Woeful Lack of Masks/Distancing at Rumney

Rumney Maskswrote:

You're right, "enormously" is hyperbole because the risk is already lower than indoors and I shouldn't have used that word.  I read an interesting paper I believe from researchers in Boston, I can't find it atm but will look more later.  Again, not disputing that being outdoors is much safer but not when people are in clustered groups of ~50 without masks at the bases of popular walls and the wind is low.  

Most of the current White House infections are from the Supreme Court nomination (which was outside).  That became a superspreader event, as those people (most of whom were tested earlier that day) felt invincible and went about their usual maskless hijinks in the days that followed.

I fight the good fight on the forum as well, and there's plenty of us responsible climbers, but there's also (as this thread's replies and thumbs up would indicate) a population of climbers who have decided rules (and common sense) are for everyone else.  A microcosm of the larger problematic picture.  Same percent of selfish aholes, just... climbers.

The level of (willful?) ignorance about Covid transmission displayed by many on MP is truly unfortunate, especially at this stage of the game.

The last time I opened my mouth to ask for the guy crowding my belay spot to give a bit more space I was threatened, so I no longer bother.  On a typical weekend  I don't see a single person with a mask at my local crag, regardless of group size or distancing.  Now I only climb at daybreak, or after the crowds filter out.  Sad.

Dylan Pikewrote:

Seems like if you are worried, you should go somewhere off the beaten path.

Yeah, people congregating in large groups without masks is dumb, but you can't control their behavior. 

Truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kevin Heckelerwrote:

Most of the current White House infections are from the Supreme Court nomination (which was outside).  That became a superspreader event, as those people (most of whom were tested earlier that day) felt invincible and went about their usual maskless hijinks in the days that followed.

I fight the good fight on the forum as well, and there's plenty of us responsible climbers, but there's also (as this thread's replies and thumbs up would indicate) a population of climbers who have decided rules (and common sense) are for everyone else.  A microcosm of the larger problematic picture.  Same percent of selfish aholes, just... climbers.

Except the supreme  court nomination people were stacked on top of each other for an hour where as climbing outside belaying you are probably six feet apart for less time. Also, many of the infections seem to be related most closely to those who are around Donald Trump frequently. My only point earlier in the thread is that being pro mask but not actually being pro social distancing is a problematic platform. I wasn't advocating for/against wearing a mask. 

I mean, it was my understanding that part of the reopening process was that the RCA asked that everyone wear a mask when social distancing isn’t an option and on the approach to your destination so I don’t see how anyone’s opinion one the effectiveness of masks matters.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Except the supreme  court nomination people were stacked on top of each other for an hour where as climbing outside belaying you are probably six feet apart for less time. Also, many of the infections seem to be related most closely to those who are around Donald Trump frequently. My only point earlier in the thread is that being pro mask but not actually being pro social distancing is a problematic platform. I wasn't advocating for/against wearing a mask. 

The White House infection details are all conjecture because 1) they are not doing any formal contact tracing, and 2) they are not releasing the date Trump first tested positive.  There's a cluster of people who sat next to each other in the garden that day who reported testing positive a few days later.  The issue is the administration takes great pride is not following social distancing and mask mandates, so we have no idea who would be patient zero.

There's no doubt covid is spreading and has been spreading in the climbing community.  Because the average climber is in the lower risk group (young, fit) many are either able to fight it off with little consequence or are asymptomatic carriers/spreaders.  And until it's a threat, people don't take anything seriously.  I mean, even when it IS a legitimate threat they will still often make poor decisions based on wishful thinking or selfishness.  So the absence of widespread reports in the climbing community of covid spread doesn't mean it's not there and spreading.  There can be no doubt climbers contribute to the daily infection rate.

Kevin Heckelerwrote:

There's no doubt covid is spreading and has been spreading in the climbing community.  Because the average climber is in the lower risk group (young, fit) many are either able to fight it off with little consequence or are asymptomatic carriers/spreaders.  And until it's a threat, people don't take anything seriously.  I mean, even when it IS a legitimate threat they will still often make poor decisions based on wishful thinking or selfishness.  So the absence of widespread reports in the climbing community of covid spread doesn't mean it's not there and spreading.  There can be no doubt climbers contribute to the daily infection rate.

I have yet to meet a climber that has gotten COVID and I have climbed quite a bit this year but maybe thats just luck. But with you logic you could say any community is having spreading issues and its not reported. So saying climbing is spreading/not spreading COVID is just speculation. 

Like I said earlier I am not anti mask but the poster came in here all preachy about avoiding COVID while not actually avoiding COVID. If they had just said it would be cool if everyone wore masks I would have been indifferent to their post and not responded. 

https://www.nhpr.org/post/covid-map-which-new-hampshire-towns-require-masks#stream/0

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I have yet to meet a climber that has gotten COVID and I have climbed quite a bit this year but maybe thats just luck. But with you logic you could say any community is having spreading issues and its not reported. So saying climbing is spreading/not spreading COVID is just speculation. 

Like I said earlier I am not anti mask but the poster came in here all preachy about avoiding COVID while not actually avoiding COVID. If they had just said it would be cool if everyone wore masks I would have been indifferent to their post and not responded. 

I'm not sure how that was your takeaway from the op, especially about not avoiding COVID; I always wear a mask when anywhere near others or walking between areas, and climb at quieter walls where distancing is fine.  It sounds like you're implying people who are concerned about COVID should stay away from places like Rumney altogether, but I think the above steps are plenty to avoid COVID per public health guidelines (unless you disagree with them).  Also for saying you're not anti-mask you seem to be bending over backwards to defend not wearing them when in public around others. 

Anyways my main reason for posting was wondering if the current situation was due more to people seeing rates be lower for a while and only now starting to creep back up in some northeastern states, or actively anti mask feelings. Based on the replies it looks to be the latter, but I respect that my thoughts are in the minority and per suggestions will wear an n95 if I go again this season.  

To the poster who said the RCA has asked everyone to wear a mask when distancing isn't an option or on approach, I hadn't seen notices about that on their site or in person but that's great.  If anyone associated with the RCA is reading this, thank you for all the great work you do in maintaining Rumney & I hope people will do more to abide by that guidance in the future.

Rumney Masks wrote:

 It sounds like you're implying people who are concerned about COVID should stay away from places like Rumney altogether, but I think the above steps are plenty to avoid COVID per public health guidelines (unless you disagree with them).  Also for saying you're not anti-mask you seem to be bending over backwards to defend not wearing them when in public around others.

People concerned about COVID should probably not go to the most popular crag in a 6 state area and then complain in a relatively hostile way about it being a COVIDfest. You essentially implied everyone not wearing a mask is an idiot in this comment:

Rumney Masks wrote: 

where people were acting so irresponsibly for their health and others' when putting on a mask is such a trivial thing to do.

My issue with your post was two things, the way you said what you said and the implication that you had no control over the situation/others are totally at fault with COVID. You wearing a mask doesn't absolve you of all COVID responsibility. The fact is you could have been wearing a gaitor (doing virtual nothing) and you were walking past busy crags that makes you just as culpable as those not wearing masks. But lets just take a step back from the situation. Say you love football and it is your life, do you think it is a good idea to go to a packed football stadium even if everyone is wearing masks? 

In general people want their activities to be okay and they believe can do it in masks, but if someone else has an activity they care about then that person is irresponsible and should just wait. Like I said in my earlier post, in your scenario people not wearing a mask outside are like a 5% risk, masks outside are 2.5% and not going to a busy crag is zero, you act as though what your doing is the most rationale when in truth you believe you must do your activity and your okay with a little COVID risk as long as you can do what you want to do. But man if someone does not have your exact same level of risk aversion they are reckless.  

I have yet to meet a climber that has gotten COVID and I have climbed quite a bit this year but maybe thats just luck. But with you logic you could say any community is having spreading issues and its not reported. So saying climbing is spreading/not spreading COVID is just speculation.

This is priceless.

Based on the OP's original description, people were not spread out and not wearing masks.  Mask wearing AND social distancing work in tandem, a cumulative effect.  As you indicate, not doing one or the other (or neither) increases the chances for infection.  So people doing neither ARE idiots, jerks at the very least.  No one's even addressed the rock surface being a reliable vector for transmission.  It's a less hospitable environment but nothing to suggest the virus doesn't last at least as long as a few follows up the same route using the same holds. 

There's factors to being outdoors.  There's places here where belays are in slots/caves, with sometimes very little airflow.  It might be outside, but the air is being refreshed at the same rate as in a pub or cafe.  If it's windy, only the people closest and immediately downwind are at risk.  Trying to have people who could give a f%$# discern when the situation warrants a certain level of action is unrealistic, so general rules/laws are put in place to think for us.  It's clear there's plenty of climbers who need someone to think for them on this topic.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I have yet to meet a climber that has gotten COVID and I have climbed quite a bit this year but maybe thats just luck. But with you logic you could say any community is having spreading issues and its not reported. So saying climbing is spreading/not spreading COVID is just speculation. 

The issue is the asymptomatic spread, the younger/healthiest members of the population are also the group with the highest rate of being asymptomatic.  So, yes it's unlikely THEY KNOW they have the virus because they have no symptoms.  That's a big reason why there's mask mandates and shit shut down - because 20-30% of the people in the general public infected have no clue they are.  That number can be presumably higher in healthy user groups like climbers.

Also, it's worth noting that the number of cases reported are only those being tested.  Majority of the asymptomatic carriers are never going to be tested (maybe they'll know if they have an antibody test later on), and some people just stay home sick and ride it out.  The number of cases reported is never the reality on the ground, it's just a gauge for the rate of infection knowing the actual number of infections is always significantly higher than confirmed positives.  Posting graphs is only a tiny snapshot of the bigger picture.  That's why there's alarm and mandates.  That's why it's been classified by WHO as a pandemic.  It's not "just the flu".

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

People concerned about COVID should probably not go to the most popular crag in a 6 state area and then complain in a relatively hostile way about it being a COVIDfest. You essentially implied everyone not wearing a mask is an idiot in this comment:

My issue with your post was two things, the way you said what you said and the implication that you had no control over the situation/others are totally at fault with COVID. You wearing a mask doesn't absolve you of all COVID responsibility. The fact is you could have been wearing a gaitor (doing virtual nothing) and you were walking past busy crags that makes you just as culpable as those not wearing masks. But lets just take a step back from the situation. Say you love football and it is your life, do you think it is a good idea to go to a packed football stadium even if everyone is wearing masks? 

In general people want their activities to be okay and they believe can do it in masks, but if someone else has an activity they care about then that person is irresponsible and should just wait. Like I said in my earlier post, in your scenario people not wearing a mask outside are like a 5% risk, masks outside are 2.5% and not going to a busy crag is zero, you act as though what your doing is the most rationale when in truth you believe you must do your activity and your okay with a little COVID risk as long as you can do what you want to do. But man if someone does not have your exact same level of risk aversion they are reckless.  

I never said anyone is an idiot and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said that I feel being near strangers without a mask on is in a vacuum an irresponsible act; I personally think that is a fair statement but clearly others disagree which as I said I respect given that my opinion is in the minority. I’m not sure how you view that as hostility, but to me your posts come across as the only hostile ones in this thread and I imagine you don’t view them like that either.

I also never said that I think I’m “absolved of all covid responsibility”, and am aware that masks mitigate but don’t eliminate risk. I use a washable one with a filter insert but like I said will use single use n95s in the future. I also don’t believe I “must do my activity” and literally just said in the post above I’m going to alter the way I approach going there, including looking for alternate paths others have mentioned that I wasn’t aware of.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

People concerned about COVID should probably not go to the most popular crag in a 6 state area and then complain in a relatively hostile way about it being a COVIDfest.  

By your logic all the anti-mask yahoos out there can do whatever they want, whenever they want, while those of us playing by the rules take the hit.  This is basically victim blaming.

Most of the "This is the way we do it up here, go someplace, I haven't met a climber who has been infected with COVD-19" crowd clearly misidentify having thoughts as thinking. Common problem.

ubuwrote:

By your logic all the anti-mask yahoos out there can do whatever they want, whenever they want, while those of us playing by the rules take the hit.  This is basically victim blaming.

It's not victim blaming because someone being shot by a gun has no control over the outcome in any capacity. In this situation yes Rumney masks had control over some of the outcome. Rumney masks is only kinda playing by the rules Rumney is clearly going to be crowded, the general guidelines say you should avoid people. Say everyone went back to living normal lives but in average masks, COVID would actually be worse because if a mask only gives you a 75% improvement but you go from seeing 5 people a week to 100 people a week that reality would be worse. In this situation Rumney masks could be the person who is giving people COVID so they might not even be the victim.

Rumney Masks wrote:

I never said anyone is an idiot and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said that I feel being near strangers without a mask on is in a vacuum an irresponsible act; I personally think that is a fair statement but clearly others disagree which as I said I respect given that my opinion is in the minority. I’m not sure how you view that as hostility, but to me your posts come across as the only hostile ones in this thread and I imagine you don’t view them like that either.

I also never said that I think I’m “absolved of all covid responsibility”, and am aware that masks mitigate but don’t eliminate risk. I use a washable one with a filter insert but like I said will use single use n95s in the future. I also don’t believe I “must do my activity” and literally just said in the post above I’m going to alter the way I approach going there, including looking for alternate paths others have mentioned that I wasn’t aware of.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. I would say disagree with, "I said that I feel being near strangers without a mask on is in a vacuum an irresponsible act," because this situation is not a vaccuum. But in this situation you have some control, obviously belaying you can't do much but walking past metamorphisis is something I wouldn't even do without COVID.  But we all make mistakes. I think in this mask scenario, the study by Harvard said it was 50% more effective. So say you have COVID your only half as likely to give it to someone else as they are to give it to you. In some peoples minds this is material in other peoples minds it is not.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

The issue is the asymptomatic spread, the younger/healthiest members of the population are also the group with the highest rate of being asymptomatic.  So, yes it's unlikely THEY KNOW they have the virus because they have no symptoms.  That's a big reason why there's mask mandates and shit shut down - because 20-30% of the people in the general public infected have no clue they are.  That number can be presumably higher in healthy user groups like climbers.

Also, it's worth noting that the number of cases reported are only those being tested.  Majority of the asymptomatic carriers are never going to be tested (maybe they'll know if they have an antibody test later on), and some people just stay home sick and ride it out.  The number of cases reported is never the reality on the ground, it's just a gauge for the rate of infection knowing the actual number of infections is always significantly higher than confirmed positives.  Posting graphs is only a tiny snapshot of the bigger picture.  That's why there's alarm and mandates.  That's why it's been classified by WHO as a pandemic.  It's not "just the flu".

I have also yet to know anyone who has gotten COVID. Obviously asymptomatic spread is some level of a threat but being concerned that you get enough of a viral load in an outdoor environment from someone who doesn't show symptoms is less concerning to me than people who wear masks all the time and frequent the climbing gym and go grocery shopping everyday. 

Edit: Ubu I can't reply but the scenario you laid out would be: she went to a bar that specialized in grabbing asses, so yes I would expect asses to be grabbed. Victim blaming argument can be applied to almost any scenario where one person is disadvantaged from another. In this situation you see Rumney Masks as the victim but I see them as a lessor co-conspirator. 

Edit2:Just for context, I have been told Rumney can host 10,000 by the park patroler in a weekend, I am going to assume that counts over three days. Rounding down that is 3,000 people a day. There are three ways most people go up through Rumney so 1,000 people will pass you in a day. Assume that masks are 80% effective your COVID Trevors COVID Coefficient is 200. Compare this to pawtuckaway that have 150 people a weekend day.  There are at least five separate areas in Pway so you will have 30 people pass you. If no one wears a mask then Trevor COVID coefficent is 30. OP is irresponsible in the eyes of some, but then claims others are the irresponsible ones. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

It's not victim blaming because someone being shot by a gun has no control over the outcome in any capacity. In this situation yes Rumney masks had control over some of the outcome. Rumney masks is only kinda playing by the rules Rumney is clearly going to be crowded, the general guidelines say you should avoid people.  

"If she didn't want to get her ass grabbed, she shouldn't have gone into that crowded bar in the first place"

Why not wear a mask?  Seems like a simple cost-benefit analysis is needed here.