proportionate to infection rate. Without testing - esp necessary in view of asymptomatic cases - this can never be known.

That's certainly an important statistic. Defining it as the important statistic feels rather arbitrary. In fact, choosing one of the statistics that's rather difficult to measure feels like it gives you a convenient excuse to downplay all the other very alarming statistics.

If you were going to choose a single statistic to define a pandemic, that actually seems like a pretty poor one, even if it was easy to measure. A disease that kills almost everybody it infects but fails to effectively spread would be no significant threat.

> The values given are extrapolated to suit political purpose.

Because everybody knows Tory governments are just hankering for an excuse to shut down the economy and pay out of the public purse for people to stay home. It's not like it completely contradicts their defining ideology or anything.

> Many viral infections have circulated in previous years - without the current state of panic.

I assume you won't be willing to give an example that you think was comparable but ignored.

 neilh 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Just hop in a car and visit a hospital in Toulouse or Paris etc to check it out. Go see with your own eyes.

1
 slab_happy 02 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

>  A disease that kills almost everybody it infects but fails to effectively spread would be no significant threat.

Yeah, SARS and MERS have much higher case fatality rates than Covid-19 (even allowing for the wide range of possible CFRs for Covid-19) -- but they don't spread nearly as well, which is why Covid-19's already caused way more deaths.

The fact that some people only get mild symptoms or no symptoms at all is a big advantage for viral spread. If anyone who gets a given virus is immobilized and in bed (or in hospital) while they have it, it's not going to spread around nearly as well as if some people feel okay or like they just have a bit of a cold and stay up and around, breathing it on everyone when they get on the bus and go into work ...

Conversely, if a virus spreads really easily but everyone gets mild symptoms at most, then no sweat -- you've got something like the common cold.

It looks like Covid-19's hit a horrible "sweet spot" of being significantly lethal but also spreading really, really well.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-do-sars-and-mers-compare-with...

 yoshi.h 02 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I've been out bouldering with my wife. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that driving up to a crag, walking from car to empty crag, climbing sensibly, eating my packed lunch, walking back to my car and perhaps filling petrol at a service station before driving home is risky. You all need to get a bloody grip!!

Post edited at 14:04
10
In reply to yoshi.h:

> I've been out bouldering with my wife. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that driving up to a crag, walking from car to empty crag, climbing sensibly, eating my packed lunch, walking back to my car and perhaps filling petrol at a service station before driving home is risky. You all need to get a bloody grip!!

I don't think that anyone wants to convince you of that and therefore nobody is likely to need to "get a bloody grip"

It may be a little different for people who want to participate in roped climbing with partners outside their own household?

Post edited at 14:22
4
 yoshi.h 02 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

You've missed the point. Why are climbers trying to blow the risk of an average climbing trip outdoors out of proportion, even going beyond government guidelines?

You can rope climb safely and with minimal risk, perfectly well and socially distanced with some care and sensible planning.

6
 Bacon Butty 02 Jun 2020
In reply to yoshi.h:

Try telling that to the guy who's driven several hundreds of miles around England going on climbing trips and ended up shattering his ankle!

6
 LeeWood 02 Jun 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

> Covid-19 is known to be much more infectious than regular flu, and also much, much more lethal (estimates of case fatality rate vary wildly at the moment because of shortage of data, but all of them make it way more lethal than flu).

Your assertions don't seem to tie up with those of Chris Witty - May 11th ? ?

// A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all, at any point in the epidemic, which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it. They will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage. And we know that happens.

Of those that get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80% will have a mild or moderate disease, might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority, will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital. And then a minority of those will end up having to go to severe and critical care and some of those sadly will die. But that’s a minority.

It’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall. And even in the highest risk group, this is significantly less than 20%. The great majority of people, even the very highest groups, if they catch this virus will not die. //

4
 joem 02 Jun 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Ah does Covid-19 shatter ankles now?

1
 LeeWood 02 Jun 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> I don't know why you include that stuff on wealth extractors.  It's out of context and makes you look 'odd' to be polite.

Back to Monbiot:

// the approach which has proved so disastrous in addressing the pandemic has been highly effective, from the lobbyists’ point of view, when applied to other issues: delaying and frustrating action to prevent climate breakdown, pollution, the obesity crisis, inequality, unaffordable rent and the many other plagues spread by corporate and billionaire power. //

'the approach' is stated to be the reason behind chaos and reversing of preparedness - for the pandemic in the UK; and not just this - a host of other ills. If Monbiot is right these crises are organised opportunistically by the wealth extractors. Doesn't it logically follow we might wish to identify them ?

The difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction - 3min read

https://earthbound.report/2018/01/31/wealth-creation-and-wealth-extraction/

The financial crisis, the housing crisis and the climate crisis are all directly linked to the monopolisation of resources by the super-rich - 10min read

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/12/how-billionaires-extr...

3
 slab_happy 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Your assertions don't seem to tie up with those of Chris Witty - May 11th ? ?

In what respect?

> Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it. They will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage. And we know that happens.

Yes, that's correct as far as I know. There's debate about exactly what percentage of people get the virus and are completely asymptomatic, but it certainly happens.

> Of those that get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80% will have a mild or moderate disease, might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.

I think this is a smidge misleading -- if I recall correctly, the study that produced the "80% have mild or moderate disease" figure defined "mild or moderate" in terms of "not requiring hospital care".

So it included cases that most people would consider "mild" illness (you have to go to bed for a few days), but also cases that included pneumonia, just not bad enough to require hospitalization.

"Mild to moderate" Covid-19 can still be pretty damn severe by most people's standards.

> An unfortunate minority, will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital. And then a minority of those will end up having to go to severe and critical care and some of those sadly will die. But that’s a minority.

Yes, only a minority of people who get the virus and are symptomatic need to go to hospital -- somewhere in the region of 20% (1 in 5).

And yes, of people who need to go to hospital, the majority of them survive. None of that is incompatible with what I've said.

Though "majority" is an interesting term, of course. This study in April found that a third of people with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were dying:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-death-rate-uk-hospita...

That means two-thirds survived -- a clear majority! Doesn't mean that a virus that kills a third of the people it hospitalizes is not terrifying. As the chief investigator points out, that's the same numbers Ebola gets.

> It’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall.

This is where I'd say Whitty is probably oversimplifying, because there've been a bunch of different estimates of mortality rate and I don't think we've got the data to be too conclusive about it at this point -- it depends hugely on guesses for how many people get the virus and are asymptomatic or so mildly affected they never get tested. As I mentioned, I've seen estimates as low as 0.66%.

But a 1% fatality rate is still TEN TIMES MORE LETHAL THAN FLU (<0.1%).

> And even in the highest risk group, this is significantly less than 20%.

I believe for the age group your 80-year-old acquaintance is in, estimates are somewhere in the region of 10%.

> The great majority of people, even the very highest groups, if they catch this virus will not die. //

Er, yes. The great majority of people who get Covid-19 will not die. No-one is arguing about that.

You seem to hear "the majority of people who get Covid-19 survive" and interpret it as "it's no big deal, it's just like flu, nothing to worry about".

A virus that spreads more easily than flu and that kills one out of every hundred people who catch it is still going to kill a f*ck of a lot of people if we just "let it run".

3
 JMarkW 02 Jun 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

> Try telling that to the guy who's driven several hundreds of miles around England going on climbing trips and ended up shattering his ankle!

Really? Wow.

U are starting to smug about it

1
 Misha 02 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Statistics can be manipulated as you say but there is little doubt that in the UK alone over 40,000 people have died from it. There were over 20,000 people in hospital with it at the peak and that number is still about 8,000, with about 500 new hospital admissions a day. That’s just in the UK and with the lockdown we’ve had. Clearly would have been worse if we did nothing. So I don’t think you can seriously argue that this is not a major epidemic.

The real question is what happens next. We will have to wait and see. Given the lack of SD I’ve seen round here in Birmingham (different households mixing in close proximity, albeit outdoors), I suspect we’re in for a second wave. Counties like the US will probably be fit fairly hard again. I just hope that the next lockdown would be more ‘intelligent’, starting earlier and focusing on the highest risk groups and activities (eg pubs), as well as ‘easy wins’ like keeping offices closed where people can work from home. I’m not sure a wholesale lockdown for a couple of months or longer would be sustainable.

 Misha 02 Jun 2020
In reply to wbo2:

A word of caution on the ONS stats. They have stats for deaths with Covid or with suspected Covid and that’s higher than the ‘official’ numbers. Over 50,000 vs just under 40,000. The ONS total additional mortality numbers are even higher and some of that would be due to Covid as well but some will be due to the lockdown (people not going to hospital early enough for other issues such as heart problems). So it’s a bit more nuanced. But whether it’s 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 is academic in a way because in any event it’s clearly a massive number of additional deaths and it’s still going up.

In reply to yoshi.h:

> You can rope climb safely and with minimal risk, perfectly well and socially distanced with some care and sensible planning.

That would explain the Edale MRT callout to Stanage this evening...

4
 wbo2 03 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha: You can ignore all the categorisation if you just look at the absolute total deaths number.  Either there's been a lot of car crashes or there's something nasty going round.  There are some other effects on the overall number, but they're minor.

Still curious why the OP doesn't go bouldering.  I've done a ton this year as meeting other people not OK and have really enjoyed it

In reply to wbo2:

The OP has never been able to go bouldering (outside) because he has a glass ankle. Otherwise it would be a brilliant way to enjoy climbing safely (no highballs) in isolated locations 

1
 Martin Hore 03 Jun 2020
In reply to yoshi.h:

> You can rope climb safely and with minimal risk, perfectly well and socially distanced with some care and sensible planning.

So what precautions are you taking? Are you only climbing routes that no-one else has climbed for as long as it takes for COVID 19 contamination to disappear from the handholds? Are you and your climbing partner (from outside your household, I presume) never climbing the same route (so as to avoid touching the same handholds)? Are you managing not to touch any gear that your partner has touched? Are you carrying hand-gel, using it after every climb, and before putting hands near face?

Or have you assessed the risks as minimal because very, very few climbers (and certainly neither you nor your climbing partner) are likely to be infectious with COVID 19, and the risks of transmission from touching contaminated surfaces outside is very small, and, even if you do catch it, you're young enough and fit enough to not be seriously affected?

I suspect it may be the latter for most climbers - though I'm happy to be corrected. If I'm right, I'm not sure it's in line with the expert medical guidance.

I don't mean this to be critical.AlthoughI've not climbed yet, I certainly hope to do so soon. But I'm definitely old enough to be seriously affected if I catch COVID, as is my (non-climbing) wife. So I'm thinking very carefully about how to be as safe as possible, both for myself, my climbing partners, and for others I come into contact with afterwards. Any advice from those who are now climbing would be gratefully received.

Martin

3
 Martin Wood 03 Jun 2020
In reply to Martin Hore:

I offer the following as a "field report" rather than anything more prescriptive. 

I'm in my mid-50s and the NHS has identified me as "at risk" (no spleen). I'm WFH and have been in direct contact with only six people (five are non-climbing and two of those I live with) since March.  I'm climbing because I think the (relative) risks are minimal. 

I should note I'm lucky to live among local crags (Matlock). My climbing partner (different household, same range of contacts) is also WFH and can actually walk to several venues.

Precautions-wise, I'm in Martin's latter camp. We have mostly (though not exclusively) focused on sports routes, as the climbing risks are easier to manage. I am using hand-gel (mostly), avoiding putting my hands near my face (only moderate success) and maintaining social distancing rules between ourselves and other parties (easily).

Beyond that I'm not doing much different.  We are climbing the same routes and using the same handholds. We are not selecting routes particularly that no-one else has climbed. We are being more systematic about hold brushing when we have finished - should be a common courtesy anyway. 

 windle 03 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm still not climbing because this isn't one of those situations where you push the rules and see what you can get away with. I'm not climbing because retired doctors and nurses went back to the hospitals to treat COVID patients, and more than a few of these people have died. 

It's not a case where if you mess up you get patched up and everything will be healed in a few months. It's a case where if you mess up then you or a loved one could end up in hospital being cared for by a 70 year old nurse who'd be risking her life when she didn't need to be.

It feels like one moronic government adviser broke the rules and overnight everyone switched from "lets all clap for our NHS heroes" to "well I reckon if you interpret it this way then it's just about legal...". NHS workers are still risking their lives, it's the same virus that's endangering them. 

I really don't care if people think they can get away with it or think they're in a low risk category or think that because climbing isn't explicitly banned then it must be ok. There are COVID-19 nurses who have gone into temporary accommodation so they can be near the hospital and away from their families. There are COVID-19 nurses who have died. 

This isn't about you or me it's about them, so unless you're 100% sure that there is zero risk of transmission go for a walk instead, the crags will still be there next year.

17
 tehmarks 04 Jun 2020
In reply to windle:

An aside, but I've ended up in hospital twice while climbing. Once was on a benign walk-in no different to walking around the local park, and the other was on skis on perfectly horizontal terrain about 20m away from a popular piste. Neither actually had anything to do with climbing.

Risk is not an obvious thing, and we're often very poor at interpreting it. Of those landing themselves preventably in hospital and posing a risk to others, climbers will not be a significant demographic.

Post edited at 01:06
 LeeWood 04 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> whether it’s 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 is academic in a way because in any event it’s clearly a massive number of additional deaths and it’s still going up

that is a gross simplification at best, at worst it's panic-driven propaganda

In order to name the extent of the pandemic we would need to know precisely which deaths were directly due to covid-19. This detail has been lost in:

  • covid-19 deaths never lab tested
  • covid-19 deaths lab tested but without cv19 being prime cause - only an post-mortem would define this

A climbing friend in Germany alerted me to these truths a long time ago - so the same scenario exists in many countries. Definition of a covid-19 death is not precise, as symptoms are similar to those of other respiratory illnesses - such as inlfuenza or the common cold; principal symptoms are fever, cough and fatigue.

The Coronoavirus Act 2020 deregulates the diagnosis and certification of all deaths 'suspected as covid-19' in order to fast-track processing. Qualified personnel are indemnified against any negligence - lack of rigour, and the coroner is told to take a back seat.

// In general, if a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued. //

https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/d5e28baf-5789-4b0f-acecfe370eee6223/f...

The current latest figures - approaching 40k - are likely then to be an absolute max; The only reliable figure at the ONS is 'all deaths' during the whole period.

Deregulation details are defined here: 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedule/13/enacted

8
 GrahamD 04 Jun 2020
In reply to tehmarks:

> Risk is not an obvious thing, and we're often very poor at interpreting it. Of those landing themselves preventably in hospital and posing a risk to others, climbers will not be a significant demographic.

Per participant, I bet it won't be insignificant.  That's not why I'm not climbing yet, though.  I'm not climbing because that would involve a significant and necessary car journey (on my own) along with everyone else off to the beach or out to pursue their particular hobby.  At least those off to IKEA are in some small way feeding the economy.   Me buying a pasty and a coffee at a garage hardly does that.

5
In reply to LeeWood:

So, if all those excess deaths, which are significantly above the average, are not caused by covid-19, what do you think is causing them?

Some of those dying at the moment would have been those average rate fatalities, and a number of those would have been infected by COVID-19. BUT the rate of infection within the population is very low, and the rate of fatality due to COVID-19 within the population even lower, so the fraction of those who 'would have died anyway', but were coincidentally infected with COVID-19 will be tiny.

1
 Andy Clarke 04 Jun 2020
In reply to windle:

> I'm still not climbing because this isn't one of those situations where you push the rules and see what you can get away with...the crags will still be there next year.

The crags will - and so quite possibly will the virus. A vaccine may not. In such a case, would you continue to refrain from climbing indefinitely, or do you envisage a point at which the transmission and/or death rate could drop sufficiently low to justify climbing again?

 wbo2 04 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:  Ah unlucky .  2 fat mats and a pumpy traverse?  

LeeWood: - Yes, as Captain Paranoia asks, given the increase in death rate, what do you think is causing this ?  It can't be 5G as that's just  recycled black and white TV frequencies.

 Luke90 04 Jun 2020
In reply to windle:

> this isn't one of those situations where you push the rules and see what you can get away with

> well I reckon if you interpret it this way then it's just about legal

> people think they can get away with it or think they're in a low risk category or think that because climbing isn't explicitly banned then it must be ok

I've said before that I respect the motivations and self-restraint of those who are still choosing not to climb and I genuinely mean that. But I wish you could do that without pretending that those of us who made different decisions are ignoring the spirit of the guidance, exploiting loopholes or pushing the boundaries.

I locked myself down very thoroughly during the eight weeks of heightened lockdown, following and exceeding the spirit and letter of the law and the guidance. When the police advice was released making it clear that legally they weren't in a position to stop people travelling for exercise, I ignored the temptation to drive to the countryside for a run and stuck to the streets outside my door.

No, government guidance doesn't explicitly permit climbing. Obviously. For the same reason as it was never explicitly banned. Climbing is far too niche for this government to bother giving specific guidance.

What the guidance does now do is explicitly allow travelling for exercise and meeting up with exercise partners. In addition to that, Mountain Rescue in my local area are requesting caution but no longer asking people to stay away.

Climbing doesn't in any way contravene the spirit or letter of the current laws or guidance and you can justify your own restraint without needing to make misleading insinuations about others choosing differently.

> unless you're 100% sure that there is zero risk of transmission go for a walk instead

100% certainty of zero risk is a fantasy. Your walk isn't zero risk either.

 joem 04 Jun 2020
In reply to windle:

When you discuss risk you need to be clear if you mean risk from transmission of Covid-19 or injury. I have many friends and acquaintances who work in various types of hospital medicine non of them have suggested that going back to climbing is a bad idea, certainly not from a risk of injury perspective.

> This isn't about you or me it's about them, so unless you're 100% sure that there is zero risk of transmission go for a walk instead, the crags will still be there next year.

What a dumb statement. Why should anyone self limit from climbing, especially with members of their household when schools workplaces and shops are opening up all over the place, doing this might not be risk free but it'd lower than many other situations. It also seems like if we keep opening up we will be living with a level of risk for a long time. 

Post edited at 11:20
 LeeWood 04 Jun 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> so the fraction of those who 'would have died anyway', but were coincidentally infected with COVID-19 will be tiny.

Agreed !

> So, if all those excess deaths, which are significantly above the average, are not caused by covid-19, what do you think is causing them?

All the good people who were declined treatment for routine illnesses - then categorised covid-19 just because they were observed coughing 1 month before dying.

I am not inferring there is no novel coronavirus, or that vulnerable people have not died from it. But the room for imprecision through either carelessness, intent, or plain 'lack of (access to) knowledge' (eg. post-mortem) is wide.

> BUT the rate of infection within the population is very low, and the rate of fatality due to COVID-19 within the population even lower,

Good analysis  

But just to be straight about one element. There are a lot of good honest medical practitioners out there. The scope for them to 'lose accuracy' may have been a small element compared with the few in command of larger numbers.
 

2
 JHiley 04 Jun 2020
In reply to windle:

Though I've not been climbing either due to the pandemic*, I strongly disagree with this argument.

>  I'm not climbing because retired doctors and nurses went back to the hospitals to treat COVID patients, and more than a few of these people have died. 

You could make a similar case for not-not punching yourself in the face. Lots of people have died from COVID. Punching yourself in the face is nothing compared to the suffering of doctors and nurses. Not-punching yourself in the face isn't technically banned but can you really justify it when nurses had to live away from their families? Don't you have respect for the nurses and doctors suffering right now?

> This isn't about you or me it's about them, so unless you're 100% sure that there is zero risk of transmission go for a walk instead, the crags will still be there next year.

It isn't possible to reduce the risk to zero. Believing that you can/ should is a fast track to some serious mental health problems which I know about having a history with OCD: A better example than punching yourself in the face might be washing your hands for minutes on end, but that wouldn't be funny.

You can only reduce the risk to a level at where you make a judgement that it isn't significant. The same applies to walking as well as climbing. Both can be high risk or low risk in terms of spreading infection, depending on what precautions are taken.

Part of the reason I'm uncomfortable with this line of thinking is those on the right of politics, mainly in America, have often claimed a "socialised" health system would be used by the State to demand greater and greater control over people's lives. If our personal choices are restricted to prevent any conceivable effects on the NHS we would have very few freedoms. Your post seems to give (undeserved) validity to that previously/ hopefully still dubious claim.

*OK, I scrambled up the back of a cave which gets a mod on here, at a crag I can walk to. But I haven't been climbing "properly".

Post edited at 12:20
 JHiley 04 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I haven't been climbing either yet due to the pandemic (beyond scrambling up a mod). When the gov't restrictions/ BMC advice were originally relaxed climbing wasn't an immediate priority for me. My main concern was checking up on a few friends/ family. Also I've been trying to limit the number of people I'm meeting and adding climbing partners into the mix hasn't been a priority so far. My 'regular' partners haven't been around and looking more widely hasn't seemed worth it.

I don't think it would be a major problem to climb within the guidelines though, on single pitch at least, provided some hand gel is brought and belaying is given some extra planning.

I'm also confident I don't know a single person sticking to the 2 m social distancing rule which isn't surprising since it isn't really reasonable for humans in the long run. E.g How many couples not living together do we think haven't so much as held hands? So to some degree everyone is making up their own rules now and I don't think its helpful to be judgemental about relatively low risk activities.

I was tentatively making plans to start climbing again this weekend but the weather has crapped out so I might not bother.

Post edited at 12:51
 Oceanrower 04 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

I went today for the first time.

I was crap...

 Dave Cundy 04 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Because of inadequate testing, we just don't really know how prevalent the virus is, or how many are dying from it.  All we really know is the monthly death figures from previous years.  That allows the scientists to state the excess deaths with a specific level of confidence.  And since the annual variation is just a few thousand a month, the excess deaths over the last few months is 50 to 60,000.

The 40,00 quoted by the government is just what they can count in a repeatable process, so they can measure how it is progressing.  It most definitely isn't 'an absolute maximum'.

Governments have a nasty habit of manipulating figures to suit their own ends.  The gross count at the pearly gates is much less susceptible to manipulation.

 neilh 04 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Cundy:

There are plenty in medical profession etc who would openly question false figures. 
 

The reverse of your argument are people who think Drs signing Death Certificates are deliberately showing  COVID  to boost the numbers. 
 

Neither really stack up. 

 Misha 04 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Well the ONS excess deaths figures was 62,000 up to 22 May. Even allowing for some of these excess deaths resulting from the lockdown itself, you can’t deny that there have been a lot of excess deaths due to Covid. You seem to suggest that it’s people dying from other things who happen to have Covid. But if they were dying from other things, that wouldn’t translate into such a level of excess deaths. Some people will have died due to seeking medical help for other things too late due to the lockdown but that can’t explain the 60,000 excess deaths. And without the lockdown the excess deaths would have been a lot higher anyway so to some extent it’s the lesser of two evils.

Now what you could say is that most people who have died from Covid were old and would have died anyway in the next X years. That’s a different debate and one which goes into uncomfortable territory. But what you can’t deny is that there have been a lot of excess deaths. 

Post edited at 23:18
1
 CurlyStevo 05 Jun 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

you're making a basic mistake here the CFR of flu is around 0.1% but the IFR is much lower. CFR is basically for the most part a meaningless stat as its based on the diagnosed cases what we want to know it is the IFR of a disease, ie the number of people that die that catch it. Flu IFR is around 0.02-0.05%. Most estimates of covid IFR based on random anitbody tests put it in the region of 0.5 to 1.0%. CFR of covid can be much more easily estimated from the published tables as we know the deaths and cases, as the disease progresses the CFR becomes more obvious. It's obviously much higher than 1%

Post edited at 00:58
1
 CurlyStevo 05 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Agreed.

If you catch covid you basically have about your whole risk for one year of dying whist you are ill (for you're age / healthy profile). It is quite low if you aren't old etc.

The risk of catching it outside is low too. One study I read showed ~0.3% of cases are caught outside and i ask how careful were they?

Right now in the uk there are about 10 thousand new symptomatic new cases a day, lets double that for completely asymptomatic cases too, that's still what roughly a  1:3000  chance of catching it a day and the odds of catching it outside if your sensible are minimal anyway.

If you drove in a car on your own / other own to a crag, were careful about touching your face and kept a social distance from other climbers / your climbing partner, I question if the drive there is perhaps higher risk for most people under 50 / ?than catching covid whilst climbing  (or traveling there) and dying of it.

Post edited at 01:05
 LeeWood 05 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

The excess deaths figure in common circulation is that against a 5yr average. But there has most certainly been a virus circulating - so the only reasonable comparison would be against 2018 when winter flu was bad. 

In France I've seen figures compared for the 3month period - and so far the 2018 levels are some way off, ie. 2020 still less deaths.

However, even considering this, there will be excess deaths due to

  • untreated ongoing health problems
  • unfavorable lockdown conditions

The 1st of these two cats was formalised in this study - a researched and anticipated result. I can't see one succinct figure out of it - but it formulates age and cancer groups among other things.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340984562_Estimating_excess_mortal...

 galpinos 05 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> The excess deaths figure in common circulation is that against a 5yr average. But there has most certainly been a virus circulating - so the only reasonable comparison would be against 2018 when winter flu was bad. 

> In France I've seen figures compared for the 3month period - and so far the 2018 levels are some way off, ie. 2020 still less deaths.

Which three month period was that? In the UK, the, "it was worse in 2018" argument has always used the numbers of deaths for the first 15 weeks of the year, or just up to when the number of deaths really ramped up. Full fact even did an article on it.

https://fullfact.org/health/ons-2020-covid-death-totals/

In the UK we are far in excess of the number of deaths in 2018. It is also worth bearing in mind that this has happened after the annual flu event. Covid isn't just picking of oldies that flu would have taken out, the flu has already got them for this year.

> However, even considering this, there will be excess deaths due to

> untreated ongoing health problems

> unfavorable lockdown conditions

> The 1st of these two cats was formalised in this study - a researched and anticipated result. I can't see one succinct figure out of it - but it formulates age and cancer groups among other things.

I'm not sure what your point there is? Cancer patients will probably be more susceptible to Covid-19? There will be excess deaths in (some) cancer patients as their treatment will be suspended/not started and from immunocompromised cancer patients contracting Covid and dying, neither of which would happen without the pandemic? Yes, they will die eventually, but dying in 8 weeks compared to 4 yrs time?

1
 LeeWood 05 Jun 2020
In reply to galpinos:

> I'm not sure what your point there is? Cancer patients will probably be more susceptible to Covid-19? 

Hunt the peg - we're getting warmer !

The premise of the study is clearly identified as excess mortality; people who die for other disease unrelated to covid-19 - as consequence from suspension of NHS treatments.

This and other 'avoidable deaths' due to or during lockdown are discussed here:

https://www.ft.com/content/8027d913-2e2f-4d4c-93db-89bd726105f0

// One minister said that a paper produced by a cabinet subcommittee suggested that the level of avoidable deaths could “be as high as 150,000 without mitigation” and “addressing that will play a bigger role on when to end the lockdown than the economic impact”. //

Such avoidable deaths will emerge now or later - with the passage of time ie. not so immediate as those of the virus itself.

 wbo2 05 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood: Well I bothered reading the cancer morbidity paper and they estimated 6700 or so per year, though there'ss obviously a large range associate.  So we are still a ways to go to get to 8000 per week

If you compare to 2018 only you'll get to pretty close to the 'average' based number.  If you want to prove these numbers aren't due to Covid you'd better come up with something credible killing these people because something unusual is doing it.

 LeeWood 05 Jun 2020
In reply to wbo2:

But can you tell us what manner of deaths comprise these speculated 150,000 - which may be the result if lockdown is not lifted soon enough ? A figure which currently doubles - even - the present figure for excess deaths ! 

Despite the population's apparent liberty - we (and I note this also for France where I live) are still in the grip of lockdown. It started out as a home/house-lockdown, and evolved into a mental / fear lockdown - which prevents us resuming normal life - social, economic or recreational. 

Note: it's not apparent from the ft article at what level of lockdown evolution it may be considered - that this is all over ...

 slab_happy 05 Jun 2020
In reply to CurlyStevo:

IFR = infection fatality rate?

> Flu IFR is around 0.02-0.05%. Most estimates of covid IFR based on random anitbody tests put it in the region of 0.5 to 1.0%.

So on that basis, we'd be looking at Covid-19 being somewhere from 20 to 50 times more lethal than flu?

 CurlyStevo 05 Jun 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

Covid ifr is approx 20 times more than flu. What we don’t know is the percentage of the population that can catch it. For example  I read one more of the other coronavirus we make anti bodies to shares enough rna with c19 that it likely provides some immunity. There could be other factors too.

Post edited at 19:52
 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to wbo2:

This article from 6 weeks ago discusses the category 'avoidable deaths' - here named as 'indirect deaths'.

// The “second wave” is already breaking. It is made up of non-coronavirus patients not able or willing to access healthcare because of the crisis. Based on ONS and NHS data, Edge Health estimates these deaths now total approximately 10,000 and are running at around 2,000 a week. //

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/two-new-waves...

Brief calculations follow - 6 x 2000 + 10,000 => 22,000 deaths in this non-covid-19 category, a siginificant element of excess deaths.

The strict identity of a covid-19 mortality has never been called into question - but maxing at 40k. //  C19 is the first disease in history from which you can officially die without any firm evidence that you actually had it.//

The evidence here is enough to question the basis for a pandemic - and further equally - evidence to call off the campaign of lockdown fear which continues to cripple the UK - and add to excess death rates. The UK is not alone in contending with such logisitics - lockdown damage by reason of a virus with unsubstantiated danger and death rate.

4
 Misha 06 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I think you are missing the point that without the lockdown the number of people dying would have been much higher.

1
 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> I think you are missing the point that without the lockdown the number of people dying would have been much higher.

Correct at the outset but as time goes on the rate of lockdown (avoidable) deaths will become dominant.

Should anyone wish to follow this discussion elsewhere on the web - search under LOKIN-20 - a named given to lockdown issues and associated deaths.

2
 Cobra_Head 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> I think you are missing the point that without the lockdown the number of people dying would have been much higher.


I've had this argument a number of times, it's the same one anti-Vaxxers use, "well I don't know anyone with polio, so why do I need to get vaccinated?"

 Misha 06 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Just saw this from the head of health analysis at the ONS:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NickStripe_ONS/status/1268823005305733125

Key conclusion:

“The balance of evidence so far points to undiagnosed COVID in the elderly being the most likely explanation for a majority of excess deaths that did not mention CV on certs”

So about two thirds of excess deaths have been linked to Covid and of the ones which haven’t, most are due to Covid anyway. That’s not to say that there haven’t been excess non Covid deaths but the weight of the numbers is firmly on the Covid side. 

 Cobra_Head 06 Jun 2020
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> Covid ifr is approx 20 times more than flu. What we don’t know is the percentage of the population that can catch it. For example  I read one more of the other coronavirus we make anti bodies to shares enough rna with c19 that it likely provides some immunity. There could be other factors too.


We also don't know what other damage CV does to parts of the body, people tend to think of it, as low risk for younger people, you either die or get better, but there are a range of damages done by having the virus, ling, liver and brain damage, to name a few, but we're not sure how long lasting these might be.

 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

It could sound convincing - if accompanied by suitable evidence.

 // C19 is the first disease in history from which you can officially die without any firm evidence that you actually had it. //

 Oceanrower 06 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Do you have trouble finding the speech marks on your keyboard? They should look like this. "......."

Post edited at 16:17
2
 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Do you have trouble finding the speech marks on your keyboard? They should look like this. "......."

Show me succint shorthand for quote presentation and I will use it - maybe UKC has enabled this and I've missed it. And you have obviously missed an attempt I made to illustrate this already.

// The value of this notation is to show that text is quoted from a link, and that sometimes - part of the quote reports spoken opinion - "I think you've got a good idea there" //

Your proposal would involve double quotes which could get confusing.

2
 Bulls Crack 06 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Can you be unofficially dead? 

 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

Yes

 bouldery bits 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I went today for the first time.

> I was crap...

Don't worry. That happens to me every time I go. 

 LeeWood 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Key conclusion:

> “The balance of evidence so far points to undiagnosed COVID in the elderly being the most likely explanation for a majority of excess deaths that did not mention CV on certs”

So this is pretty interesting - in that sense of the word we use for a climb or a move . There is a direct clash with the data from the two sources I quoted. All appear to be reliable ie. MSM - mainstream media. My 1st source from the FT gives an estimate for 'avoidable deaths' of 150k - but these is no timespan to judge current events with. The Telegraph however - is quite precise in naming 'avoidable'  deaths to date - and giving a weekly figure.

It seems unavoidable to conclude that someone is lying. It's not you or me because we are both reporting what we find in the media. Maybe it's not the people who hand out the numbers or statistics - lets be kind, they are doing their job as instructed. At a higher level someone has a vested interest in mis-representing reality - and the consequences for everyone are v real.

Such mis-representation has a definite intent - either control or money - which are interchangeable anyway. My view is that the ONS man is lying - on behalf of the government - because they want to keep us in lockdown mentality. What motive would you attach to the people who project and define 'avoidable deaths' - as a lie ? 

2
 Misha 06 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Why would the ONS be lying? They are data scientists and civil servants. Let’s have some respect for them.

Their data is historic so doesn’t take into account potential future non Covid deaths as a result of the lockdown. The guy doesn’t claim to be making future projections. That is a limitation of all historic data.

You have to compare two unknowns. First, future excess lockdown related deaths (plus any to date - as the ONS says, that’s a relatively small number). Second, the number of Covid related deaths without a lockdown. Here you could look at other countries but even Brazil has locked down to some extent (And Sweden are doing voluntary SD and closures), so there is no ‘pure’ comparator. Also in a lot of countries the stats are understating Covid deaths. Certainly the case in Russia, which has locked down to some extent anyway. We’ll need to wait for the epidemic to pass worldwide and look at the excess deaths numbers before we can make comparisons but even then there won’t be a comparator for no lockdown at all.

However one thing is clear: without a lockdown there would be far more deaths. 500k was the original estimate or 250k with various mitigating measures but no lockdown. We are on about 50k now so these original estimates don’t seem that far off. It’s common sense that there would have been many more deaths without a lockdown - just look at the graphs, that curve would have kept going till herd immunity was achieved. Estimates suggest about 7% have had it and you need more like 70% for herd immunity. 10x infections, so there’s the original 500k. It broadly stacks up.

Now would there be 500k deaths due to lockdown? We’ll find out eventually but that seems unlikely.

I have my reservations about certain aspects of the lockdown. Certainly if there’s a second wave I think it should be done in a more nuanced way. But it’s not reasonable to deny that there was (still is) an epidemic and that lockdown (largely) suppressed it.

Finally, as someone else said above, so you seriously think the government wants to keep us in lockdown?! It goes against every instinct of this government. That’s why they were so reluctant to impose it. Suppression of personal liberty is not something any mainstream British political party is in favour of and certainly not the Tories. Wrecking the economy and putting jobs and businesses on government funding life support leading to a ballooning deficit is anathema to them. They only did it because they had to, a necessary evil for them. Let’s be realistic: no one is trying to keep us in lockdown.

1
 Marcus Tierney 06 Jun 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Live with my Partner and we climb together. Live only half an hour from the Peak District. We are holding back the urge to travel to climb. Will climb in the lakes , Wales or Peak when they want us there, not until. Think we are all still a bit complacent, however respect others view and it is a personal choice.

 LeeWood 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> However one thing is clear: without a lockdown there would be far more deaths. 500k was the original estimate or 250k with various mitigating measures but no lockdown.

That is far from clear according to many sources. And you have done a lot of typing in order to completely avoid the verity of my supplied statistics. The Edge Health team discuss the adverse effects of lockdown with stats. You say there is no adverse effects from lockdown ??! The maths are simple - 22k to date, and a feasible component of the 150k FT prediction.

The problem here between us is belief. You and others here seem to prefer evidence which keeps you hiding under the stairs - just in case. I might have expected differently from a bunch of climbers - 'will that chock hold ? will I hit the ground with rope stretch ? sometimes bolts pull !' With arguments like these you never get off the ground ! As for me ...

I want to break free !

But I have a problem - I'm a climber and I need others to do my thing. The other 'small' problem is the future of society - as moulded by pandemic impacts; I'd like to see different values and possibilities for my 15yr old lad. 

Two sets of evidence - which one will you give the benefit of the doubt ? 

Post edited at 06:58
6
 wbo2 07 Jun 2020

K In reply to LeeWood: Theone that gives the best outcome in my opinion.  There are a lot of strands rattling around here, but your arguments are not very coherent or credible.

F0irst of all I don't believe the ONS is lying.  They have no reason to, and it would be hard to do.  So there are excessive deaths.  And these are after mitigating effects , 'lockdown' have been applied.  Without these the death rate would be a lot higher.  Look at localised rates in parts of Northern Italy and within care homes for a measure of that, or perhaps you don't believe that happened either?  You can make good arguments the UK government made a very bad job of it, but they still did something.  Why are rates so different between the Scandinavian countries?  Noone here is in any doubt.

You rely on very thin arguments, conspiracy theories, ignore data and instead rely on charlatans making stuff up on youtube, again!.

Couple questions Lee - why did lots of people in Italy and Spain die? And why did so many people in New York end up on respirators?

Why the difference between Norway and Sweden?

 LeeWood 07 Jun 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> You rely on very thin arguments, conspiracy theories, ignore data and instead rely on charlatans making stuff up on youtube, again!.

Classic text to define what I - the minority view - present relative to the Mainstream Media - and the overwhelming message which propagates fear and confusion. If you want to stay hiding under the stairwell - so be it. One day when

'10 years have got behind you'

you may yet see that you missed the starting gun. The majority is not always right !

I note that still you nor enyone esle have accepted or explained 22k non covid-19 deaths - from the mounting projection of 150k.

It's not v healthy cramped up under the stairwell !

5
 Misha 08 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

The reason I trust the ONS guy is he has loads of data avaialable to him, he's a professional statistician and he's supposed to be impartial.

You seem to think that governments all over the world are exaggerating Covid deaths and deliberately keeping us in lockdown. Why one earth would they want to do that?! Do you think Johnson wanted to do it? Cast your mind back to March - he wasn't keen at all, until he realised that the alternative was a massive death rate with an overwhelmend NHS.

Have you considered that the argument you're making happens to be in line with what you want to believe? I think you're letting what you want to believe guide your interpretation of the facts. Whereas I have no particular axe to grind. I'm not fervently pro or anti lockdown. I just try to look at the available information in an objective way and it seems to stack up as I outlined above.

I agree that there have been deaths due to the lockdown and there will be more in future (hopefully not 150k but we will have to see how things pan out). However 22k to date is an overstatement (see the ONS guy's twitter feed) and, even if 22k is correct, that's still only a third of the total excess deaths to date. What did the other 40k people die from? And how many more would have died without a lockdwon? Reliable data analysis won't be possible for a few more years but based on what we know so far it's fairly clear that, overall, the lockdown has saved a large number of lives.

Incidentally, throughout the lockdown I've maintained that it's fine to go climbing locally, safely and discretely. I chose not to myself but I totally understand and support those who did. Been out last three weekends, so hardly hiding under the bridge.

1
 Jon Stewart 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

I'm baffled too. What is the conspiracy even supposed to be?

 Misha 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Dunno, apparently Monbiot wrote a blog about it or something... Now it's true that some people made money out of a falling stock market by short selling, or simply selling when it started to slide and then buying once it had fallen. That's just normal stock broker behaviour though. Plenty of people will have lost money as well. To suggest that this is some kind of international conspiracy is, frankly, gibberish. May be it's linked with 5G?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What is the conspiracy even supposed to be

From what I can gather, it seems LeeWood thinks there is a BigPharma conspiracy to force a vaccine on us. Either simply to make money, or for other, unspecified nefarious reasons.

Or possibly to prevent LeeWood from being able to find partners to go climbing.

1
 LeeWood 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Can you be unofficially dead? 

Happens frequently with fatality among Himalayan ascentionists. The rest of the team know if someone has died but until reliable reports have been reported in mainstream media - the deaths are unofficial - so far as the grand public are concerned

1
 LeeWood 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Been out last three weekends, so hardly hiding under the bridge.

I'm glad my allegation does not fit in your case - Bravo! I have been out on 3 occasions but folk over here in France are reluctant and normal rhthyms have been disrupted.

The ONS man is a statistician; so I can't see why that should qualify him to comment on deaths of unknown categories.

Otherwise, I don't see why anyone should trust the government to do anything right. The history of the pandemic is one of politics, manipulation and commercial pressure at every twist and turn. Why you should imagine that is different of-a-sudden I don't know.

Is it surprising that hospitals were overwhelmed given the money-bungling in the run-up ? For anyone who doubts this I recommend - yet again - that you read Monbiot in The Machine Stops. Having correct PPE would have to have made significant difference - as also stopping Krispy Kreme donuts being served in hospital breaks !

Thankyou for finally looking at avoidable deaths category. Clearly it's time to get things moving again if we wish the 150k to become an empty prophecy. 

3
 LeeWood 08 Jun 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> LeeWood thinks

Have you followed chloroquine in the last 2 weeks - what was that all about ?

Surgisphere were clearly paid to produce their dodgy report - which have disgraced the Lancet & american NEJM. And yes I'm sure stock mkt traces would have recorded their responses.

But stock mkt values are trivial relative to deaths.  Had chloroquine - as HCQ - been authorised from the start europe would have had many less deaths. 

But if you doubt this as intentional - think back to the dilemma of air flight stewards - who knew they were spreading the virus, but refused PPE by their bosses. This willful negligence - among many others - all helped vector the coronavirus across europe and the globe.

The observation of the growing minority - is that the pandemic has been manipulated in order to justify the 'new normal' - which will 'trick and treat' variously according to each country and it's leaders. It's a BIG opportunity for change.

If change to date is anything to go by it will continue to marginalise the 'precariat' and make the rich richer. It may give away some benefits eg. environmentally, BUT all this decision making is so tangled with profit, I can't really see it ending well. 

Whether you see all this as random, manipulated or intentional from planning a decade ago - now matters little. We all need to be conscious of proposed changes and government actions - to know how and whether they will impact. And we also need to be aware that european leaders ARE under pressure from their puppet-masters; just how those chicken breasts can work out cheaper after crossing the Atlantic - god knows 😏

5
 Misha 08 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I give up...

3
In reply to LeeWood:

I’m frankly disappointed that you’ve fallen for this false narrative hook line and sinker. We all know it’s fiction perpetuated by the alien lizards in order to exert control over us to cultivate the human mind hive which will repair the damaged computer in their starship hidden behind the moon so they can return to their own planet and defeat their enemy robot amoebas..... 

 LeeWood 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

> I give up...

You should not give up but you should remain critical

From the OpenDemocracy group who recently uncovered the UK gov dodgy data deal:

Q: It is almost impossible to distinguish between conspiracy theories and to prove the extent to which intelligence services and specialised police units have infiltrated the media

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-...

The ultra rich have been getting richer during the pandemic, while the poor have been getting poorer. And some of those richest people have the power to form your opinions ! 

4
In reply to kevin stephens:

I am not climbing and I doubt I will be for some time. 

The act of climbing is similar risk wise to having a kiss and cuddle with your climbing partner. This risk is fine if you share the same house, bed etc not if you don't.

Restrictions still prevent you from visiting relatives and behaving in a manner with a similar risk profile to climbing (hugs and kisses). 

7
 Bulls Crack 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> I am not climbing and I doubt I will be for some time. 

> The act of climbing is similar risk wise to having a kiss and cuddle with your climbing partner.

You must be a very attentive belayer! 

 Dave Garnett 09 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> > LeeWood thinks

> Have you followed chloroquine in the last 2 weeks - what was that all about ?

I agree something very fishy indeed is going on with Surgisphere, although what the intended purpose of the fraud might be, and who is behind it, I can't imagine.  It's bizarre, and unfortunately will do little to convince people like you that the vast majority of scientific and medical research tries very hard indeed to be objective, data-driven and apolitical.   

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/whos-blame-these-three-scientists-a...

However, that doesn't mean that the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat C-19 patients would have saved lives.  The recent results from a proper randomised controlled trial (the Oxford-based RECOVERY trial) showed no benefit.

‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. 

‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible. 

Peter Horby, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health in the Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, and Chief Investigator for the trial, said:

‘Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have received a lot of attention and have been used very widely to treat COVID patients despite the absence of any good evidence. The RECOVERY Trial has shown that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Although it is disappointing that this treatment has been shown to be ineffective, it does allow us to focus care and research on more promising drugs.’

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-o...   

https://www.recoverytrial.net/

So, just because one, exceptional, fake trial seemed to show HCQ to be ineffective and dangerous, doesn't mean it's effective and safe.  I'll be following the Surgisphere scandal with interest.  I have to admit that it's a very worrying development.

Post edited at 09:44
In reply to Bulls Crack:

I realise that I am swimming against a tide of confirmation bias and desire goggles. 

On a route you are in close contact with your partner at belays, sometimes very close, climbing over each other,this is the cuddling. Then there is the placing and removal of gear which may have been held in the mouth, this is the kissing. 

Would you eat from the same fork as your climbing partner? 

You know where the dislike button is. 

Post edited at 10:03
3
 GrahamD 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

To an extent I'd agree.  The mitigating factor being that you trust your partner and presumably trust that they, too, have been keeping socially distanced.

Not that I'm persuaded just yet, just think the odds are better than with a random stranger.

 Bulls Crack 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Ahh multi-pitch routes - was thinking in sport terms which is the only climbing I'm doing at the moment. 

 LeeWood 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> The recent results from a proper randomised controlled trial (the Oxford-based RECOVERY trial) showed no benefit.

Prof Raoult has detailed the combination of drugs necessary for successful treatment - to include azithromycin.

I found a reference to AZ in your link:

Q: Over 11,000 patients have been randomised to the following treatment arms, or no additional treatment: Azithromycin (commonly used antibiotic)  

Its not clear exactly what this means but there is not reference to usage in combo with HCQ. Reminds me of many other studies which muddy the waters - they come back reporting research of 'chloroquine' when it is rather HCQ which is less problematic in side effects.

The success of any treatment is also critical w r t timing - I couldn't see reference to this. Raoult discusses presence of the virus during a relatively short onset period - during which it is critical to administer HCQ. After which viral load diminishes leaving the pt in worst cases - open to bacterial problems which create the pneumonia. By then it is too late for HCQ to act. 

 Dave Garnett 09 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Is there any evidence that people dying from C-19 pneumonia have a bacterial infection?

 LeeWood 09 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Is there any evidence that people dying from C-19 pneumonia have a bacterial infection?

Presumed evidence from previously known sources and evolution of pneumonia. This is being challenged in specific focus on covid-19. As yet undefined.

 Dave Garnett 09 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Presumed evidence from previously known sources and evolution of pneumonia. This is being challenged in specific focus on covid-19. As yet undefined.

Siri?  Is that you?

 Misha 10 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I meant I give up trying to have a reasonable debate with you because you seem to believe what you want to believe based on some kind of I’ll defined conspiracy theory. Yes, we should be critical but that doesn’t mean we should ignore common sense in favour of gibberish.

2
 Misha 10 Jun 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I admire your self restraint in not climbing. However...

You don’t have to climb over your partner on single pitch if you give some thought to crag and route choice and belay configuration. You don’t even need to second any routes - the leader can abseil or lower off the gear. Or you could go too roping. Each person can have their own rope end.

So even if you want to be super strict, you can still go and do some forms of climbing. It would be a bit of a faff but it’s certainly possible. You might not want to go through the hassle, which is another issue.

I don’t think touching your partner’s gear is anything like kissing them (their climbing gear, that is). I don’t tend to lick climbing gear or indeed my fingers. 

The other key factor is limiting your climbing partners to a small number of people at low risk of having or passing on Covid - WFH without kids at school etc.  

 LeeWood 10 Jun 2020
In reply to Misha:

I understood exactly what you meant. You are forgiven - to walk and talk against mainstream evidence is gibberish.

Explain to me in simple words - the tale of 2 islands during the pandemic - GB & NZ. Both went into lockdown 2 days apart in late march. At which point the whole world had ample evidence of the pandemic - Italy's stats @ 19/3/2020 - 41k cases, 3k4 deaths

Wikipedia stats for the 2 countries, 2 days ago:

  • UK - 287k cases, 40k8 deaths
  • NZ - 1k5 cases 22 deaths

From Monbiot, The Guardian, The Machine Stops

Q: While other countries either closed their borders or quarantined all arrivals, in the three months between the emergence of the virus and the UK’s lockdown, 18 million people arrived on these shores, of whom only 273 were quarantined. Even after the lockdown was announced, 95,000 people entered the UK, without additional restrictions. In fact, on March 13, the UK stood down even its guidance, gently requesting travellers from Italy and China to self-isolate. This decision, taken as other nations were stepping up their controls, seems baffling.

2
 The New NickB 10 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

NZ locked down considerably earlier in the process of the virus infecting the population. On the day of lockdown there had not been any deaths in NZ, in the U.K. it was already around 1,000.

Lots of other factors, but most of them involve NZ managing it competently and us making a hash of it. NZ did have a few advantages over us, but we had plenty warnings from Italy.

1
In reply to Misha:

Whilst there clearly are work arounds, how long these are adhered to in the real world is questionable. Engrained behaviours are tough to break. 

How many multiple car journeys will be tolerated until the parking, cost etc lead to car sharing? 

You are correct that certain types of climbing can be made safer but what of the recent crowds on Scafell? Here is where the kissing and cuddling comes in that rack of wires your partner just slobbered over are yours for the next pitch, that is after you have retrieved them. I don't believe any of the "just don't use your mouth" crowd, it is a behaviour engrained over decades, try not doing it when scared, pumped and run out.

We are rightly restricted from visiting relatives and behaving in the usual manner (physical contact etc). Yet some are going climbing with their mates with similar levels of contact. 

I am frustrated because I want to go climbing but it makes no sense at all to do so. 

Post edited at 10:02
2
baron 10 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> I understood exactly what you meant. You are forgiven - to walk and talk against mainstream evidence is gibberish.

> Explain to me in simple words - the tale of 2 islands during the pandemic - GB & NZ. Both went into lockdown 2 days apart in late march. At which point the whole world had ample evidence of the pandemic - Italy's stats @ 19/3/2020 - 41k cases, 3k4 deaths

> Wikipedia stats for the 2 countries, 2 days ago:

> UK - 287k cases, 40k8 deaths

> NZ - 1k5 cases 22 deaths

> From Monbiot, The Guardian, The Machine Stops

> Q: While other countries either closed their borders or quarantined all arrivals, in the three months between the emergence of the virus and the UK’s lockdown, 18 million people arrived on these shores, of whom only 273 were quarantined. Even after the lockdown was announced, 95,000 people entered the UK, without additional restrictions. In fact, on March 13, the UK stood down even its guidance, gently requesting travellers from Italy and China to self-isolate. This decision, taken as other nations were stepping up their controls, seems baffling.

The fact that you think the U.K. and NZ could have dealt with the pandemic in the same way shows you need to look at how many people enter NZ compared to the U.K.

Also NZ might be covid free but they won’t be when they open up to the world.

They are planning to do so, aren’t they?

 LeeWood 10 Jun 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> NZ locked down considerably earlier in the process of the virus infecting the population. On the day of lockdown there had not been any deaths in NZ, in the U.K. it was already around 1,000.

So that was a 1st step in bad descision-making

> Lots of other factors, but most of them involve NZ managing it competently and us making a hash of it. NZ did have a few advantages over us, but we had plenty warnings from Italy.

We all had plenty of warnings, and since NZ and GB are both part of the Five Eyes commonwealth group ) they must have also had access to similar intelligence.

Many people on this forum keep reminding me that sars2 is a highly contagious virus. How many steps of mismanagement must be taken to allow a highly-contagious virus to runaway and score 40k deaths ? 

How many steps of good management are needed to contain the same highly-contagious virus from producing just 22 deaths in a different country ?

NB. thats a factor of 1854x

2
 The New NickB 10 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I’m really not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. From your previous contributions it would appear that you think lockdown is a massive overreaction. NZ locked down early, it was effective. We locked down late, it appears to be a very significant factor in difference in outcome. If the UK hadn’t locked down at all, the death toll would likely be a good few multiples of the currently horrific figures.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...