UKC

The new English rules and guidance aren’t out yet but one thing BoJo mentioned was outdoor exercise is permitted with other household members or with one person from another household. I guess this reflects the fact that the risk of transmission is much lower in an outdoor environment. He did say it’s back to the ‘stay at home’ message but exercise remains one of the exceptions and it’s a bit more lenient than last time.

Of course just because you can doesn’t mean you should. It depends on your and your partner’s Covid risk profiles and it’s sensible to narrow down your circle of climbing partners (as it has been all year) but it’s good to see some recognition of the fact that there is less risk outdoors. Sensible risk assessment will be key.

What is not clear yet is what the rules on travel will be. It doesn’t sounds like there will be mandatory travel restrictions but I assume there will be guidance against non-local travel as currently with T3 areas. I’m sure the stay at home brigade will be along shortly to argue that people will die because people are going climbing at Stanage.

BoJo said that these measures are less severe than back in spring. It seems that outdoor activities are one of the areas of difference (the biggest one being education, rightly or wrongly).

Personally I’ve been out once over the last four weekends due to the weather and general lack of motivation. I can stay at home for the next four weekends as well but would be keen to get out within the rules as it looks like it will be drier from next week (typical!) and the walls will be closed.

The real issue is that a lot of these restrictions won’t magically end on 2 December and we will need to get through a long, dark winter. We all need to work out what we are comfortable doing, within the rules and taking any guidance into account as part of our personal risk assessment - not just for the next four weeks but for the next few months. Personal circumstances and opinions will differ.

Hopefully things will get better after Easter, though I think we will still be in a world of SD and face masks for most of next year at least.

Guidance is out now:

You can exercise or visit outdoor public places with the people you live with, your support bubble, or 1 person from another household.

Outdoor public places include:

parks, beaches, countryside,

public gardens (whether or not you pay to enter them), allotments

playgrounds

Which sounds good but non-essential travel is advised against. Exercise doesn’t count as essential travel. So my interpretation is you can travel for exercise in the countryside but it’s advised against, which goes back to my original comments. I will be keen to see to actual regulations to double check the legal (as opposed to advisory) position.

One other slight nuance. Back in spring there was a debate whether climbing counts as exercise and whether going climbing for exercise is a reasonable excuse given that you could do other more conventional forms of exercise. The wording above is more lenient - you can exercise or visit the countryside. Climbing ticks both boxes.

Also worth noting that only day trips are permitted. Van dwellers take note!

“You should avoid all non-essential travel by private or public transport.

Essential travel includes, but is not limited to

essential shopping

travelling to work where your workplace is open or you cannot work from home

travelling to education and for caring responsibilities

hospital GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health.

If you need to travel we encourage you to reduce the number of journeys you make, walk or cycle where possible, or to plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport. This will allow you to practise social distancing while you travel.

Overnight stays and holidays away from primary residences will not be allowed- including holidays in the UK and abroad. This includes staying in a second home, if you own one, or staying with anyone you do not live with or are in a support bubble with. There are specific exceptions, for example if you need to stay away from home (including in a second home) for work purposes.”

And so the self justification continues

Yep. Here we go again. If you need to try and justify what you’re doing you probably shouldn’t do it.

It’s VERY simple. Stay home unless you’re taking your kids to or from school, going to work, buying food or caring for others. To stop you getting fat you may leave the house for a walk or run or similar EXERCISE.

It really isn’t hard to understand.

Edit to say I really hate Boris and this Tory party. They’ve completely mishandled this Pandemic in my eyes. But the advice is pretty easy to understand and it’s even easier to understand the spirit of the guidance.

Stay Home, Don’t get fat, Protect the NHS

Yeah, the ethos is clearly to exercise starting and finishing at home, i.e. all of the period while out of the home should be spent exercising, bar "de minimis" stuff like stopping for a quick drink of water.

I guess there's a bit of give in this, e.g. for single people to drive to meet their support bubble-mate somewhere (as otherwise support bubbles couldn't work) though.  But not from London to the Peak for a spot of trad.

Here we go. Look down on those who chose to climb. Why not do what you want to do and let others do the same. We know the rules and people will stick to them. Not good enough for the likes of you/some. 

Oh what if you break a leg oh what if you crash your car 

Actually you both made that up. The guidance is very clear that what is allowed is outdoor exercise and recreation (or indeed just 'to visit an outdoor place'), not just exercise, and it is explicit that this includes countryside as well as other outdoor public spaces. There is no time constraint. It is definitely not just about allowing you to go for a walk to stay fit. It's about allowing you to use the outdoors in a low risk way (hence meeting 1 person limit outside of your household) to maintain your physical and mental health.  In whatever way you deem fit as long as you don't do it with or meet people you shouldn't. 

Should we not all be doing as much as we can individually to hopefully get life back to normal for everyone though and not trying to find ways to justify our selfish hobbies?

I’d love to go sailing, kayaking, windsurfing or climbing but I’ll just stick to cycling to work, walking the dog and using my rowing machine.

We all need to give up our usual freedoms to beat this. Otherwise we just prolong it for everyone.

Not entirely. Or to 'to exercise outdoors or visit an outdoor public place - with the people you live with, with your support bubble or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household.' (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november)

For example, if Misha is going to the crag abiding by the above advice he isn't breaking the rules. If you choose not to go climbing that's your choice but its unreasonable to judge other people for it. The conversation has been had many times on here already recently about the 'morals' of going climbing at the minute.  Of course, it requires a degree of personal judgement as to which one other person you go with etc but the bottom line is that it is low-risk.

Edit to address your most recent post: How is climbing with another member of your support bubble/household outside in any way selfish?

I've not digested the guidance yet, but honestly, people have been making their own minds up for some time in the face of government incompetence and even outright lies. Personally, the balance is between not going mad/being desperate to keep doing something I love set against the fact that case numbers are massive, deaths are rising and we need to look after each other by not spreading the virus.

Everyone will no doubt continue to keep their own counsel, so my only contribution is to urge people to weigh into the balance how serious the situation is that we are in.

It's not just our own actions., but about national unity and compliance in fighting the virus.  For example TV news footage of a crowded Stanage and cars parked all along the verge on a sunny day isn't going to discourage a group of mates congregating in a city park to share some beers and a smoke

Rather than being critical of people who will choose to do as is allowed, why not look at your view and consider that is the one which is wrong. 

People going outdoors to excersie alone or with in their bubble is not causing the increase in numbers. People need a release, people need some normality. That is not selfish. 

I will be climbing, it within the lockdown rules. 

I didn’t say it was. If I lived in Croyde I’d go surfing every day. If I lived within walking distance of a crag and my climbing partner was a household member I’d climb. If I lived in Llanberis I’d stage an assault on Mount Snowdon every day. That’s not what people are suggesting though and you know it.

Honestly though I’m done with it all. This place has been great with the vast majority of people understanding the crisis we are facing. As soon as we get told to knuckle down a bit more and stay in for 4 weeks people start having a hissy fit about not being able to climb. As SteveX pretty much said “buckle up buttercup it’s only 4 weeks”

Once it was permissible last time I went kayaking on flat inland water with my Dad.  I fail to see how not doing this would beat the virus.  

No going indoors at any point.  Nowhere near anyone that isn’t in my bubble.  Self reliant as a pair and well within our capabilities and comfort zone.  

I’m happy to give it a miss if that is what the rules say, but I’m pretty certain going to school is more of an issue.  

Fwiw I think for climbing this new state is identical to that from mid May when the original lockdown was first relaxed. That is when people started going outside back then, cautiously in limited numbers. Boris speech from the 11 May said, verbatim...

Step 1 - from this week:

Those who cannot work from home should now speak to their employer about going back to work.

You can now spend time outdoors and exercise as often as you like.

You can meet one person outside of your household outside (outdoors), provided you stay 2 metres apart. The social distancing measures remain absolutely crucial to us keeping the infection rate and the number of cases down as low as we possibly can.

... which is where we are back to now.

That's how I understand it too, you can go climbing with your household / bubble or one person from another household. 

However it's all academic right now as the weather looks dire right now and the nights are closing in.

My plan is get at least 2 final sessions in down the wall then back to the board for the duration of lockdown.

Should we not be trying to find ways to live our lives as normally as possible without increasing transmission risk because we're in this for the long haul?

Earlier in the year I stuck to the letter of the lockdown. I worked from home (I've not been to the office since March), I didn't travel, I didn't climb. I didn't do anything that could possibly even be perceived as having a negative effect on the effort to control Covid. Even after restrictions were lifted I haven't been out to restaurants or pubs or met up with friends indoors. I've seen my family once since xmas. And for what? The utter failure of the government to use the time provided by a massive national sacrifice to build up public health capacity. The siphoning off of billions and billions to private companies in dodgy contracts. 'Dishy Rishi' spaffing taxpayers money bribing people to spread covid. So no, I'm not going to stop doing something that has absolutely zero epidemiological impact this time round.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post, my bad. Hypothetically would you be opposed to someone driving to a crag 20 minutes away, provided everything was covid friendly? My point is I don't see the difference between walking to a crag provided it's within the rules and driving 20 minutes to the crag if it's within the rules (and with household/bubble/one other person socially distanced etc/not coming into contact with others).

I understand where you are coming from here but if you aren't coming into contact with anyone/putting anyone at risk I don't quite see why going climbing/surfing/kayaking is an issue. I don't want to speak for Misha but it didn't sound to me like he was having a hissy fit. It sounded like a reasoned summary of the rules and him clarifying what was within them.

Absolutely.  Climbing isn't a selfish hobby in this context though. Neither climbing (solo bouldering anyway) nor driving on your own to a crag presents any risk. It would be far more selfish in my view to deny other people their hobby on the basis of where they live. This was what wound me up about some locals' attitudes as we exited lockdown 1. I take major issue with people saying things like you said you would if you lived in Llanberis - that you would go up Snowdon every day but noone who lives elsewhere should be allowed. Stuff that.

But it doesn't have that in the list of exceptions for travel.

That could be a drafting error, given that it's been rushed, but as I read it you're at least advised against it.

I would rather unlimited daytripping was allowed, as it's quite low risk and gives you more variety in your exercise.  During that stage last time I cycled a load of old railway lines.

I know it's not just an individual thing, hence saying that 'we need to look after each other'. Nonetheless, your scenario is a bit far-fetched and it's the Tories rather than climbers who have squandered the sense of unity and solidarity.

"So no, I'm not going to stop doing something that has absolutely zero epidemiological impact this time round." 

^^^^^ This. Absolutely this. 

Continue your climbing within the limits of guidance. The benefit to mental health far outweighs the tramission risk outdoors.

I really wish that those determined to unnecessarily constrain themselves would desist forcing their (mis)interpretation of the guidance on others. Again. 

Extrapolate that out to every single person wanting to continue doing their hobby, passion, addiction and you may begin to see why we are in the crisis we are in.

if I go and climb Snowdon next weekend I probably won’t affect the infection rate, but if 10,000 people do then it most likely would. 
 

We are being asked collectively to stay in as much as we possibly can. Every single person in England could think of a reason why they could go out and not spread the virus. And individually it wouldn’t but when everyone does their thing it would and it does.

What is your evidence for that? I've not seen anything that suggests transmission between passing walkers outside?

That being said, I would agree that honeypotting at busy mountains or crags isn't sensible. If its busy move on. Or if you're incapable of making that judgement then yes, stay at home.

You could say that or you could say that this is a very clear exemption. 

I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m setting out what the rules are, as far as I can see.

You mention exercise. The new rules also permit going to ‘the countryside’. That is new compared to the rules back in April. 

A good way to judge your actions.

nice one

I agree but we also need to abide by the rules at the very least. I was pointing out what the new rules appear to be and that they are different to last time. They are different for a reason - there is an acknowledgment that outdoor activities are low risk. I think some people are beating themselves up unnecessarily. In practice, I might not get out given the time of year (usually I go dry tooling in autumn but can’t be bothered this year as don’t think winter climbing will be feasible). However I like the idea that I could do it. 

This is why all you thick people will be in lockdown forever . The information is . To be clear stay at home unless you absolutely need to go out !!! . Why for once the British public can’t obey the rules is beyond comprehension. Exercise is permitted , but do Not travel unless you need to ! .. 

If it is safe enough for me to spend thirty hours per week with thirty children in a classroom, with no social distancing, it is safe enough for me to go climbing. I haven't been on a holiday, eaten out to help out, travelled around the country, been to a pub, stopped in shops where I don't live, shared lifts or been to the climbing wall. I have climbed with a couple of friends who I feel are also behaving responsibly and stayed away from older friends (including my Dad) who I would normally climb with. This is the first year since I could walk when I haven't been climbing or up some good hills with Dad. 

James

Indeed. There is of course the risk of spread to/from a non household partner. This can be mitigated by distancing as much as possible and above all by choosing who you climb with. Once the walls close, my only contact with other people will be at the supermarket. 

I don’t think anyone has ever called me thick. First time for everything, I suppose. Good thing I’m quite thick skinned. Good evening to you, sir. 

I think the idea is that exercise and visiting the countryside is allowed but travel is advised against. This is not contradictory as such but it is a bit odd. 

In reply:

I'm a bit slow on the uptake (I'm really not kidding) so please excuse me and humour me

It looks to me that on this thread people are saying they can still travel to climb from 5 November. Presumably that includes e.g. driving from London to Llanberis? And Birmingham to Stanage? Yet during the last lockdown people on here were criticized for doing that because even if they took food & drink from home with them, they were still touching petrol pumps and going into toilets and touching them and thereby possibly spreading the virus

Is that what on this thread people are saying? Thank you

PS Misha, my post is not at all directed at you or replying to you (e.g. your OP) or criticizing you. Thanks for starting this thread

Your presumptions around both the risk and the guidance are wrong. And worse than that is your derogatory assault on those that disagree.

Youre entitled to your opinions but keep your shitty attitude to yourself. 

I would say read the guidance and make your own opinion of what you think is sensible.

That being said, those are two bad examples. I'm staying local - the nearest quiet crag or area and very deliberately avoiding the honeypots.

Can’t drive to Llanberis as Wales is currently in a much stricter lockdown for at least another week.

You raise a good point - how is it different to last time? It looks like the rules are more relaxed this time. One way to look at it is they seem to allow what some people were doing last time anyway but which wasn’t really within the spirit of the rules last time (eg driving from London to Stanage). It looks like this time there is an acknowledgment that outdoor activities are ok - although travel is still advised against. It is a subtle distinction.

As regards touching things, that is still a concern but it can be mitigated by using gloves and sanitiser etc. 

I don't think you're best positioned to call other people "thick". 

Thanks for your reply, Misha

I'm now quarantined (like all overseas arrivals - plus tested for Covid-19 after arrival, another test 5 days from now) in a flat in South Korea, flew here from the UK 7 days ago so one week quarantine to go. The SK government takes CV-19 very seriously. We can't go out even for food, or have anyone round for 14 days. We're constantly tracked through our mobiles (have to report in twice a day through a government app): if I leave my mobile sitting on a table for a couple of hours, it makes a weird loud alarm sound with a message "Pick up your phone, it hasn't moved for a while"

I like the strict rules here - the incidence of the virus, and death rate, are low

Get yourself a cat and a roll of gaffa tape

On a more local basis, I'll be totally annoyed if they shut Rutland Water access at all times again, as I see no justification for this. I often go for a run there, and can maintain a gap of 2m distance from others very readily: Whilst the complaining Anglian Water workers complain at their idea of misdemeanours, but come far closer than 2m apart from the public.

What - to eat?? Ha-ha-ha

Food is our problem. home delivery isn't possible for a couple of reasons.... City Hall sent us one box of free food but not very much...... without the generosity of one acquaintance who left some food once outside our door I don't know how we'd have eaten...... it was not possible to shop on or after arrival - going through Seoul airport there about SIX Covid-19 checkpoints before Immigration, they were absolutely dead serious and it all took a very long time, hours. We were then escorted/ rushed (by the police, then through another [Army] checkpoint) onto a leper's bus and then a leper's coach on a train to come here

Tape your phone to the cat and the app will never know you went for a takeaway.

That's pretty crap they dumped you in there with no ways of getting food. At least that's seven down and just 7 more to go. After that you can eat the cat

Yh I agree that risk is there in terms of spread to a non-household partner and from what I can see the onus is on the individual to make that decision. But as I say it is about taking some personal responsibility about the individual you climb with and what the possible knock-on effects are. I certainly wouldn't consider climbing with my grandad but climbing with a mate who lives alone and is WFH (single pitch, socially distanced etc etc etc) would imo be fine.

Why not just do everything in your power not to spread the virus?
If that means not climbing for a month, then so what?  Every little personal sacrifice potentially helps.  Err on the side of caution, as opposed to saying "Well, the rules suggest I can, so I will...".  
It gets particularly disturbing when people seem to be deliberately conflating two sets of rules to allow them to travel to climb, etc.
 

Tape the phone to the cat - OK, I get it now - good thinking! There are still the numerous CCTV cameras outside, though...... and foreigners have been heavily fined for breaking quarantine here (I have no problem with that), and deported, second offence (especially if they have CV symptoms)

Dislikers, please explain your position as opposed to blindly jabbing at a button...

I disliked your post because I disagree with what you said, I wasn't 'blindly jabbing'.

Sure, if not climbing for a month would end covid then I would, of course, do that. But as I have mentioned already transmission outdoors is low and if you are doing it with a member of your support bubble/household then how is this any different to sitting on the sofa with them? 

The rules say you can exercise outdoors which includes climbing. I don't know why some people have confined exercise to just running and cycling. Going to climb something is no different. In addition, the rules clearly state that you can meet one other person outside. So climbing outdoors with another person is within the rules. I have not come to this conclusion through some sneaky loophole or a suggestion in the rules, it explicitly says both these things.

I think in general people are trying to follow and understand the rules whilst making some consideration for their sanity. It sounds as though you think people are going into this with some bullheaded attitude and no regard for anyone else. Speaking for myself it is quite the opposite. As I mentioned earlier me going climbing with one other person (as is allowed) who is WFH and lives alone bears minimal risk to anyone. I would of course not climb with someone who is or lived with someone that is high risk.

How long will you 'err on the side of caution' and suggest others should implement further restrictions on themselves, over and above the rules set out by the government? I'm guessing it is until you make the judgement that it is appropriate to stop doing this. Btw I don't mean to sound like a tw*t when I say that. I am just trying to understand why you are criticising people who are just following the rules.

details on the new rules to be published on Tuesday so maybe ease off on the speculation until then?

If freedoms are restricted it’s only for one month in November (so far ) so most people wouldn’t be missing a lot of climbing anyway 

Sorry, but that is missing the point. Schools are not safe and are only being kept open because education is considered of the highest priority but they will only be able to be kept open if people avoid other risky behaviour. Having said that, it probably is safe enough to go climbing.

I disliked it because you are shouting out you opinion like it's some fact. 

The rules state outdoor exercise is encouraged. 

If you want to stay in, do that. Don't expect everyone to follow you when there is no evidence to suggest it will help. 

The covid police on here are making new rules 

Back to the original thread title. The whole meeting one other person from another household is only if you live on your own or are the only adult in your home. 
 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#stay-...

I can’t see the bit which says that the last part - “or 1 person from another household” - is conditional on you being the only adult in the household. It’s distinct from the reference to a support bubble

Could you quote back the section you’ve taken that from?

So only sad single people and smug climbing couples can go climbing🙂

If you mean this bit... 

"to exercise outdoors or visit an outdoor public place - with the people you live with, with your support bubble or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household"

It seems to be saying if you go outside with members if your household or support bubble, i.e. not on your own, you can't then meet up with somebody else. If you go out on your own you can meet somebody else. 

That's ambiguous- my reading of it is that you can meet 1 person from another household in the outdoors and the 'when on your own' refers to the in the outdoors bit rather than living on your own(?) 

to exercise outdoors or visit an outdoor public place - with the people you live with, with your support bubble or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household.

I took that to mean when living on your own?

Either way if the person is not in your bubble you’d have to wear a mask and stay 1m away or 2m without a mask. Not sure how you can climb with someone and not get close to them at the start or at the belay point.

One of the first things I heard.

I'm just annoyed that after getting paid to climb for the whole summer by boris that I've actually just got a job when I could scrounged another months climbing grant!

as said above it’s clearly separate from support bubbles

Means on your own when your outside (I.e. it isn’t a “household+1” meet-up, it’s a 1-1 meet-up). 

Agree re the mask and stuff. But technically all climbing now should be socially distanced if with people outside your household, so I don’t think that’s actually any different from now.

Of course the travel bit comes under should so its all optional anyway.

Ultimately the virus spreads via close contact poorly ventilated areas. 

At a crag there's no driver whatsoever for transmission. Unless to quote JVT you tear the pants out of. You cannot catch it off a rock in a field on your own. 

Will I still climb yes, will I go to plantation on a weekend share mats and back slapping on Deliverance no of course not. If you don't see people and actively do not socialise I don't mean two meters I mean simply refraining from interacting at all then you cannot catch it. I don't know why that fact gets lost. 

I was very much in favour of no climbing first lockdown when formite transmission was the alleged primary driver.  Now we know that's not the case plus it can be actively mitigated Sanitiser, sunlight, humidity etc. Stay at home is the wrong message. Should be stay the f*ck away from everyone at all costs. 

It's not directly contradictory, but it does inform behaviour, i.e. that the intended effect is that you visit countryside very local to you in order to avoid spreading it between different parts of the country.

I think they need to clarify this like they did last time - either "you must not travel to exercise unless you need to do to meet your single person support bubble, or it would be unsafe to exercise from your home in which case travel must be minimised" or "you may travel to an unlimited extent for permitted exercise".  That would make it clear.

The core of the new lockdown rules is to stay at home unless you have a valid reason to go out, one of which is exercise.  Last time this was limited to exercise from home.  These rules were then eased for the benefit of, for example , urban residents who didn't have an open space within walking distance.

We won't know until the details are announced on Tuesday but I would be surprised if there wasn't some sort of restriction on how far people can venture from home for exercise.

The fact that golf has already been prohibited in yesterday's announcement is a signal that exercise may be more restricted than many on this thread hope.

Of course every group, including climbers can come up with valid justification that their sport is ultra low or zero risk so shouldn't be restricted; hill walkers travelling to the Lake District, anglers, sea kayakers, open water swimmers etc etc

Although I've taken the decision not to climb myself I wouldn't begrudge those of my friends who choose to do so , regulations permitting.

A major reason claimed for failure of measure so far to control the virus is over complexity and apparent contradictions in regulations / guidance.  Therefore the Government's regulations are more likely to be simple and less nuanced - maybe restricting the time or distance allowed for travel for exercise.

Let's wait and see what the details are 

Golf is a bit bizarre, provided you play a round with your household/bubble only it's no different to going for a walk.

The other odd one this time is that pubs won't be able to do takeaway alcohol.  I wonder if this is to stop "unofficial beer gardens" springing up as they did last time?  I wonder if allowing it (to take home) but an outright ban on open containers of alcohol in a public place would work better, as the pubs will need the money.  It won't have an effect on parties unless they ban supermarkets selling it.

Let's extrapolate it to every person who wants to continue doing their hobby in a limited way that brings zero material risk of spreading the virus, and is allowed within the rules. Then, people don't have to stay locked indoors, they can do outdoor hobbies alone or with another person (I'd recommend they think carefully about who that other person is - someone who lives with their vulnerable partner, maybe not...of course it is unlikely those in that situation will want to meet up).

That will not allow increased transmission of the virus and will be extremely helpful in people getting through a very depressing time. 

The puritanical approach pissed me off last time, and it will piss me off again. As a community, can we please give one another the credit of sufficient intelligence to be able to abide by the rules, behave responsibly, and still take opportunities to get out to the crag or up a hill without causing any material risk of transmitting the virus. You don't earn any moral superiority by self-isolating rather than following the lockdown rules.

You can exercise in the countryside with one other person. If you feel the journey is too far and involves some risk, don't go.

I think that the main reason to limit travel, is to avoid use of facilities such as toilets and filling stations for fuel. So if you fill your fuel tank to avoid the need for fuel, and pee in the grass, and maybe take your own facilities for defaecation, in the less frequent need for that; then you should not be instigating further spread of viral infection, especially if careful in how you approach other people at your chosen crag. Perhaps you should choose Alderman, or Agden Rocher, for instance, as normally being less frequented venues, and change your climbing base according to numbers when you arrive.

That's existing legislation isn't it? English rules for the nationwide lockdown this week haven't been published yet have they? 

I'll say it is.  That 'spirit' being "Oh ffs, ok then we've been forced to admit defeat, commit to yet another U-turn and go into lockdown, but we're not going to do it properly."

Having a national lockdown while keeping schools, universities, building sites and factories open is like brushing your teeth whilst eating a bag of Wotsits.

We can all wrangle as much as we like about whether or not it's ok for someone who lives in Sheffield to go to Stanage, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference.

I agree with you; lock-downs will not deal with the virus. Avoiding indoor contact with others should become the norm, the vulnerable should be shielded and physical distancing be enforced.  People meeting out doors will have no impact on the spread of the virus. It may also prevent much greater harm, I already know of one young man who took his own life due to the isolation rules here in Wales lead to. 

I was very cautious in March/April given how little was really evidenced and how close to disaster we were.  I was happy to take a few weeks out of the world to let things come under control, and didn’t have any issue over-complying, and felt no need to push at the highly ambiguous rules.

The OP is now discussing things that should comply with the new rules; some other posters are suggesting some moral duty to over comply it seems to me.

The outdoors is not a magic safe zone - look at the White House rose garden super spreader event to show that.  But so long as one doesn’t hug/kiss/whatever the person you’re doing it with it seems pretty dammed safe.  Don’t ride share would be my #1 tip...

I don’t think that staying home instead of going for a walk or a climb is going to shorten the lockdown for everyone or indeed for anyone. What I think we have is over-legislation to deal with under-compliance with T2/T3 rules on household mixing and outdoors social distancing - especially with people’s judgement going to shit when in groups outdoors after the pubs shut.  Lockdown raises the threshold for someone to violate the “lower” rules that matter, it makes those violations more obvious and easier to enforce against.  It fixes the post-pub problem.

My worry now is that under compliance from some, particularly behind private, closed doors, will continue to be a problem making this lockdown not effective enough.  We’ll cross that bridge if we come to it.

If going out for a climb or a walk with a friend helps someone to stay connected and helps them avoid the temptation to invite them round the house for a chat, perfect. Helps compliance with the rules helping everyone.  But remember - the outdoors isn’t a magic barrier to transmission; it helps a lot but you still need to be sensible, not spend time in each others faces and so on.

Any evidence for people catching it at fuel stations (curious, not being antagonistic)?

In a way I’m glad the message is ambiguous, and I expect the “rules” when published will be open to interpretation. This means that I get hours of “entertainment” reading UKC forum threads, with the usual suspects...Misha, Jon, Kevin, et al, and by the time I’ve finished reading the threads and occasionally responding...it’s gone dark outside and it’s too late to climb anyway....problem solved.

The rules allowing outside exercise including with one person from another household seem to suggest going climbing is absolutely fine.

The rule saying avoid travelling unnecessarily seems to make climbing quite difficult for most of us who don't live so close to a crag that we could walk or cycle there. 

I suspect because of the tension between those two sections of the new guidance, there simply isn't a good answer as to whether we can or can't go climbing over the next month. People can get up on and even graciously down off their high horses facing in both directions, but I suspect this thread will run until they archive it at 200+ posts with no conclusion.

You can say that, but enforcing people meeting in houses is effectively unenforceable - we just don't have the size of Police Force (or even Armed Forces) to knock on doors and catch people doing it.

See Wintertree's reply above about the White House superspreader, but it depends on circumstances, and that was in the warmer climate previously.

There was an interesting virological evaluation by scientists last night on Radio 4, about 1am, and I intend to listen again,as I was falling asleep... It was saying that certain numbers of viral particles in fluid particles can increase the problem of transmission, but a more concentrated environment goes against the virus. Other conditions allow the formations of v small crystals around viral particles, etc. So all worth listening to in a moment when the listener is lucid.

It is not about enforcement, it needs to be about change in behaviour. Unfortunately that requires education, community discipline and leadership, all sadly lacking at this time. 

Won't happen even with quality leadership (I doubt behaviour is really much different in Scotland, and Sturgeon is certainly a quality leader in a COVID sense).  People in the UK are culturally too selfish; we aren't and are never likely to have the collectivist type approach of e.g. South Korea.

I think there is a fair bit of that sort of culture in here, but UKC really does not in the slightest reflect the wider population - generally speaking people here are both more intelligent (with a proportionally very large number of academics) and more considerate than the wider population.

Sadly I agree with you.

generally speaking people here are both more educated

Fixed that for you.

"but UKC really does not in the slightest reflect the wider population"

When you say UKC, do you mean climbers in general?
 

Either way I would say that they are just a mix of people, but possibly more educated* and possibly more selfish.

* I once heard a great phrase "educated numb c*&%s" which rather summed up the situation.

I agree

I understand your point. But I would say that the rules are open to interpretation and maybe we will get some more travel clarification on Tuesday? I would suggest just using some common sense about crag choice etc etc etc. But in the end, everyone has their own opinions - if you want to stay at home fine, if you want to go climbing fine. Just be sensible.

We could open a new thread and go for another 200?  

Maybe there will be clarification, who knows. Avoid unnecessary travel is open to interpretation but I can see why people who are scared, or have already lost loved ones, might see people driving to go climbing to be taking the piss if they say that's "necessary". Early November last year I went and climbed Crib Lem in really good winter conditions, even ice placements for my crampons in a couple of places (on a ridge, in Wales, in November!!). I can't believe I'm saying it, but I hope Wales or the Lakes don't get snow and frost in the next month so I don't have to worry about going over and if i'm allowed or should...

All a bit moot anyway, I'm in work tomorrow standing in front of around 100 kids over the day, and so far it seems will carry on doing so all month. I suspect sooner or later I'll have self isolate for 14 days, or will catch the damn thing anyway.

No, I mean the people who use this forum, I can't really comment either way on "climbers in general" as I don't really know that many of them other than the people I climb with and posters on here.

I completely understand why people would be scared. Of course, climbing isn't 'necessary' - it's a bit pointless just like most things. They may be of the view that me driving to go climbing is 'taking the piss', but if by doing so I don't bear a risk to others then it doesn't, imo, matter what they think. 

I say get out if it's allowed, it will probably be good for you. On the point of whether you should, I think that's up to you. Just be sensible. What I should or should not do is not going to based on the consensus of the UKC forums. 

Compared with that the risk of going climbing is negligible. 

There may be some logic to it. More of us have had the virus; we're much better informed about not spreading it to the vulnerable; the vulnerable are  being much more cautious themselves; we're no longer so terrified that if we walk past someone in the street they'll infect us; the NHS knows a lot more about what to do with covid patients. The increase in deaths looks nothing like the spring spike, so I don't see that the restrictions need to be as harsh. We're trying to keep within NHS capacity, not eliminate the thing. 

I'm not exactly confident, but there is at least some hope that the level of restriction is roughly appropriate to the aim of keeping the NHS from being overwhelmed.

They’ve just updated the guidance,if you go to Gov.uk/exercise-guidance, looks fairly draconian and will cause some issues, main take away point from the guidance is:

...” travel to exercise outdoors, including climbing, is permitted in so far as you must follow strict ethics, no pre-practice, no logging a route as on-sight if it’s covered in chalk and you just belayed you’re support bubble mate on it...”

See, things are looking up already.

Throughout this situation the "rules" have fallen into two categories - things you must (or musn't) do, which are mandatory and backed up by law, and those you shouldn't do, which are advisory.  It hasn't helped that the government, the police, the media, and online commentators have often muddled the two.  What is and isn't permitted by law must be defined as precisely as possible, but some matters have to left to people's judgements.  

Short of a total 24/7 curfew with troops on the streets, any lockdown can be only partial and some things have to be permitted.  The powers-that-be have decided that outdoor exercise can be permitted, and the experience of the first lockdown suggests that there is good reason for this, for people's physical and mental health.  At present, this does not appear to be restricted to exercising only from your home, which implies that it should be OK travel to partake in exercise.  People are free to decide differently for themselves, but until we are told otherwise the rules appear to contain some latitude (as they should, we can't possibly have detailed restrictions for every aspect of human existence).  

In deciding whether or not it is OK to travel surely the main thing to consider is the underlying purpose of the restrictions.  The advice against travel is in reality nothing to do with the journey itself or its end purpose but is all about reducing the situations where people come together and could pass on the virus.  If you can travel to a venue for permitted exercise without coming into contact with others, either during the journey or at its destination, then the risk of transmision is minimal.  Travelling by car to a layby in the countryside is a very different proposition to travelling to an urban destination.

I'm fortunate enough to live on the edge of the Peak District, and could walk or cycle to my nearest crag.  If I were to do so, quite possibly I'd encounter more people than if I do the journey by car. I can see no reason why someone shouldn't make a much longer journey by car, if they could be sure they could safely do it within a day and without stopping for fuel, a pee or for refreshments.  However they should also take into account the greater risk of a breakdown or other unforseen circumstance which might result in contact with others.

There are many aspects of our lives besides climbing where the rules cannot be explicit and where we will have to make our own judgements.  Personally, I'm being very cautious as I have family members who are clinically vulnerable (as am I since they redefined this to include anyone over 60) so I haven't climbed at all this year, but many of my friends have made their own decisions and done differently, and that is absolutely fine with me.

I did wonder what golfers had done to deserve being singled out like that. Normally I have absolutely no sympathy for golfers at all because, well, it's golf. But it was odd that it was specifically excluded, when otherwise outside exercise with one other person is being encouraged.

Looks like it's been updated:

===

11. Travel

You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area, and you should look to reduce the number of journeys you make. However you can and should still travel for a number of reasons, including:

travelling to work where this cannot be done from home

travelling to education and for caring responsibilities

hospital GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health

visiting venues that are open, including essential retail

exercise, if you need to make a short journey to do so

===

Unless you happen to live somewhere like Hathersage, I think that clearly says climbing is out.  Driving from London, or even Manchester, to the Peak is not a "short journey".  Clearly that's intended for e.g. people who live on main roads with no pavement who might be at serious risk if they go for a run/walk from home.

Yep

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november

We'll see I guess.  I'm certainly not so sure about 'the vulnerable' being more cautious than before, those who were 'shielding' were effectively under house arrest (and there were a few posters on here cheerfully willing to pass judgement on them from a very high horse if they so much as stepped out of their front doors and went for a walk).

It's also hard to see how many of the people who will be expected to go to work as normal will then be coming home and sticking rigidly to the rules.  I'm not convinced they'll see the point.  We'll be asking them to sacrifice recreational activities much less risky to them and their loved ones than their day at the office.  (Not an actual office.)  I'm aware of course that lots of people in 'essential' jobs have been doing this for months, but they are people who know their jobs are, well, essential.

Anyone who thinks social distancing will be scrupulously followed in every workplace is delusional.  Something needs lifting that's a bit too heavy or bulky for one person, something needs four hands rather than two to get the thingamabob threaded through the spraggle nut washer - are people going to redesign the way they do their job, stop work for hours, hire or buy expensive new equipment to find a better way than "you lift, I'll shove"?  Will they suit up in hazmat suits, or just glance about to see if anyone is looking then do it the way they always did?

Here's a photo of a bloke at work failing utterly to socially distance a wee while ago.  In his case for no good reason at all.  There are lines on the floor to make it easy to remember, like the ones he would probably ignore in the supermarket if he did his own shopping.  He is fully aware that a BBC news camera points at his place of work, and he is the secretary of state for f*cking health!  Do we seriously think two labourers on a building site will do so much better?  (Mind, they could hardly do much worse.)

I wouldn’t have interpreted it that negatively. 

- Its still advisory

- Whilst it’s more clear that driving from London to the Peak is not advised, I think we all knew that already

- depending on ones definition of local area and short it now firmly clarifies that you can drive in order to exercise and still be within the scope of the advice. It completely removes the idea that exercise is only a from-the-front-door thing.

Your definition might be that this only benefits people who already live in Hathersage, that depends entirely on what “local area” and “short” are taken to mean, but that’s a personal interpretation not explicit in the actual guidance so isn’t going to be a universal interpretation. I think this is a going to be seen as a positive clarification for many.

I agree that compliance will be absolutely shite this time round.

However, the situation simply is not the same as in March, and my guess is that we don't need as tight restrictions and we don't need as good compliance as we did then, if the goal we're aiming for is just to prevent societal meltdown.

I think many people are under the misapprehension that Johnson is ordering a lockdown because he doesn't want to see loads of people die, but I don't believe that for a second. He's not the kind of guy who gives a shit about anyone else. I think he wants to avoid societal meltdown and is aiming for the policies that get as close to that tipping point as possible without actually reaching it. And I pretty much agree with the approach: harsher lockdown is unfair on the vast majority of people whose lives it will ruin and who aren't at risk from covid; allowing the virus to continue on the current track will lead to meltdown (e.g. emergency services not functioning, food and petrol not being delivered to shops, etc.).

Maybe we need tighter restrictions and good compliance to avoid meltdown, and we're all doomed (although I think the scientists would be bright enough to see that coming and revert to March rules, or even harsher involving the army before we reached that point). Or maybe Johnson is being over cautious and we could get away with lighter controls (but I find this totally unconvincing - the data do not support it). We just don't know, but I think that Whitty and Valance etc. are reasonable people to put in charge of the advice, and thank god, it turns out Johnson isn't quite as thick as people like Iain "don't give into facts" Duncan Smith. Or perhaps even that piece of shit would support the lockdown if he'd had the same briefing as Johnson?

Manchester to parts of the Peak could be a "short journey".  Sheffield to other parts of the Peak most certainly is.  Indeed fairly substantial parts of the Peak are actually inside the city limits.  Burbage, for example, speaking of which..

In the thread that hosts complaints about the tier 3 wankers* of Sheffield visiting Derbyshire, we've seen various posters arguing that you must follow the 'advice' to the letter or you are morally reprehensible.  Will we now see those same posters abandoning their unshakable dogma and arguing that you should just try to interpret the spirit of the rules and do what you think is best?  (Precisely the position they were often arguing against in that thread.)

Or will they concede that the terrible sin of driving for 20 minutes to visit Stanage in contravention of the 'advice' on Wednesday will be hunky dory again when it complies with the rules on Thursday?

(*I know ChrisJD didn't say "Tier 3 wankers", he actually spelled a word with all asterisks.  "Wanker" is one of the milder words that comes to my mind if I see someone describe someone else as a "********" in writing.  I took it from his rant that he was actually calling me, for example, a worse name than that.)

Hard to argue with that, I agree with just about everything you say.

Whatever we do from here is unfair on somebody.  A less harsh lockdown is unfair on those whose lives it will ruin as restrictions on their lives and businesses drag on for longer than they might have needed to.  (Not to mention, of course, those whose lives will be ended as we choose to accept a higher death toll than we otherwise might have.)

I broadly agree but am waiting slightly anxiously to see what the legislation says on Tuesday. I am hoping it is clear if there is a rule on this topic (and I very much doubt they would use a word like short without defining clearly what that meant.) If it remains only as guidance then ambiguity is ok. 

So what it means regarding second homes Johnson put the clause in so that Cummings can go to Durham his second home to work but I can't go to ours for to keep it dry and warm.

keith s

Yeah, agree. If it switches to becoming law then I hope it would be clearer but also recall that the original rules were fairly vague (only in that I remember the police officer guidance, when it came out, feeling like a beacon of clarity in terms of an interpretation of the rules that had some practical weight behind it)

That's ambiguous, of course.

Is that one person the same person every time, or a different person every time?

The same ambiguity applies to the advice about support bubbles; it says 'another household'.

I'm pretty sure the intention is that it is one other household; you have to make a choice and stick to it.

But who knows...?

Having regularly driven from the UK to the Alps/Spain i hereby declare doing London to be the Peak to be a "short drive".

Unless someone has any evidence that driving 100 miles increases the risk of transmission over driving 10 miles, or 1 mile (Do Covid viruses get bored, hungry and restless when being in a car for too long making it more infectious?) then the above is both safe, reasonabkle, and complying with the guidance.

It's quite clear in the legislation and the guidance that the support bubble has to always be the same person/household.

There is no such limitation stated here and when we had the same rule about meeting one person in May, that didn't always have to be the same person either. So I don't think it is intended to be interpreted that way now. However you are expected to social distance etc.

You can exercise or visit outdoor public places with the people you live with, your support bubble, or 1 person from another household.

This seems to  distinguishes your "bubble" from the "other person". I read this as you can meet with as many as you like from your own household, or from your bubble, or with a single person from a different household.  Nothing there to say it has to be the same person every time, although it is obviously wise to limit your number of contacts.

Unless they come out with something more specific, a "short journey" is still subject to interpretation and judgement.  This is broad guidance aimed at a largely urban population who will mainly be heading to parks and other open spaces where the chances of encountering other people both on the journey and at the destination is fairly high.  I suspect this is also aimed at discouraging those who flock to Snowdon or the Lakes and spend most of their time there in shops and cafes.

I consider it safer for me to drive 20 or 30 minutes to a quiet part of the Peak where I will meet hardly anyone than 5 or 10 minutes to my local park which is likely to have other people. 

Driving to Stanage from London is probably pushing it, although if the journey can be done without stopping is there any actual risk to anyone?

Yes, agree 

In reply to...

I reckon climbing in a rope of three is going to be out unless all from the same household 😁

Sorry, but isn't that mathematically obvious? If 1000 people infected by COVID drive for 100 miles, then surely that's a higher risk than 1000 people driving for 1 mile?

Good thing you do not live in France then as you are only allowed 1 k from your house.
 

might     help you to figure out the London to the Peaks might be considered unreasonable in comparison 

Well I think we’ve learnt why Britain is struggling to contain this pandemic!

The British public and UKC posters simply cannot be trusted to think logically and to do the correct thing.

Brexit, voting in a pathological liar PM, moaning about wearing masks, inability to social distance, inability to follow one way arrows to list just a few.

Seriously, we’re doomed. 

Completely unreasonable.  Wherever you drive from it's always the Peak.

There's no risk from driving, except to the other people in your car (who should be from your household anyway), and provided you don't stop en route.  The distance and numbers driving is immaterial, it's what happens when you encounter other people that matters. 

If 1000 people all arrive at the same destination the risk comes from all those people gathering in the same place, it doesn't matter if they've driven 1 mile or 100 miles to get there.  If they are all driving to different destinations where they will meet no one else, the risk is zero.

Uh? You are going to have to explain that to me i'm afraid. I can't see how distance affects the risk of transmission

Societal meltdown?  I think that's rather hyperbole-tastic.

What he's trying to avoid is the NHS being overwhelmed, resulting in the refusal of treatment for emergencies, COVID or non-COVID, and also a nasty high death figure on his record.

As I understand it containing people to their local areas limits the risk of transmission spread from one area to another.

Unless you have a very strong bladder, there's going to be a distance limit above which you'll want to stop and use the loo, and public urination/defecation presents its own public health issue.

To me it's clear what is intended - something nearby.  I can see how you could argue Manchester to Stanage is sort of nearby, but London to Stanage absolutely isn't, and anyone arguing it is is just arguing for the sake of it.

An interesting question is whether it invalidates "long distance" support bubbles.  I ended up "bubbling" with a friend who lives nearby, but if nobody had wanted to the default would have been my parents, 200 miles away.

There is that.  There's also that if there's driving, there are car accidents.  If the NHS gets close to capacity you could argue that actually golfing should be allowed (as unless you're really careless it's not likely to put you in A&E) but cycling and climbing shouldn't be (as they, particularly mountain biking and soloing, are more likely to put you in A&E).

So you don't think there is a higher probability of coming into contact with another person if you drive for 100 miles, than there is if you drive for 1 mile?

There are people who have great exercise opportunities pretty much from their front door, I'm fortunate enough to have that with MK's linear parks.

There are people who don't - I think the idea is that they can drive to them rather than having to walk around a grotty, unsafe London sink estate at night, for example, or having to walk down a pavement-less main road if that's what your house fronts onto.

That's what it says to me.

The guidance is quite clear.

You can drive for exercise: “If you need to make a short journey to do so”

Nobody NEEDS to go climbing so you certainly don’t need to drive to do so. 
 

Yeah, that was my thought.  You NEED to travel to exercise if you live in a dump of an inner-city sink estate where it's not safe to walk around at night on your own.  You NEED to travel to exercise if you are disabled and need specific facilities such as a decent tarmacced path rather than by your house where everyone parks blocking the pavement.  You NEED to travel to exercise if your house fronts onto an A-road where it's not safe to go walking.  The idea is that you travel the minimum distance that fulfils that need, such as to your most local park.

Not that you go from London to Stanage.

I suspect to be fair the reason for this isn't because the travel itself poses much of a risk (walking past people while going into a service station for a wee really doesn't make much difference and wouldn't be enough to invoke a contact trace), but rather so that Cornwall etc don't end up full of day trippers meaning the locals don't feel safe to go out.

That said, if the weather is rubbish people probably won't anyway - and do you really want to go outdoor climbing in the p*ssing rain?  Walking I'll give you, but you can do that more locally.

of course, contact is what happens in the times you are outside of the car.

Because covering distance requires time. The longer the distance, the greater the time required, and the more opportunities there are to come in contact with an infected person. This may seem negligible for an individual, but consider what happens when this behaviour is replicated over a population of tens or hundreds of thousands.

I don't think that negative impacts of the virus continuing on the current trajectory would be confined to the NHS. Once enough people are sick, or caring for relatives, grieving, etc, I think supply of essentials like food and petrol would be threatened. Then if you thought the bog roll crisis was bad, or the current economic outlook was bad, you'd be in for a shock. 

Society is interconnected. You can't wipe out foundational services like health (or education, or policing) that we all depend on and expect life to carry on as normal. Most organisations just don't have enough staff to operate during a pandemic. And the more people went into work rather than isolating, the more people would get sick. How long would it take to knock out a school, and what would the impact for the parents be? 

I think you're overlooking the fragility of our interconnected society, and the reason that the virus allows very little scope for different policy responses once it gets going.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use council areas. 

Last time in lockdown everytime I went the roaches the police were there. I'm sure they will do the same this time especially as they can generate lots of money with fines. 

I'm local so will be allowed to climb at the roaches area, I won't get upset or bother if people come from anywhere else to climb as I don't think it's fair to restrict others. I don't have the I'm local you are not attitude. 

It's absurd that you believe the police see their Covid-19 responsibilities as a money making opportunity

I doubt they will use any fixed distance to delimit it, England didn't last time.

It just requires a bit of sense.  Can you safely exercise (run, walk or cycle) from home?  If so, do.  If not, drive the minimum sensible distance necessary to allow you to do so.  If another form of outdoor exercise is within that sort of range, be my guest.

But London to Stanage clearly is not.

It would be much easier if they defined a limit - you are allowed to travel up to X miles for exercise or enjoyment of the countryside.

Of course we could all argue whether a particular limit was sensible but at least it would be there and it wouldn't have to be "exactly" enforced.

Say a 20 mile limit and you've gone 22 - excuse me sir, are you intending to travel much further because you're right on the limit

Whereas a 20 mile limit and you've gone 50 is clearly taking the piss

I disagree, I don't think it is hyperbolic - in a pandemic the NHS is the front line in this particular war. So if it became overwhelmed this would be the first sign of societal meltdown. Depending on the circumstances other things might follow. If things didn't improve other areas of society would definitely follow into meltdown. One possible end result would be martial law with strict curfews and the army distributing essentials - and it would be their definition of essentials which I suspect would be a shorter list than yours or mine.

So the NHS collapsing is the early warning indicator that things are totally in the shit. And nobody wants to go there so measures are taken to make sure things don't get that bad. Johnson may have a figure for the number of Covid deaths that he'd rather not go beyond (certain numbers are "thresholds" that seem much worse - e.g. 250,000), but I don't for one second believe that his primary motivation is trying to save as many lives as possible.

Watcha doing in SK?

( not passing judgement BTW, just intrigued at what is worth two weeks QT)

For the benefit of the dislikers, we know that this is true from accident statistics alone, as the likelihood of having an accident increases with distance traveled. It may be considered insignificant, but it's still the statistical reality.

That's a rather large proviso, as surely the probability of requiring a stop increases with distance traveled?

That's like saying the risk of a stay in hospital is independent of the length of the stay, provided that you don't catch an infection.

so no different to most of the rest of Europe and the world?!

Ok, so the yarstick is not distance, but "opportunities there are to come in contact with an infected person." then?

I'm 100% that i got less chances to come in contact with another person if i drive from London to the Peak than if i were to cycle from inner Sheffield to the Peak. Also is less likely to come in contact with another person if you cycle from inner Sheffield to the Peak than if you walk from inner Hathersage to Stanage.

So looking at the risk probabilites, it should be absolutely forbidden to walk to your local crag, adviced against cycling into the countryside, and encouraged to drive door to door regardless of distance.

Is that what you meant?

The greatest risk of accident is within 2 minutes drive of home.

...

Basically yes, and if you can evaluate that risk and minimize it for yourself that's fine - so long as the law allows you to do so (and it appears so far that it does)

The problem is then - to what degree do you allow everyone to make that same choice? Some countries have decided not to do so at all. The UK has gone with a more liberal approach. The modeling that informs the current mitigation measures assumes some level of compliance in order to work - it's a bit like the Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory - it doesn't work if everyone decides to do their own thing.

I agree. 

I am doing quite a bit to stop the spread. WFH. Not going to see my parents for my dad’s 60th abs potentially not for a long time. Not been to a pub or restaurant since the first week of September. No social interaction with anyone once the walls close. I’ll permit myself climbing or walking outdoors, if I can be bothered given the weather. As is permitted by the new rules. 

Most people won’t be missing much climbing anyway given the time of year. I’m not convinced this is just for a month though. It’s conceivable that the rules will be extended for a couple more weeks to ‘save Xmas’ and after that cities and large towns will be subject to slightly less strict rules. So as I said in the OP, we all need to work out something reasonable for the next six months. Different people will have different ideas but I don’t think many people are going to stay at home for six months. Not visiting family - quite possible. WFH if possible - certainly. Climbing - figure out what works for you in a way which minimises the risk of spread and is within the rules.  

Yeah, I think an upside of November for lockdown is that it's just a bit of a grim month - most people want to stay at home anyway because it's manky out.

It says: “to exercise outdoors or visit an outdoor public place - with the people you live with, with your support bubble or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household.”

I take it to mean it’s 1 to 1 for outdoor exercise / visiting an outdoor public place. It doesn’t say when *living* on your own. Which I do anyway. 

That's separate.

Anyone can, as long as they are completely on their own, i.e. the group consists of precisely 2 people, and distancing is applied.

Separately to that single-person support bubbles still exist, those allow an adult who lives on their own or only with children to "pair up" with any one (and only one) other household, creating essentially one household that lives in two houses/flats.  They don't have to distance and can meet in any context, indoors, outdoors or whatever.  What they pay for that is that if one person in either of the "bubbled" households is tested positive, everyone in both households must isolate.

The reason golf is not permitted is it involves use of club houses. I imagine they will clarify that it’s ok as long as club houses stay closed.  

You don't *have* to use the clubhouse.  When it restarted, it was a case of book your round in advance, arrive by car 5 minutes before the start time and show your booking confirmation through the car window on the way in.

I don't see how that's any less "COVID secure" than going walking in the countryside.

I love these debates and going through what the rules or don’t say - it’s the tax adviser in me!

The travel been seems to be advisory. 

The Cabinet Office is just making it up as they go along.  Personal discretion in keeping to the spirit of what is needed to prevent infection is needed.  It is quite clear that you must not go into buildings to meet anyone else except for specified necessities.

As for outside, if you follow the letter of the Website (which is dictat not law)

"You can exercise or visit outdoor public places with the people you live with, your support bubble, or 1 person from another household."

BUT NOT, NOTE ON YOUR OWN!  By Dictat!

They make it up as they go along.

The most terrifying thing about all this is that they are making up what they are doing as they go along instead of having principles and plans that should be put into action when planned contingencies or conditions (entirely forseeable) are met.

That is why we have unclear verbal chaos for forum lawyers to give any shade of meaning they care to and lay down the law to others

Well, quite.

At the simplest level - why is there no objective for the lockdown? 

I'd want to see something like "the lockdown will remain in place until, for a consecutive period of 7 days, no more than 20 cases per 100,000 population[1] are reported in any part of the UK".

The upside of that is that we get motivation to play along, too - the better the compliance, the quicker we get there.

[1] Pick your own figure - the point is there should be one.

The update encourages people to only make ‘short’ journeys but the whole travel piece seems to be advisory rather than mandatory as it’s prefaced with ‘should’ rather than ‘must’. I’m keen to see the actual regulations to confirm this point.

The way I see it, there’s no difference whether you drive for 10 minutes or 2 hours. Only those who are very keen will drive more than a couple of hours each way given that only day trips are permitted and the days are short. 

As explained above I think this makes quite a big difference - at least when reproduced over a large population - but agreed that so long as the guidance is "advisory", people can judge the contact risk for themselves.

I think a lot of people are thinking logically. What are the rules? What am I advised to do? What is the actual risk of me doing certain things which I am allowed to do but which may be advised against? If the risk of spread is low or zero, shall I just go and do it?

What matters is not the journey but what people do when they get there. There is a bit of risk of spread at service stations etc but you don’t have to stop if only driving for an hour or two, or you could just stop for a rest without using the facilities. The driving bit is irrelevant. 

No, I disagree. It's inevitable that the longer a journey you make that you increase the risk that you will stop for one reason or another, be it accident, car trouble, forgetting to fill up, call of nature etc.

Magnify this over thousands of people all choosing to do the same thing and it just seems obvious to me that the risk of transmission is manifestly higher.

Good spot! Just goes to show that the new guidelines were written at short notice. The regulations should be clearer (they will just take the ones from spring and tweak them).

Not if you don't stop on the way.

Gove said on Andrew Marr today that the objective was to get R below 1 again. Good luck with that with a 4 week lockdown, reduced compliance and the time of year being conducive to spread... I expect it will be longer. 

This pretty much sums up how I'm feeling at the minute. I've pretty much become a hermit, no social life since March, one trip back to Scotland to see my family, very little climbing, just to watch the government pay people to go and sit in restaurants and spread the virus, keep the pubs open while students were sent to uni, and refuse to lockdown for weeks while we watched the virus building up to critical again. 

What is the point in me continuing to try to avoid the minimal transmission risk of driving to outdoor pursuits?

R will basically go below 1 pretty much as soon as the measures come into effect, because R is the measure of the number of people one infected person infects (on average).  In practice there will be a small lag because of how it is calculated, but no more than a week or so.  Or rather it will if it ever will, if you see what I mean; if the measures are inadequate it won't for a 4 week or 4 year lockdown with those measures, if you see what I mean.

That's the wrong objective; the objective needs to be based on caseload or NHS occupancy, as those are the things that actually make a difference.

Or rather, the objective needs to be twofold - the measures need to take R below 1 in order to achieve something else, e.g. a caseload reduced to a specific figure.

The trouble is you can't separate the two, they are not independent objectives.

If you drive for longer, you automatically increase the probability of needing to stop. Always.

But I think you need to think as a collective and not an individual. Each one of us could think that logically we could go and do our sport or hobby and the risk is minimal. On an individual basis it is. If everyone with a hobby carried on doing it then it wouldn’t be a lockdown. The virus doesn’t move itself, it moves when people move it around the country. If we stop moving as much as we possibly can then we increase the chance of this getting back under control.

There’s a rule now that you can’t stay overnight away from your house unless for work. I have a small yacht that I love to stay on. It’s great for my mental health. A night on my own on the boat is fantastically relaxing. There’s seemingly zero risk if I go and stay on it. I literally wouldn’t see another soul, or even sole. Yet it is against the collective rule so I won’t do it. Not because I think it’s risky itself but because of the Cummings effect, someone sees me doing it then they do it, others see that and they go camping, round someone’s house etc and it escalates from there.

I genuinely think the exercise rule is to encourage people to stay fit to help the NHS. I don’t believe it is meant that you can do whatever your chosen sport or pastime is and call it exercise. Otherwise people will be doing everything they currently do, they go to work, to shops, they go fishing, diving, kayaking, hang gliding, flying planes, sailing, motor racing etc etc. That is not a lockdown and that is not what is meant in the spirit of the guidance.

Ultimately though, it’s the government’s job to explain the rules better and to explain what you can and can’t do and to enforce it. So if it all goes wrong it’s down to them. 

I agree, R isn’t everything but it’s a start. I think it will take a while to drop due to propel doing stupid things like house parties. 

Would you agree that it’s possible to do a 1-2 hour journey  without need to stop at all or at least not anywhere you would contact other people? Yes you might have a breakdown or an accident but the likelihood of that is pretty low. I’m not going to live my life on a zero risk basis - if I did, I wouldn’t be a climber for a start!

Besides, suppose you do stop at a services, use the loo and get a coffee. What is the actual risk of transmission? Most people wear masks (I certainly would) and I’ve been very careful about surface transmission since the outset (which perhaps isn’t as much of a risk anyway).

I get that not everyone will be careful but when I say travel is ok, I mean ‘responsible’ travel.

I disagree. It is down to the individual to assess the risk of spread in light of what they want to do, within the parameters of what they are allowed to do (ie assess the but that’s advisory). Outdoor activities which are done alone or with one other person and don’t involve close contact for any significant length of time are inherently low risk. The new rules recognise that. I’m not talking just about climbing - the same logic applies to lots of other outdoor activities.

It would still be a lockdown because the high risk things won’t be allowed. Visiting people at home, most shops, pub and restaurants, most indoor social activities in fact   (including walls). That is where the risk is. That is what matters.

We do not need to be hermits when it comes to low risk outdoor activities. It also depends on your own Covid risk profile. Are you going to work and what does that involve? Do you have children at school? Do you do anything else which involves close contact with people? If the answer is low, your inherent risk is low. If you’re going to do an outdoor activity with inherently low risk of spread with someone else who lives with you or is also at inherently low risk of having Covid, the risk is transmission is going to be pretty low. Not zero but this is not about zero risk. If it was, they would close the schools and all workplaces. 

I'm not sure it's about risk to that extent, I'm more wondering if it's due to pressure from tourist hotspots that they don't want to be swamped.

Yes that’s probably it but it comes back to my point that it’s about making sensible individual decisions. We are lucky in that climbing is inherently socially distanced and doesn’t involve interaction with ‘locals’, as opposed to general tourism. As in spring, appropriate choice of crag will be important.

A few people are proposing a ‘stay at home’ / ‘exercise from home’ approach. I’d like to ask them what they’ve been doing for the last two months or so, since it’s been clear from the start of September that we had lost control of the virus. Not just in terms of outdoor activities but generally - going into shops and pubs, visiting friends and family. Have they been staying at home all this time? If not, why the sudden change now? This lockdown has come too late. Those things which are not allowed now - we should not have been doing them for the last couple of months. Do people really need the government to tell them? I guess the answer is yes and I’m glad that the government has said it.

To my mind, when it comes to low risk activities such as climbing, if someone was happy doing it before, they should still be happy doing it now. The fact that some advice has come out against non essential travel shouldn’t really change things.  Equally, if I wasn’t happy doing something a few weeks ago, I won’t be happy doing it for the next six months or so (this is a fairly long list of things, like going into the office and going to pubs).

Well, given that the Government has been providing a fairly tight level of control on this whole thing (albeit to not very good effect) you can't really blame people for just following it.

If they said "here's the fact but make your own judgement" then things would be different.  Not that I advocate that.

Personally, I like to stay on the right side of the law (even where the law is a bit misguided) unless there is a very, very good reason not to.

I don't think anyone is advocating breaking the law. If the proposed legislation restricts us to a certain distance from home then I'll abide by it and I'd urge others to. However the restrictions on exercise and travel as currently published are just advisory. We are not just permitted but actually encouraged to take exercise.

Let's not forget the purpose of these restrictions is to reduce contact with other people. In the interests of my own safety and that of others I will choose to travel to a more remote area to exercise where I can expect to encounter fewer people,  rather than a short distance to an urban park which is likely to be busier. That appears to me to be consistent with the government's intentions.

There is a slight risk that an unexpected incident may occur on a longer journey. I can think of only two or three occasions when this has happened to me in the last 100,000 miles, only one of which involved other people. The chances seem pretty remote, and even if I did break down it would probably involve contact with fewer people than at the park.

I am not advocating breaking any rules. Guidance is different - it’s advisory. The government needs to tell businesses to close as otherwise most of them won’t. And it does need to set out rules and guidance because some people won’t have a clue what to do. My point is that people who can see what is going to happen (I always expected a second wave as that’s what the scientists said) should be able to adapt their behaviour in advance of government rule changes. Equally, if people are happy that something is low risk, they might as well continue doing it, as long as it’s not illegal. Sadly, most people don’t seem to have that foresight (including many people who are perfectly intelligent but suffer from being optimists - a dangerous thing to be in this situation). 

Sorting out some urgent family business (two kinds of business, with some very sick relatives here involved too) - we just had to be here for 6 weeks - a must. I would not have travelled here unless I absolutely had to...... travelling and flying REALLY sucks at the moment

That's the rub, though.  The aggregated risk over millions of low risk events is not low.  Otherwise we wouldn't have at least 3 national breakdown companies and we wouldn't need any blue light services on the road.  To make a meaningful argument, each risk/reward has to be quantifiable and assessed along side all the other myriad "minimal risks".

Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but the thread is now rather long. The government guidance reads

"11. Travel You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area........ However you can and should still travel for a number of reasons.... Exercise, if you need to make a short journey to do so.

 If you need to travel we encourage you to walk or cycle where possible."

The key word seems to be short. Undefined, but using the common Clapham omnibus approach, few people when saying "Please can I take the car for a short trip to the shops, Mum" mean a 1 hour, 30 mile, drive in each direction. Especially if they live in Guildford, rather than north west Scotland.

I wonder if Cummings would describe London to Barnard Castle as "short"?

Done to death many times before, people looking for loopholes to do what THEY want.

You know what you should be doing, so do it. STOP the spread of the virus.

You can do all those distanced and well within your capabilities can't you?

That is only true if the freedoms you give up represents a realistic and significant cause of viral transmission. Obviously we can't all just decide what to do, we've seen that doesn't work so there is need for sensible, effective and tolerable rules here, not for hair shirts.

I fear the problem we face these next few weeks is not people going kayaking or cragging or jogging with a mate, it's that schools and workplaces are still open and the new rules will do very little to reduce transmission and cases in uni settings.

jk

Yes, I think we will have to close schools.  Indeed, based on the SAGE document I read, it might actually be enough to have "Tier 1 plus", where everything is as per Tier 1 but the schools are closed, so much difference they are making.

Perhaps time to think about doing education "best effort" until September then having everyone repeat their year next year?

Which would require incresaing teacher numbers and school buildings by about 10% or so........

They’re not loopholes they’re things that have had specific provision for. 
remember it is a should part of the guidance not a must.

short journeys will mean different things to different people depending on cuircumstances and the provision of facilities. Some people might have to drive for 45 mins to get to the shops some people might walk there some people might have to drive half an hour to a crag some might walk there. 
 

don’t go further than you need to, you might not feel you need to climb so don’t others will no doubt feel differently but all this worrying about excercise outside is shuffling the deck chairs and will make the grand total of sod all difference. 
 

in the interest of openness I fully intend on surfing and riding various forms of bikes through this lockdown but I’m unlikely to climb because everything’s gopping here.
 

Thats a clever trick, do you have any video of you doing this?

I climb with my partner so taking a pragmatic view I will still be climbing. If it gets to a point where the NHS is struggling then it will obviously be back to a March/April vibe where I will be wrapping myself in cotton wool and not leaving the house. 

I'm not sure about travel really. That's the biggest question mark for me. Trad season has kind of finished for me so I'd normally be climbing sport but I'm somewhat tired of the local sport. Am I kidding myself to say it's okay to drive for an hour to a decent sport crag? Or drive to the Beacons for a walk if it's damp? Something I'm going to have to think about.  

I’ll get you some next week, sometimes I ride a bike and surf too

I take the guidance to mean do things locally, so shop locally, walk locally, climb at your local crag, kayak at your local river/beach.

So someone in the Lakes might need to walk 5 minutes to a crag but drive 30 minutes to a supermarket. Someone in a town might need to walk 5 minutes to the shop but drive 30 minutes to a crag.

People will need to use common sense, which clearly isn’t going to happen if the weather is decent. If the weather is reasonable everyone will pile out of London to the Peak for a day, park on the verges, shit in the lay-bys, dump all their plastic in a cow meadow, snort some nitrous oxide, then go home and blog about their day in the countryside.

Not to mention the knock-on effect, there was an article on this in the German news magazine I get about the economic fall-out from removing ca 800,000 people from the workforce as they will all be one year behind doing apprentiships, further education etc. And what the universities etc do without any new entries for a year doesn't bear thinking about. The numbers are eye-watering.

Time to start planning how we might achieve that or change other things, then.

This is all being stymied by people saying "can't" and rubbishing every single possible option.  Have we lost our ability to innovate?

On the background of mass employment, giving them something to do that isn't sitting at home claiming Universal Credit seems a good start.

Eh?

There's little lost by keeping a few hundred thousand people in education when it's on the background of a very high level of unemployment.

A bit late but...

I'm much happier with this more comprehensive lockdown than the recent measures which have permitted or even encouraged completely frivolous & high risk activities like going to the pub/ on holiday while at the same time seeking to ban or severely restrict basic human rights to meet loved ones. 

The law in local lockdown areas has been against any meeting of friends or family indoors and this was presented in the media as a ban on all meeting between friends and family indoors or out. The government has been content to let this situation persist, e.g. Leicester has been under similar rules since June with cases rising regardless. Meanwhile people have been encouraged to eat out and get to work if they don't need to. Its a basic humanity last approach which I think is fundamentally wrong and has sent me off on more than one swivel eyed rant.

At least the more comprehensive approach provides and communicates ways for people to meet loved ones outdoors and has a chance of succeeding due to closing indoor hospitality. (I know dozens of people who caught covid and they all got it in a pub, but maybe I'm reading too much into one data point)

As for outdoor climbing, it seems to be allowed since outdoor recreation and exercise are specifically allowed and since, unlike some other frivolous activities, the risks of transmission associated with it seem very low, I don't see any reason to stop. I don't see this as justifying something because it suits me. I would come to the same conclusion about surfing, mountain biking, metal detecting, all things I have no interest in. At the same time I don't think it would be right to go and sit in the pub with some mates, even though I would enjoy that.

As for travel and its implications for climbing. I think restricting travel does have some merit when a virus clusters like covid, forming areas of very high infection rates and leaving other areas at a low level. We don't want to start new clusters by taking the virus to communities with low rates. I also think there's a logic to restricting travel generally during the pandemic and not making exceptions for this and that. So I would say stay local, or as local as possible without crowding. How to define local is a bit arbitrary and I would like some specific limits put into law but I'm sticking with places within South Yorkshire. That way I can avoid any stops at service stations etc. It would seem wrong headed to see the lockdown rules on travel as a relaxation of the tier 3 guidance.

What are you going to do about the loss of one years output of doctors, nurses and care personnel, policemen, firemen etc?

All very sensibly put! 

I note some others have used wording like: some people have to drive a long way to reach a crag. I guess the term, Have to, is the issue. For winter climbing I would have to drive 10 hours. 

He probably would, but he's a grade A twunt

In reply to kevin stephens:

There is nothing to ban non professional sports other than the social distancing rules and closure of leisure facilities. A household game of football in the park is perfectly legal. 

We could always allow more immigration into those areas?  Yes, I know...

I don't know about the Police, but I certainly do know that the Fire Service is very, very oversubscribed - they will fill all the roles easily.  I believe you get far more than 10 applicants per position, typically.

They aren't loopholes though. My whole point is the rules are more lenient this time (although I'd argue that even last time you could travel). Yes there is advice against long distance travel but it's only advice. You can interpret the advice in a reasonable way which suits your circumstances.

I am doing my bit to stop the spread, mostly by WFH and not going to see my parents. Once the walls close, I won't have any social interaction at all during the week. Not been out of the flat all day today in fact. What I don't believe is that by going walking or climbing I will be at any significant risk of spreading the virus. If I thought there was significant risk, I wouldn't do it.

Trouble is, you can't delay the education system because next year there will be a new cohort of kids ready to start primary school - unless you delay that by a year. 

Universities could all repeat a year as well. If they don't (that is, if they can effectively teach online), they could be given government funding to cover the shortfall. The amount involved in the context of Covid is pretty small.

Filling apprenticeships etc isn't really an issue as there are lots of unemployed people now unfortunately who would be glad to take those jobs...

The big graduate employers could certainly live with missing out a year's intake. It would be a blessing in disguise.

Fair point but it's a lesser evil that the lockdown. Having said that, I think if we get through to Easter one way or another (no doubt there will be one or two more circuit breaker lockdowns for 2-4 weeks at a time), hopefully things will get better with vaccines starting to get brought out. If it turns out that vaccines aren't sufficiently effective, it will be time to think the impossible. I would opt for a zero Covid strategy, which would indeed involve delaying education for a period of time (perhaps for a term).

As for winter climbing, that's taking it to a different level for most people as it involves properly long drives with multiple stops and more importantly an overnight stay away from home, which would be illegal in the lockdown and could annoy the locals. I've been saying since the summer that I don't think winter climbing would be feasible this year. 

It does leave you with a double-sized year group which will work its way through, yes, but I'm sure ways could be found to work around that.

I think Matt Hancock, in a rare bout of sense, said something like "there are no good answers, it's just about what is the least worst".

The problem with your Risk Assessment is that it is based on best case scenario - no accidents and therefore as you say, little risk.
Whereas, this being a known virus that kills, what you should be doing is basing it on worse case scenario and the likely impact of that on others in the event that you need assistance if you need to be rescued, etc.
Maybe just forego the climbing (relatively high risk) and be content with some nice walks instead (low risk)?
Is that really too much to ask?


 

Double sized year group is simply not feasible. You'd need to delay kids starting by a year - which would be disruptive but feasible. On the whole though, the general consensus is that schools have to keep going as much as possible, especially primary ones. I do think that there should have been much more of an effort to do online learning at least half of the time for older kids eg sixth formers and certainly for students (recognising that some courses can't be run online).

Sending uni students back was the definition of utter madness.  An OU style approach was needed - mostly remote, but for lab work not possible at home allow booking of sessions, perhaps by agreement it could be at your most local uni rather than your "proper" one.

If I lived my life on a zero Covid risk basis, I'd stay at home all the time. It's no about zero risk though, it's about reducing the risk to a sufficiently low level. In the same way that if I were really concerned about having a car accident, I would never drive. Clearly it's a risk but, just like everyone else, I do my best to mitigate it down to a very low level (although bring on self driving cars!).

As for climbing, I'm happy that I can mitigate the risk to a very low level. Given the time of year, I'd be sport climbing, dry tooling or top roping some projects. All relatively low risk (dry tooling is not without risk but I've done enough of it to be able to mitigate it).

It's incredible to me that supposedly clever people like our leaders (ha-ha-ha) would use the word "short" in guidelines for a drive. It is completely undefined and open to interpretation and abuse. If you live in Monaco a mile is a short drive; if you live in Texas 100 miles is a short drive; on a galactic scale a light year is a short distance. WHY THE HELL couldn't the idiots say 10 miles or 5 miles or whatever? Have they got no sense AT ALL??????

Rant over

It is vague but gives leeway for people heading out of bigger cities going for a walk etc in the countryside which we know isn't high risk (with the (now) usual caveats) . Some will interpret it as 'do as you like' but we're 're  unlikely to see the scenes we saw in the summer in November.  

Because what is necessary will depend on the individual's location.

We probably wouldn't anyway, as the general public doesn't want to walk up Snowdon (yes, I know) or sit on a Cornish beach when it's horizontal rain season.

This lockdown will have far less impact on individuals, other than the loss of Guy Fawkes Night, because November is very much "stay in and watch the telly" season anyway.

If you live in England you couldn't walk up Yr Wyddfa anyway, the border is shut. 

OK - thanks - I'm cooling off from my rant a bit - you made good points there I think

OK, and a good point, thanks

but then you've got the issue that if you're (probably) white middle class living in the peak district a 5mile drive gives you great benefits, if you're living in a housing estate in london or birmingham 5 miles doesn't give you a lot but could be the difference in depression or not. 

there's already mass mass inequalities and privilege in terms of accessing the outdoors and confining people to their local areas (even just for a month) reinforces that idea that the countryside belongs to those who live there who can do gardening, country walks, some winter photography on the moors, sunrise hikes through this lockdown and if you're living in a city; stay in your flat and drink yourself through the lockdown instead.

in my opinion travelling outdoors is lower risk than creating more inequality and depression.

I hope people who live in cities etc still go to beautiful places for outdoor hobbies to look after themselves and realise they are worth this and entitled to this just as much as anyone. 

That was the "yes, I know" bit

Guidance from a different sport but still interesting. https://www.surfingengland.org/return-to-lockdown-guidance-for-surfing-02-1...
 

recommends about half an hour drive.

Because there is a need for flexibility. This I believe is common in law (legal types please jump in - but it is true in the building regs, with for example the need to provide adequate ventilation being the law, but then some further numeric guidance being provided - I guess we are lacking this last bit. But having sat on the committees that come up with such numbers, I can tell you it is a very slow process) and why we have judges and why I in my first post I reflected on both the terms "short" and "have to" via the idea of what these might mean to the average person in the street. I think it is key that the guidance offers and encourages us to take exercise. I don't believe it says, go play the sport of your choice.

I would suggest the average (non-climbing) person might think somewhere along the lines of: (1) pick a form of exercise that is easy to achieve with minimal travel (they will be thinking exercise not a particular sport or nuanced sub genre of a sport); (2) no one "has to" go trad climbing, so lines of the form "I have to travel a long way to find a cliff" might not work to the average person; (3) for most of the population, if asked to pick a distance that best represents travelling "a short distance for exercise" would pick a surprisingly (to climbers) short distance. It would be interesting to do a quick street poll, but if the answer was as high as 6 miles I would be surprised.

Wasn't that one of Gove's pieces of gobsh*ttery back in March?

I think you'd get somewhere between "no driving at all because I can run/walk/cycle from my front door" and "the nearest decent public park", and probably not a lot more.  Some elements of honeypotting but only local honeypotting, e.g. in MK a lot of people would say "Willen Lake", but I'd venture almost none would say "Hyde Park".

A day's trad isn't really "exercise" in the sense implied, anyway; it won't get you fit because it's not aerobic enough, nor will it really cause you to lose weight as the calorie burn is quite low - the reason climbers tend to be skinny is that they adapt the rest of their lifestyle to make them so, not because climbing makes you skinny.  It's more of an outdoor activity than outdoor exercise, other than the walk-in if there is one.

Surfing in LocalBreaksForLocalPeople shocker

😜

Because it's guidance, it's supposed to be flexible, to not need every single eventuality considered and spelled out.

I think the message is pretty clear: do less socially, try to do it locally but you don't have to do nothing. Sure some will ignore the letter and the spirit, some will become curtain twitching hermits but most will ride out a fairly boring month of reduced interaction which might be enough, I have my doubts.

jk

Really? Trad won't get you fit?

From the age of 13 through to 23 all I climbed was trad. Whether it was single pitch grit on my doorstep, multi-pitch sea cliffs or Scottish winter; trad climbing got me fit and strong in a way no other activity had ever done. 

One of my main memories from those early years is constantly being f**%ing pumped and wasted and physically exhausted during and after climbing. Oh, and being scared quite often as well.

I'm not sure what trad you do, but it obviously sure ain't the same as what I did.

TJB.

Maybe not! A large proportion of them will get it whilst isolated away from their families (unlike secondary schools),  just so long as the return home at the end of term can be managed safely. 

Hi Neil, the government guidance refers to both exercise AND recreation.  I have a number of friends who are are anglers and they are all wondering about the same things that we are.

I agree. walking uphill into a remote crag with a big pack is plenty of exercise before the climbing even starts.

If you do any activity hard it'll likely get you fit.  Look around Stanage, though, and most people aren't climbing that hard, they are having a nice day out doing a couple of routes in a relatively leisurely manner, even if they are pushing their grade in terms of the technical climbing/fear factor.

TBH you'll find more people climbing to get fit (as distinct from strong) in indoor bouldering centres than at crags.

What crags do you climb at that don't involve taking exercise? Somewhere you belay from the car, climb vdiffs and lower off?

driving to the shops is more dangerous than climbing. 

But if you don't eat, you die, or as a minimum it severely affects your health and as such your ability to fight COVID.

If you walk/run/cycle from home instead of climbing for a month, nothing bad happens.  You might lose a small amount of strength which you'll easily get back.  As it's November, I bet a lot of people wouldn't be out on the crag anyway, as climbing in the p*ssing rain is grim.

It isn't about relative personal risk, it's about getting the figures down by lopping all non-essential stuff out, regardless of how small its impact is.

The stats on cycling during last lockdown and over the summer don't bear that out. I'll stick to climbing......

not worth getting worked up about the few people who do get out then is it?

yeh, cycling on roads with cars is significantly more dangerous than climbing! bad shit regularly happens!

Hmm I think if you can't see the break from you're house you're not a local in surfing terms....

As per Galpinos above, you want to have a look at the increase in casualties from cycling during the first lockdown. I will also be sticking with climbing!

I think you've misunderstood the vibe of this lockdown - we're carrying on with loads of non-essential stuff, we're not attempting to stop the virus in its tracks in the same way we were in March. It's a different policy this time.

Education and routine healthcare is continuing. Construction, home improvement trades etc are continuing. To act in the spirit of the lockdown isn't to lock yourself in isolation, it's to stop social activities like hanging out in other people's houses, going to the pub, working in the office, etc. It's not a full lockdown. It's a tightening of restrictions because the current ones aren't working sufficiently well to keep us away from the brink.

By all means self-isolate if you want to personally - but please don't tell others they should be doing this, because it's completely pointless and it sounds like moral crusading which is corrosive to people's efforts to get through this.

I'm not worked up about anyone who does, to be honest; if I lived in view of Stanage I wouldn't be ringing 101 if I saw a couple of climbers there.  I'm just discussing what I believe the ethos of the rules to be.

I'm not telling people to self-isolate (self-isolation means removing ALL contact, e.g. not even going to the shop).  I'm suggesting they should do what the guidance on gov.uk actually says, and there is no possible interpretation of that that involves driving from say London to Stanage for a climb.  Everyone knows what a "short" journey means, and everyone knows it isn't a hundred miles.

If you live near enough to Stanage (or wherever) that you can genuinely, hand on heart, honestly say that that would be a "short" journey[1], go for a climb if you want.  My interpretation of that is that that's only really people who live in the Hope Valley (in Stanage's case).  You could perhaps just about push that to Sheffield or Manchester, though I'd say that's taking the mick a bit.  No way could it be pushed to London.

[1] Not "can I get away with it", rather "do I honestly believe I'm doing what I'm being asked to do".

Well yes, no change there.  Some people have and always had better access to the hills (not the outdoors - every city has a mass of park space). 

Try jumping on the tube to the local concert venue from Hathersage and see how long you are waiting.

That's obviously taking the piss a la Cummings - but if a few people decide to do it, so what (although they should keep it to themselves to avoid a general "f*ck it, do what you like" attitude being endorsed). We've got bigger things to worry about just now.

Yes, as I said I wouldn't be ringing 101 if I heard of the odd person doing that, but my view remains that it isn't the right thing to do.

I would agree that if they do it and then show off about it that that is very wrong.  I'd be quite happy to say that the Police should pursue and prosecute anyone who breaks the law/guidance and shows off about it because that's inciting others to do so as well and damages the whole idea.  If you're going to do it, keep it quiet.  It's a bit like those people who post a mobile phone video of them doing 120mph on the M1 - they are providing evidence for prosecution and I'd encourage the Police to use that evidence to prosecute them.  If you must try your car/bike out like that, find an empty rural dual carriageway at 3am and nobody will ever know.

Agreed!

You clearly don't know the area very well. A huge number of people in Sheffield are closer to Stanage in both driving time and distance than much of the population of the Hope valley. A ten minute drive is clearly acceptable, I suspect most people will set a sensible limit at more like 20 or 30 mins. Allowing Sheffield folk to exercise in the Peak also clearly presents a lower transmission risk than forcing them all to cram into the urban parks.

I have to say i agree with most of what your saying here I’d say that most of Sheffield is a short drive from stanage/burbage though. 
 

I for my own judgement will be using the can I get there after work in the summer as a test for it being a short drive.

For me in Sheffield: Burbage just under 10mins; Stanage just over 10 mins; Curbar/Gardoms just under 15 mins.... 

I'll be getting my exercise solo, with my pads, avoiding people etc. I climb midday, mid-week so it'll be trivially easy to avoid any risk of being near people. 

Doesn't sound unreasonable, to be honest.

city park spaces are not the same thing. even the nicest ones in manchester have syringes in them and going for an early morning jog by yourself there you still feel you're in a city and are alert to the fact you could still be attacked. 

I get that being in the countryside too has its drawbacks like being far away from important social things and events, however the key difference is most people are there by choice. People who live in cities or estates may be because its the only place they can afford to live or in a city as its the only place they can find work. It's just recognising that people might love the hills and outdoors but there are real practical and social barriers to them being able to access them and even any temporary exclusion criteria from who can participate in outdoor activities and go where has implications too. but there's still no easy answer just awareness and reflection of the bigger implications a '5 mile limit' or whatever could have and how the outdoor community can still be more inclusive in the future really

Which is why I'd oppose a 5 mile limit, but people do need to be reasonable about it and honest with themselves about whether they are following it.

If you think people in poor rural communities are "there by choice", I think you have a very slanted view of the general countryside.  Very few people live in picture postcard cottages in national parks.  Most people in rural environments are struggling to find any sort of meaningful employment.

I take it that during a time where travel is necessarily restricted, people aren't going to have all the freedoms they had before. The best answer has to be to minimise the time for which these restrictions are viewed as necessary, and to try to provide support for those that really need it.

I'm wondering if that is true. The "most" bit. Or at least how different the numbers are compared to a town. I live in a rural setting and in the parish we have a mix of school teachers, agricultural workers, farmers, teachers the odd doctor, a few nurses, various small businesses, a pub, some retired, some unemployed. I have no idea which of these would be regarded as meaningful, but I'm wondering how different this is to a few streets of the nearest town. 

Sucks being the guy with the inland facing flat 

Aye but thems the rules

BMC have published their view on things today. 

Just need Sharks view on the BMC view, followed by Offwidths gushing defence of the BMC.

Glad to see the BMC have learned their lesson. 

Annoyed that I lost out on 2 months of furloughed climbing in good weather back in Spring because of their crap interpretation of the rules. 

I said it was bullshit at the time, and this proves me right. 

These rules are exactly the same as they were during the first lockdown, you can travel and exercise as much as you like. But now the BMC says 'Yeah, all good! Climb away!', whereas before they went with 'strictly no climbing'..

Would be sweet if it wasn't pissing it down 24/7..

The regs are now up on legislation.gov.uk. There is no mention of travel restrictions so the 'short journey' stuff is only guidance, but it's up to a police officer to consider whether your excuse for being away from home is reasonable. I expect they might take a dim view of travelling from Newquay to Kyloe for a boulder  

😀No complaints here.

It’s an initial view that will change as law and guidance is changed. Dave Turnbull CEO is doing a live Q&A on the BMC Facebook page on Thursday at 1.30pm. 

All useful stuff from our National body. If you’re not already a member please support. Starts at £1 per month for digital membership for under 27’s and full membership at £1.66 Per month for first year.

https://membership.thebmc.co.uk/

You were never supposed to travel as much as you like.

Here's the link in case others want to view:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/england-lockdown-2-whats-different-for-climbers-an...

What can the police realistically do in that instance? If it’s guidance presumably they can’t fine or prosecute? 

If they don't consider your excuse reasonable they are likely to send you home. They may also issue a fixed penalty. You can challenge the penalty in court if you wish but refusing the instruction to go home is itself an offence, whether or not you had originally committed one, as I understand it from a skim read.

There was never a definition of how far you were allowed to travel to exercise. Only stipulation was no overnight stays away from home. 

That does put a practical limit on how far you can travel, but it was never set in stone. 

I can back this all up with various police guidance, and government statements if needs be.. But also, I can't really be arsed because it's ancient history now. 

The climbing community, and the BMC's interpretation of the original lockdown rules, was idiotic and not based in the reality of the legislation. 

But was based on the reality of the guidance associated to it.

None in Portobello anyway

I agree in general terms but strictly speaking there are outdoor areas (country parks set over small hills and forests) not far from Birmingham. Could even be within 5 miles, depending where you live. Certainly a lot closer than the Peak. Would be more like a 20 min drive for me as I live right in the centre. However there are canals and parks within walking distance or a very short drive for those who can't walk far. So it's not like people don't have anywhere to go, though in the summer the major parks were pretty busy and there may be cities which have fewer parks.   

Visiting the countryside is also an exemption now, which is different to back in spring. This is significant as there was potentially a question mark over whether climbing really falls within the definition of exercise (I would argue it does but I see your point).

Indeed. There is no mention of travel at all, for any of the exemptions. It just says here are the exemptions for leaving or being outside your home. Whether you use vehicular propulsion to do so is not specified. The presumption must be that travel is ok as clearly most people will be travelling to the supermarket and for all the other exempt places / activities / purposes. Otherwise the rules would be total nonsense.

So it comes down to the other leg of the test - 'it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned ("P") to leave or be outside the place where P is living... to take exercise outside... [or] to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation'. It seems to me that the 'reasonably necessary' test refers to the necessity of the activity (how on earth is that determined?) rather than the necessity of any associated travel. Having said that, as you say the police might consider the whole picture including how reasonable the travel is - they did last time, though in practice given the time of year I'm not sure we're going to hear about fines being dispensed in Malham village this time round.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/climbing_with_one_other_person_... 

If you're going rock climbing, I would say it is reasonably necessary to travel to somewhere that has rocks 🙂

For anyone interested, there's a nice DAILY MASH article just out titled:

"'Can I still go to raves, travel abroad, and hook up with strangers?' asks f**kwit"

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/can-i-still-go-to-raves-travel-a...

I live on the NE coast within the North York Moors National park.  We've been inundated over the last few months with visitors.  We;ve had more people visit our village than I've ever seen before, such as hot sunny August bank holiday.

Most of our day visitors come from places like Teesside, West Yorkshire = I'd guess that lots of them will still come for their day out to exercise walking along the beach and around the village.  I can't see the police wandering down the beach or chasing people around the village, most of which you can't access by car anyway.  

Even if we accept that it does, it's the "travel" section that suggests you should stay local - this is stronger than the "post-lockdown" around May or so that had the "no staying overnight away from home" but didn't have "stay at home".

It's a typical fudge, really.  I wouldn't put a distance on it as the Welsh/Scots have, but I would be more specific so people know where they are - either something like "Typically, this should be no more than 30 minutes' drive from home, unless you are unable to safely run, walk or cycle within this distance", or get rid of the "stay at home" part entirely and just control it by closing businesses including hotels (which as people say puts a practical limit on it anyway).

But is rock climbing reasonably necessary, or would you retain your fitness adequately by running, walking or cycling near home?  I think in most cases you would.

That's fine. I understand that many aren't willing to curtail their hobby unless there is an actual law against it.

Ditto for me in the South Peak District. I enjoyed seeing how they were obviously having a good time in the countryside, their piles of rubbish - not so much. 

The visitors are staying away with the shite weather, its all 'serious' red socks and walking poles only now.

It depends on the intent of the legislation? If it's to "not overburden the NHS", cycling is more likely to leave you in A&E. If it's to allow people to maintain their mental health, then climbing could be deemed as necessary as running or cycling. If it is to allow fitness, a big day out in the Lakes is going to do more for you than a 2 mile potter around the streets.

I think the BMC have got it right with their guidance.

I doubt you'd get the beaches full, or the illicit wild camping either.

I suppose one could wonder if just closing the businesses listed as closed would have enough of an effect, and the rest of it is fairly pointless, because November is not a month when you have "mass market" outdoor activities of any kind - other than the pub or gym (both closed) people already do stay at home.

Good question.  If I interpreted it right last time, it was to avoid people piling on weight/losing fitness and thus becoming a public health problem in its own right.

It might also be a sop to people who live in typical tourist areas, many of whom are older and genuinely fear going out when it's crowded.

If I recall rightly, that read along the lines of "if you live near the hills by all means go, but London to Stanage is out"?  If so, that's along my lines of thinking too.  It's only a month (as things stand) and is very unlikely to be more than 6 weeks because Bozza won't be the "grinch who cancelled Christmas", even if it makes no epidemiological sense for him not to cancel it.

the other way of looking at it is that the exceptions are there to no unnecessarily curtail peoples freedoms. 

Especially when those freedoms make the best part of sod all difference to the spread of covid.

With targetted measures e.g. the Tiers I'd agree.  With a lockdown it's more about things being closed by default even if the impact is low, and then things are excepted that would have a higher impact on society if closed, e.g. education (which if you're going on impact on R is the one which should close first).

Your posts are more and more like you are advising clients on the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance rather than dealing with a national existential crisis

I'll never cease to be amazed at how many closet epidemiologists use this forum.

There are a fairly large number of academics on here who know how to manipulate stats and deal with evidence, and that's all epidemiology really is, it isn't really a medical discipline, it's a statistical one.

I'm just commenting on the guidance which allows exercise and recreation so long as you only do "short" journeys.  There's no point in implementing you're own rules that the rest of society isn't following. Unless of course you're worried about your personal health.  

Why should they if the practical risk of spread involved in pursuing that hobby is pretty minimal?

As a friend said back in spring, it's amazing how many climbers are anti-climbing.

I am looking at what the law actually says - because it is important to understand that. It is the law, after all.

I am also arguing that there is nothing wrong with travelling to take part in an inherently low risk activity. That is my view but I accept that other people have a different view.

I don't know if I will be bothered getting out this weekend, even though the weather is looking nicer than before. May be, given that the walls are closed now.

To conclude, as this thread is rightly petering out, it seem that attitudes haven't really changed since last time, despite the rules and guidance being subtly different - some people pro heading out, some anti and some somewhere in the middle. I wonder if individual attitudes have shifted - the subject of another thread perhaps.

The pro going out are happy for others to have a opinion and follow that, yet the anti going out want everyone to follow their opinion as that's all it is. 

The roaches is 3 miles from my house, that comes within local. I expect staffs police patrolling this weekend and I have no issues about climbing by myself or 1 other local climber is within latest guidelines 

Stay safe everyone, let us not forget that the purpose of these restrictions is to reduce contact with other people.

As I said, "minimal" is meaningless unless its quantified and combined with 60,000,000 other people's "minimal".  The guidelines as they stand (and stood back in March) are very simple and unambiguous. 

You and others propose to ignore them because it isn't convenient for you.

which bit exactly