Why are climbers arguing about this?

Chris and Freda wrote: The assumption that by going "outside", we'll either contract covid-19 or expose others to it, appears to me to be silly.  My wife and I climb together, we don't climb with others, we don't wait in line on popular climbs, and often go all day climbing with barely coming within shouting distance of other people/climbers.  The closest we get is when we stop at the gas station - and then we don't go inside. Why should we not continue to climb?  How are we going to give or get covid-19 without being near other people or handling things they've touched?

I understand all of OLH's points, but they assume that we are going to be in close contact with other people - which we aren't.  So why should we stay home?

While covid-19 does pose a bit of a danger in terms of being around people, there are much bigger concerns. What happens if you have an accident? Are you going to take a hospital bed from a person dying from the virus because you need to engage in unnecessary dangerous activities? While it doesn’t always seem unsafe, climbing is inherently dangerous, and having the “it won’t be me” attitude about things just makes it more dangerous.

Patrik wrote:

Isn't the main purpose of this "quarantine" to save the health care system? Without "quarantine", everyone gets sick at the same time and many will die needlessly because there isn't enough health care resources. If 2 million people knock on the hospital door tomorrow, 1.9 million will be told to go home because there isn't enough staff/equipment/space. Instead, the "quarantine" attempts to limit the door knockers to maybe 0.1 million and they will get some kind of care. Then next week, another 0.1 million show up to get care and so on. This assumes that hospital care can actually save some people, which is somewhat likely. 

+1
Here, spend some time on this interactive map:

https://covidactnow.org/

Marc801 C wrote: +1
Here, spend some time on this interactive map:

https://covidactnow.org/

Yay! Looks like Kansas is still open for climbing ...

Zach Anatta wrote:

I was the military, so yes, I know very well. I also spent three years studying the Constitution, amongst other legal topics.

It doesn't matter if they call it "emergency powers" or some other euphemism.  They could call it "Freedom Time." If you are being ordered inside by an executive who enforces it either through actual police or soldiers or the threat to do so (Newsom in California) then you are living under martial law.

You can call it that but that doesn't make it true. Martial law is when the military usurps normal civilian control of law enforcement. If that were the case you'd see military folks in American cities enforcing the laws. You'd also see suspension of habeas corpus and people being arrested and held by the military for violations of the law.

I'm in Los Angeles. Probably under the strictest "stay at home" orders currently in the USA. People are walking their dogs, going for bike rides, shopping for groceries. The county closed the beaches and trails yesterday to avoid a repeat of last weekend when they were swarming with people in such a way that nobody could realistically adhere to 6-foot personal space guidelines. But nobody has been "ordered inside."  Even if I went down to my local beach today and climbed over a "beach closed" sign to get to the water the worst that would happen to be might be getting a ticket. More likely a nice cop would politely ask me to leave the beach. 

I've also lived and worked in war zones. I respect your experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think if you reflect on it you'll realize we're nowhere near that in our country.

Nat Vorel wrote:

While covid-19 does pose a bit of a danger in terms of being around people, there are much bigger concerns. What happens if you have an accident? Are you going to take a hospital bed from a person dying from the virus because you need to engage in unnecessary dangerous activities? While it doesn’t always seem unsafe, climbing is inherently dangerous, and having the “it won’t be me” attitude about things just makes it more dangerous.

Ok, I get your point, but...what about all the other things we do everyday that are just as "dangerous' in their own way?  Many of us walk up and down stairs every day - lots of folks get hurt tripping on the stairs.  Most of us still have to go to the store for food - just as much chance of an accident there.  Sure, by not climbing we can reduce our exposure to the risk of accidents, and I certainly don't think "it won't be me".  But...a little more care, climb easy routes, and the odds of getting hurt are no more than the odds of getting hurt falling down the stairs.

Anything can happen that will put someone in need of a hospital bed.  To sit at home and do nothing just to avoid the miniscule possibility that I may need that bed seems pretty silly when it it is just as likely I'll get hurt at home.  

Most vehicle accidents happen within 5 miles of home - I'll bet pretty much everyone that is "staying at home" is not traveling much further than that 5 miles when they have to get groceries, which means that they have increased their risk of needing that bed by "staying at home"...

Patrik wrote: Yay! Looks like Kansas is still open for climbing ...

Click into the various states. Here's Colorado:

Chris and Freda wrote:Most vehicle accidents happen within 5 miles of home - I'll bet pretty much everyone that is "staying at home" is not traveling much further than that 5 miles when they have to get groceries, which means that they have increased their risk of needing that bed by "staying at home"...

You realize, I'm sure, that most car accidents happen within 5 miles of home because most driving occurs within 5 miles of home. It's not like your per-mile risk magically decreases when you hit the 6th mile away from home.

People are driving less, period, under the current situation. As a result, there are less accidents.

I actually agree with you that everyone has to make their own choices about relative risk of activities. If I had a backyard crag I'd probably be all over it. I also wouldn't advertise it. I see tons of people riding bikes and skateboarding around Los Angeles right now, which is fine with me, but comes with a risk of accident, too. Personally, I hope to avoid the hospital at all costs right now. But I've made more ER trips for bike accidents than climbing accidents, for sure. 

Tammy Gueterman wrote: Regarding the idea that you shouldn't climb now because you might need rescue or healthcare resources if you get hurt (I promise this is the last time I post this, at this point it's just spam)

If you're going to change your behavior now, then you are accepting the converse: On a good day, you are willing to ask someone else to risk their life to rescue you and consume medical resources for your recreation. How much thought have you given that on a normal day? Is that fair? Fair enough I would say. Why would you ever want to burden a rescuer with your mangled corpse? Why would you ever risk a flight crew with your broken ankle? Why would risk leaving your non-climber family and friends in grief because of something they don't really get?

As long as your cosmic moral balance remains in the green, we are all entitled to some selfishness. This rescue consideration is, practically, so minimal that it makes no difference in my mind now that there's a pandemic. There are many other reason not to travel or climb if transmission and impact on local communities can't be mitigated, but the idea that you'll create a rescue scenario is negligible. If there is a climbing plan where the potential for burdening SAR and the hospital makes it unethical today, then it was also unethical 5 months ago as well.

Nonsense. I can accept burdening a rescue/healthcare system under normal circumstances and not accept that same risk if the impact would be greater  under different circumstances.

Tammy Gueterman wrote: This rescue consideration is, practically, so minimal that it makes no difference in my mind now that there's a pandemic.

Not exactly weighing in on the "forcing someone to rescue you" issue, but keep in mind that surgical procedures like putting your ankle or knee back together after an accident aren't being scheduled or performed at the moment (at least to my knowledge in the greater Salt Lake Valley, I'm sure is the case elsewhere), and all elective, non-emergency surgeries are cancelled.  

Hospitals are readying/reserving all available patient care spaces to receive and treat patients in respiratory failure.  So, even if self preservation is your only motivation, user beware.  It's a really bad time to get injured, period.   

Chris and Freda wrote:

Ok, I get your point, but...what about all the other things we do everyday that are just as "dangerous' in their own way?  Many of us walk up and down stairs every day - lots of folks get hurt tripping on the stairs.  Most of us still have to go to the store for food - just as much chance of an accident there.  Sure, by not climbing we can reduce our exposure to the risk of accidents, and I certainly don't think "it won't be me".  But...a little more care, climb easy routes, and the odds of getting hurt are no more than the odds of getting hurt falling down the stairs.

Anything can happen that will put someone in need of a hospital bed.  To sit at home and do nothing just to avoid the miniscule possibility that I may need that bed seems pretty silly when it it is just as likely I'll get hurt at home.  

Most vehicle accidents happen within 5 miles of home - I'll bet pretty much everyone that is "staying at home" is not traveling much further than that 5 miles when they have to get groceries, which means that they have increased their risk of needing that bed by "staying at home"...

It’s more about limiting the activities that could put you in the hospital. Walking up the stairs or going to the store is a necessity; climbing is not. While you can do your best to limit danger by climbing easy stuff, there’s still more danger than every day life. Also, it wouldn’t increase the chance of an accident; you’re still driving five miles from home when you drive further than five miles, the chances are the same either way.

Senor Arroz wrote:

You realize, I'm sure, that most car accidents happen within 5 miles of home because most driving occurs within 5 miles of home. It's not like your per-mile risk magically decreases when you hit the 6th mile away from home.

People are driving less, period, under the current situation. As a result, there are less accidents.

I actually agree with you that everyone has to make their own choices about relative risk of activities. If I had a backyard crag I'd probably be all over it. I see tons of people riding bikes and skateboarding around Los Angeles right now, which is fine with me, but comes with a risk of accident, too. Personally, I hope to avoid the hospital at all costs right now. But I've made more ER trips for bike accidents than climbing accidents, for sure. 

Yeh...that was a bit tongue in cheek, although I liked Dave K's response :)

As with any activity, it seems that a certain amount of good judgement is in order - more so now than every.  Drive less.  Walk down the stairs next to the banister so you can grab it if need be.  Maintain "social distance" when you absolutely have to go out.  But to say, unequivocally, "dont' go outside", "don't climb", "don't go for a run", "don't whatever" seems like it makes the assumption that we are all idiots and can't make good decisions.  Well...OK, so looking at the folks that were crowding the beaches in LA, I guess that is a pretty decent assumption.  But still...we have a backyard crag that isn't much and is rarely visited.  Easy climbs.  East facing, so warm.  Maybe I'm being "selfish", but I just don't see how there is any more risk involved in climbing on that crag than there is in so many other daily things we do.

Ned Plimpton wrote:

Not exactly weighing in on the "forcing someone to rescue you" issue, but keep in mind that surgical procedures like putting your ankle or knee back together after an accident aren't being scheduled or performed at the moment (at least to my knowledge in the greater Salt Lake Valley, I'm sure is the case elsewhere), and all elective, non-emergency surgeries are cancelled.  Hospitals are readying/reserving all available patient care spaces to receive and treat patients in respiratory failure.  So, if self preservation is your only motivation, user beware.  It's a really bad time to get injured, period.   

True. 

You can’t even get a bypass tight now unless it’s emergent. I’ll agree that if you’re climbing with your roommate/SO at some deserted crag close to home I don’t have a big problem with it. But for fucks sake stop advertising it. You don’t need to get on here or IG or FB and flaunt that fact. You’re just getting other people excited. Yeah, if you break your leg or ankle you’ll be straining the system more but you won’t get surgery so that limp you have the rest of your life- well karmas a bitch. 
To answer your question H, the way I see it, most people are not old enough to have had to face something greater than themselves. ( myself included). I mean let’s face it, unless you are a military family modern wars have been fought on TV. I’m not trying to minimize those wars, that’s just the way it is. The 24 hour news channels have desensitized everyone that this is just another topic the talking heads are arguing over. The past 10 years or so have been so prosperous that people are taking freedoms for granted. 
People are selfish and lack perspective. I mean wasn’t it just this morning someone referred to the elderly and immunosuppressed as extra fleas? 

Zach Anatta wrote: "What's so hard about accepting martial law without end?"

It's because they're younger, they have a future to look forward to, and they're being asked to destroy that future based on theories backed by zero data.

Staying at home is not sustainable economically even in the short to medium term. Before we entertain the idea of an endless quarantine that will destroy the world's economy, we need good data. Which we do not have. The lack of data should be the way people are talking about this, not moralizing about "just stay at home, it's so simple." Nothing involving the declaration of martial law is "simple,"  and it's not sustainable anyway.

Iceland has tested a larger percentage of its citizens than any other country thus far (3.6%). Only half of those who get sick show symptoms.  The vast majority of the symptomatic have mild symptoms. This was not an antibody test, meaning that it couldn't tell who has contracted the disease in the past and recovered. That means more people were actually asymptomatic or had mild symptoms.

The people who would die from this disease now are mostly going to die from it anyway, or from their underlying diseases before they catch it. The current mass quarantine effort might work in the short term to limit the spread, but as I said, it is not sustainable. Eventually it will be relaxed - long before we have a vaccine - and the susceptible population will become exposed anyway.  

If we had more information we might realize that only the elderly and those with underlying conditions should be self-quarantining right now.  You can disagree and moralize all that you want; the fact is, governments cannot sustain this quarantine, and they will be sending people back to work sooner (much sooner) rather than later. And they should be.

The other problem are the pieces of shit in the media:

No, now is the time to think critically. 

MP Poster Child for Narcissism.

I think one of the big reasons that climbers aren't doing great is that risk management mitigation when climbing almost always has to do with making a decision for yourself and your partner that will only realistically impact the two of you (in most cases).  People are calculating risk right now with that in mind.  They don't think that they will get it, and if they do get it then they know that statistically, they will probably be okay.  The main issue with this is it completely and utterly ignores the rest of the world.  It really does come from selfishness.  Selfish economically are the people that think we should return to business as usual even if it means killing many more thousands.  Selfish personally if you think that climbing isn't "that big of a deal".  Just hang out for a few months inside.  Pretend your fucked up your labrum or a pulley or something and wait it out.  

Chris and Freda wrote: But to say, unequivocally, "dont' go outside", "don't climb", "don't go for a run", "don't whatever" seems like it makes the assumption that we are all idiots and can't make good decisions.  Well...OK, so looking at the folks that were crowding the beaches in LA, I guess that is a pretty decent assumption.  

Honestly, the beaches and trails of LA weren't that bad. It was hardly like the spring breakers in S. Florida. But we've got MILLIONS of people here. What is a good idea for a few people (Let's go outside and get fresh air!) suddenly becomes a bad idea when everyone has it at once.

I live by the beach. I'm glad that they closed the parking lots and that they're now closing the beaches just to reduce the attractive nuisance it is right now. I hope everyone still goes out and walks their dog or goes for a bike ride in their own neighborhood. Check out the aerial shot of my local  Venice Beach skatepark yesterday. Normally it's swarming. 

Is that the park from THPS2???

Nat Vorel wrote:

While covid-19 does pose a bit of a danger in terms of being around people, there are much bigger concerns. What happens if you have an accident? Are you going to take a hospital bed from a person dying from the virus because you need to engage in unnecessary dangerous activities? While it doesn’t always seem unsafe, climbing is inherently dangerous, and having the “it won’t be me” attitude about things just makes it more dangerous.

And also, if you have an accident, will your otherwise routine over-abundance-of-caution trip to the ER lead to the death of someone in your family?

I was asking myself that *exact* question 2 weeks ago, after a traffic accident that my partner and our daughter were in.

Cron wrote: Is that the park from THPS2???

Nah. That was "The Pit" that was torn down 20 years ago. The one in the picture opened in 2009, I think. It's cool. 

csproul wrote:

Nonsense. I can accept burdening a rescue/healthcare system under normal circumstances and not accept that same risk if the impact would be greater  under different circumstances.

Yep.