UKC

So this was something suspected by quite a few people but has now been proven. Chalk reduces the effectiveness of Covid and looks like it's highly effective:

https://www.climber.co.uk/news/news/chalk-research-now-peer-reviewed-and-re...

In reply to stp:

It's good news, but I think the prevailing understanding now would suggest that you are more likely to get covid from aerosol transmission in a wall without good ventilation, rather than from climbing hold surfaces.

In reply to stp:

To quote the article: "the newly approved research by scientists at De Montfort University Leicester (DMU) shows the amount of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by around 99% immediately upon contact with chalky surfaces"

... except it doesn't, they used a different coronavirus (HCoV-OC43). They are inferring it will by analogy.

It's way outside my expertise, but can anyone comment on whether it's reasonable to expect OC43 and SARS-CoV-2 viruses to respond identically to their environment and whatever is in chalk that they don't like?

In reply to Si dH:

Agreed, it seems an odd thing to make a lot of noise about, but perhaps ABC has some polling on people's nervousness that we haven't seen.

Nevertheless it's weird to trumpet data like this. Having skimmed the paper, the set up of the assay is weird, given the maximum log reduction you could see was 2.39 (what they reported for climbing chalk). For context if you want to sell anything labelled 'virucidal' in the UK and EU you'd need to show a log reduction of at least 4 I think in a standard test. This isn't a slight on the researchers, it's probably very hard!

I don't get why ABC would shout about  data like this, which if interpreted the wrong way could lead to people going "I'm using chalk, it's fine". If you're worried about surface transmission at all, you'd just keep sanitising hands regularly and be much more confident that you've actually killed off anything infectious.

In reply to Si dH:

Good point. Even accepting that doing research then getting it reviewed & published inevitably takes time, worrying about surface contact transmission does feel rather 2020.

I'm still washing my hands more often and more thoroughly than I used to though.

Perhaps chalk dust in the air is something walls should be trying to encourage rather than reduce?

In reply to AlanLittle:

I believe the research was indeed kicked off much earlier in the pandemic when everyone was indeed worrying more about surface transmission and it's certainly true that in that context climbing holds seemed very high risk. To be fair I'm sure (unchalked) they would probably be higher risk for occasional surface transmission than almost anything outside of a public toilet, so this research is still useful.

In reply to mikespooner:

The answer to your question is pound notes. Self serving, industry sponsored comfort "science". It surprises me that the ABC didn't employ those experts at laboratoire garner to conduct these trials.

As stated above, aerosols are a larger concern currently. So we remove our masks when breathing heavily only to replace them for shallow breathing whilst resting.

Is it only me?

Want to go to the wall, wear your mask. Yeah, it isn't great when breathing heavily but suck it up my little prince/princess. Last week you were describing with great joy how painful that jamming crack was, how tight your new shoes are.

Rant over, and breathe, with mask on of course. 

In reply to Si dH:

We should definitely outlaw the Edlinger post-chalk finger blow though.

In reply to stp:

You can get very very finely ground chalk suspended in high alcohol as a liquid or paste. It's used by weightlifters for grip and is the same magnesium carbonate as climbing chalk.

It's like a hand sanitizer and climbing chalk all in one. The only issue is it takes a few seconds (literally) to dry and doesn't work in a chalk bag, so it's good just as you start but not mid route. I've used it indoors myself and it lasts on the hands really well so mostly that's not an issue not rechalking. It would also reduce how much chalk dust we all breathe. It'd tick the box for some silly covid compliance measure if that helps us keep walls open

In reply to AlanLittle:

I cannot stop myself doing this, I must look pretty strange waving my fingers round in from of a facemask at the wall.

@Presley, agree. It's really not a big ask for the vast majority to keep them on.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Tabloid twaddle. Like Sid I think this is useful. If nothing else the labour intensive work of cleaning holds a lot more often might even make risks worse.

Mask use is required to project others from a potentially infected but asymptomatic wearer.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

There was a thread about this many months ago it I remember rightly.

There were a few walls that made liquid chalk compulsory in some weird assertion it was basically hand sanitizer. Again, I just didn't get it, it's common knowledge that any soil makes disinfectants work less efficiently, so dissolving a bunch of chalk in alcohol doesn't necessarily mean it's still 100% works.

Just stick to what we know 100% works, make it consistent across walls, encourage good habits and hopefully we can keep them all open this time.

In reply to mikespooner:

My local went liquid chalk only, but I think has now gone back to allowing both. I don't mind using liquid chalk at the start of a session but definitely as my skin gets thin I prefer the flexibility of reapplying powder chalk rather than having to continually wait for liquid chalk to dry. It's also not that great in that it feels like it gunks the holds up worse than powder chalk, I assume from when people use it when it's not fully dry, or from the resin in many brands.

OTOH, they require masks at all times, which I don't like as a climbing experience but which probably makes a lot more sense as a disease control mechanism...

In reply to Offwidth:

The report or my rant? 

Indeed. I cannot understand the on while resting/off while exercising protocol, completely illogical.

With correct marketing wearing a mask whilst climbing could be lauded as part of the suffering machismo of climbing. 

In reply to Jon Read:

They are both betacoronaviruses with very similar structures.  Although they bind to different receptors, they are both enveloped viruses and I suspect it's the lipid envelope that really doesn't like chalk.

In reply to AJM:

Definitely the resin. A wall I visit also insists on liquid chalk only at the moment, which they sell. Most people at said wall use the brand they sell, which contains resin. Holds are noticeably more "font classiquie" in nature than any other wall I visit - random foot pops and "dry" fires abound that I just don't get in other places. On top of this the social distancing was awful yesterday, felt a lot like the before times, and don't require masks. The alternative is "30 mins" more driving through caravan infested A roads. Want to swap? 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Because climbing with a mask is dreadful. While wearing glasses a non-starter. When climbing, you are up away from other people. While standing around belaying/not climbing you are far more likely to be near someone for several minutes. Seems like a common sense approach to me.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

This. Lysing envelopes/membranes is a common mode of virucide and bactericide; and is how ethanol works too. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've heard covid is worse

In reply to Robert Durran:

As dreadful as that long, steep boggy walk in. As dreadful as the hot aches, tight shoes, trying hard, getting scared, bleeding fingers, nasty flappers.

All suffering which climbers are frequently proud of but too prissy to wear a mask.

In reply to ianstevens:

Everything is a balance of risks in opening up. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

What a daft comparison to make.

In reply to Robert Durran:

As a glasses wearer I have to use contacts when I visit the wall otherwise it's wholly unworkable. But I think your point on being away from people when climbing is probably only relevant on a roped wall, which won't be the case for many.

In reply to stp:

Even if we do accept that chalk reduces the effectiveness of Covid, that means nothing.

Covid affects the breathing, and enters the body via the various orifices in the head. So whilst Covid may not live on your (chalked up) hands, unless you're going to fill your mouth and nose with chalk it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Of course, if you do fill your mouth and nose - and hence lungs - with chalk then you'll probably die of asphyxiation anyway.

In reply to ianstevens:

Yeah - I bought a decent size thing of liquid chalk not long ago - I've found it makes home training a lot less messy, plus obviously needing it for the wall until recently and it's quite useful for shorter dws in terms of saving chalk bags - but found it contains resin, so I'm now a bit less sure I want to use it quite as much on my home training stuff because I'm not sure I want to take that experience home! 

In reply to stp:

Do you have to snort it to benefit from this efficacy

In reply to stp:

I think it's irrelevant what works or doesn't work with regards to chalk.  Climbing walls are and will continue to be lumped in with normal gyms in terms of restrictions so regardless of what effect chalk does or doesn't have on virus transmission at climbing walls they'll continue to be forced to close if the infection rate rises once again.

Nobody in the government is going to have the time or inclination to look at this research and, if deemed necessary, put climbing gyms in a different category to normal gyms.

I'm sure I don't need to say this but even if this does show a 99% reduction in the amount of the virus on the surface, without knowing what the risk from surface transmission is this is a meaningless statistic.  For example, if the risk from surface transmission is less than 1%, by reducing this by 99%, you're really not changing much at all.

In other terms it's like buying 2 lottery tickets DOUBLES your chances of winning, but there's really no significant difference between 1/45000000 and 2/45000000 so despite you chances being doubled, it's an insignificant difference. 

It's a shame as this is good science that's been interpreted badly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed. And masks are part of that, as much as you, I, or anyone else hates wearing them.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You don't think while you're up above people you haven't got greater coverage on owt that comes out of your gob?

In reply to ianstevens:

Yes. That is why it makes sense to wear them when not climbing. Not ideal having to remove my glasses to belay, but I can cope. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to go. I doubt I would go if I had to wear  a mask to climb.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Maybe, but more dilute too.

In reply to stp: It probably shouldn’t be a surprise that chalk kills the virus. Chalk(CaCO3) is an alkali and creates a hostile environment for viruses and bacteria. Chalk derived products such as lime (CaO) are even stronger alkali’s and are commonly used as biocidal products.

Edit

Climbers chalk tends to be MgCO3 or a combination of CaCO3/MgCO3, but the same properties apply.

In reply to stp:

As mentioned the main issue with climbing walls, particularly bouldering, is the number of people gathered and moving around inside often poorly ventilated spaces, breathing hard when exerting themselves. The chalk is pretty irrelevant when it's transmitted through the air

Locally the walls were closed suddenly without warning before gyms- supposedly due to a reclassification into a higher risk category.  It seemed a bit odd at the time but I spoke to someone recently who knew of 6 people who had all caught covid at one of the walls so I think this may have come via contact tracing and Public Health

Anyway, hopefully with low levels in the community, the risk will remain very low and people can relax a bit- not like it was late Autumn/early Winter.

In reply to stp:

Couple of observations on top of those made above. 

They sprinkled a plastic surface with chalk. Is that comparable to the average chalked up, perhaps greasy hold?

Does grease mean the chalk is less effective?

Does a rough surface (which holds are, at least until they get caked in chalk) mean the risk is relatively low even without chalk?

I think the research is not unhelpful but it lacks real life context to really be helpful in practice. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

When you're breathing heavily all it's doing is sending the air up out of the top. No sense in trying to convince yourself that face coverings make any difference when you're blowing so hard that you inflate a clear half inch gap all round. What fraction of the air do you reckon is going through the fabric? If it's anything like all of it why is everyone moaning about glasses steaming up?

Edit: fwiw I'm not saying don't wear one, I'm saying don't pretend they're something they're not. You go to the wall, you breathe other people's air. Take it or leave it. (I'm leaving it, for now)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Dilute enough not to infect someone?

In reply to Robert Durran:

It seems fairly obvious to me that someone high up will present more of a hazard to those around them, unless the area is well ventilated. I have always thought this was also the obvious reason why young kids apparently transmit less. If you are breathing out 3 feet from the floor, anything nasty is going to hit the ground much sooner and get close to fewer people than if you are breathing out at 6 feet. I've never seen this tested scientifically though.