Woeful Lack of Masks/Distancing at Rumney

Can't we all just get along... Remember that the pandemic won't last forever. We just need to use caution until this whole thing is over. It would suck to have a bunch of climbers get sick. You guys are my bros. Ha. I will also say that Rumney did seem a little Covid risky to me when I have been there recently. Not a scientist, but it is kind of obvious that it is easy to get sick when hanging out with a huge number of climbers all day in close proximity. Mask or no mask. Of course I am constantly doing a bunch of risky ass shit. 

My friend that I climb with sometimes wears a mask the whole time (even in the car to the crag) Ha. He is definitely a much better person than me. I wear a mask inconsistently at best. Better than nothing I suppose. My girlfriend makes me wear a mask all the time when she is there, damn do gooder. I personally hate the masks, but what are you going to do. I also hated having all the climbing areas closed. 

This has been my 2 cents.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Rumney masks justifies rumney as being safe missing the whole part about avoiding group gatherings. It is probably just as bad to go climbing in rumney as going to wedding. The only thing I was trying to point was the hypocrisy in the original post.

Are you suggesting that people who are concerned for their health or their community's should just stop going outside full stop, and that there aren't different of levels of risk for different kinds of activities and the preventative measures people at them are using? Using your comparison, the difference between Rumney and going to a wedding is that at the latter the hosts effectively know everyone and can create rules for attending that comply with public health guidance and reduce risk to a minimal level (like most private businesses and gatherings at least in the NE). The only relevant way they are similar is that there are people at each.  

Since Rumney is open to the public, it's up to people that go there to decide whether to follow federal/state mandates, RCA guidance, or something else.  Still not getting what you feel is hypocritical about that.  

Rumney Maskswrote:

there aren't different of levels of risk for different kinds of activities and the preventative measures people at them are using? 

This is exactly what I am saying. The chance of getting COVID outside at a crag is relatively low say the probability of getting COVID without a mask on is 5%. Wearing a mask is 2.5% chance of getting COVID. Not going to Rumney is a 0% chance. You are expecting everyone to agree with you at the 2.5% is where the line should be drawn. Some people think that you should aim for a 0% chance. Most the people at rumney are okay with a 5% chance. I don't really care where people draw the line but you should recognize that you drew the line a 2.5% and not 0% and called everyone recklessly irresponsible for not agreeing with you.  

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

called everyone recklessly irresponsible for not agreeing with you.  

Idk how many times I have to repeat this for it to register with you but it isn't a matter of disagreeing with me or any other individual; it's disagreeing with federal guidelines, the overwhelming majority of the medical community especially pertaining to infectious disease specialists, the RCA, and a good portion of the climbing community albeit not the majority if this thread is a reliable indicator. Asking again, are you suggesting that people who are concerned for their health or their community's should just stop going outside full stop? Also what is your source for the random %'s you keep throwing out?

Rumney Maskswrote:

Idk how many times I have to repeat this for it to register with you but it isn't a matter of disagreeing with me or any other individual; it's disagreeing with federal guidelines, the overwhelming majority of the medical community especially pertaining to infectious disease specialists, the RCA, and a good portion of the climbing community albeit not the majority if this thread is a reliable indicator. Also what is your source for the random %'s you keep throwing out?

There is a study on masks out there that says they are between 60%-30% effective. So 50% seemed fair. I’m simply pointing out that you are not being the best COVID steward so calling everyone reckless when your also being reckless is hypocritical. From a COVID standpoint You think the masks are the problem when the problem is the volume of people. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

There is a study on masks out there that says they are between 60%-30% effective. So 50% seemed fair. I’m simply pointing out that you are not being the best COVID steward so calling everyone reckless when your also being reckless is hypocritical. 

And again, I don't know what a "covid steward" is supposed to be nor would I want to be one. I'm not coming up with any views or opinions of my own, I'm doing what the CDC etc has decided is safe.  In terms of whatever study you're referring to, it isn't a matter of just masks, it's distancing when possible as well. If you think being reckless constitutes trying to avoid people as much as possible, climbing in quiet spots, and always having a mask on when others are nearby, I would say you have an odd definition of that word. 

Rumney Maskswrote:

And again, I don't know what a "covid steward" is supposed to be nor would I want to be one. I'm not coming up with any views or opinions of my own, I'm doing what the CDC etc has decided is safe.  In terms of whatever study you're referring to, it isn't a matter of just masks, it's distancing when possible as well. If you think being reckless constitutes trying to avoid people as much as possible, climbing in quiet spots, and always having a mask on when others are nearby, I would say you have an odd definition of that word. 

You just posted what I've posted a few times in this thread (and numerous times on the forum).

I suppose it's not a stretch to think people who don't care if you live or die also don't read the other posts in a discussion they're participating on an internet forum.  As long as they get their posts read, we can all go to hell.  :p

Rumney Maskswrote:

And again, I don't know what a "covid steward" is supposed to be nor would I want to be one. I'm not coming up with any views or opinions of my own, I'm doing what the CDC etc has decided is safe.  In terms of whatever study you're referring to, it isn't a matter of just masks, it's distancing when possible as well. If you think being reckless constitutes trying to avoid people as much as possible, climbing in quiet spots, and always having a mask on when others are nearby, I would say you have an odd definition of that word. 

Going to the busiest crag in 6 states definitely seems inline? Going to metamorphosis is distancing? You went on the beaten path. Going to rumney is the opposite of avoiding people. I’m not saying you shouldn’t go but if everyone was wearing masks at rumney that doesn’t change The fact people are on top of each other.

There was a comment awhile back about letting anti-maskers win. The fact is going to the busiest place with a mask on is letting covid win.

Is there a single report of any Covid infection being linked to Rumney?   It's not a super-spreader event unless someone gets sick.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronavirus_coverage/amid-rise-in-cases-cdc-study-shows-masks-cut-arizona-covid-19-cases-by-75/article_c0a1f612-08f4-11eb-84ee-bb370f3f63f8.html?

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

You are expecting everyone to agree with you at the 2.5% is where the line should be drawn.  

Do you think it is reasonable to conclude that reducing the risk by 2.5% is not worth the cost of wearing a small piece of fabric over your nose and mouth when in public?  I'm not asking for a comparison to staying home altogether (0%) or any other alternative.  I'm asking specifically about the marginal cost/benefit of wearing a mask in public, and what the burden is to doing so.  

(Note that I do not necessarily agree with your numbers--I'm just trying to figure out how you value the burden of wearing a mask relative to the 2.5% benefit you propose.)

Mike Stephanwrote:

Do you think it is reasonable to conclude that reducing the risk by 2.5% is not worth the cost of wearing a small piece of fabric over your nose and mouth when in public?  I'm not asking for a comparison to staying home altogether (0%) or any other alternative.  I'm asking specifically about the marginal cost/benefit of wearing a mask in public, and what the burden is to doing so.  

(Note that I do not necessarily agree with your numbers--I'm just trying to figure out how you value the burden of wearing a mask relative to the 2.5% benefit you propose.)

I do, but absolutely you should consider the alternatives. Once again, the OP went to the bussiest crag around and calls everyone irresponsible but failing to recognize their own irresponsibility. I feel like if this was drunk driving the OP has a BAC of .06 and calls everyone with a BAC of .1 the bad guys. Yeah the people who are more drunk are worse, but they are also a drunk person in this scenario.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I do, but absolutely you should consider the alternatives. Once again, the OP went to the bussiest crag around and calls everyone irresponsible but failing to recognize their own irresponsibility. I feel like if this was drunk driving the OP has a BAC of .06 and calls everyone with a BAC of .1 the bad guys. Yeah the people who are more drunk are worse, but they are also a drunk person in this scenario.

That is a terrible analogy.  

A better one is: the OP decided to drive on a busy highway, and was shocked to find a bunch of drunks careening off the guardrails.  He then posted his experience on a car forum, and someone chided him for being irresponsible for not sticking to back roads, and tried to draw moral equivalence between driving drunk and, well, just driving.

ubuwrote:

That is a terrible analogy.  

A better one is: the OP decided to drive on a busy highway, and was shocked to find a bunch of drunks careening off the guardrails.  He then posted his experience on a car forum, and someone chided him for being irresponsible for not sticking to back roads, and tried to draw moral equivalence between driving drunk and, well, just driving.

I guess go to the busiest crag you can go to and travel places with large crowds, wear a mask. Then when you get COVID fail to acknowledge any personal responsibility attribute 100% of the blame to other people. Donald Trump rallies are a great idea if everyone starts wearing masks, that will fix it!

Since people seemed to miss this point when I brought it up I’ll say it again. As part of the RCA’s reopening plan they have requested that people wear masks in parking lots and on the way to your climb (wearing one when social distancing isn’t possible should be a given.) By saying fuck all that noise you are choosing to place more value in you doing whatever you want than future access to climbing at Rumney. Any point about whether masks work or any political spin on it is entirely irrelevant. If you don’t wanna play by the rules the RCA has requested we follow when using the land they worked so hard to secure then go somewhere else.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Masks definitely help - there is no question at this point; the science is irrefutable. If *everyone* wore masks right now when around others *and* practiced physical distancing...

1. Over 60K lives can be saved between now and the new year

2. The spread can be brought to manageable levels - adding in extensive testing and contact tracing at a national level can go even further.

The resolving the economic impact and life normalcy WILL NOT HAPPEN until the pandemic is brought reasonably under control 

It has nothing to do with "personal feelings". Refusing to wear masks is akin to being anti-vax and a flat-earther.

First off, yes I think the Earth is round, most vaccines are useful, and I did my homework when it comes to this subject, so you can quit with the talk down to me.

That is just a flat out lie and you know it is. Check the statistics on mask wearers and covid transmission. Lets take a look at some of the talking points.

If masks work, then why social distancing?

If social distancing works, then why is covid still spreading?

If masks work, why do people still test positive for covid even if they wear masks?---> cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/…

If masks and social distancing work, then why the need for a lockdown?

If covid testing is accurate, then why so many false positives?

If covid is so dangerous then why is the fatality rate less then 1%?

If covid is so dangerous then why is the vast majority of cases asymptomatic?

If covid is statistically the most dangerous for people with 3 or more preexisting conditions, then why quarantine the healthy population and not the elderly and ill?

If complete quarantine is still needed to save the few, then why are people still dying from covid?

If people are still dying from covid, then either masks, lockdown, social distancing are not effective, or testing is inaccurate and people are surely not dying of covid? 

If the vaccine is safe and effective, then why cant you take legal action against the manufacturers if you are injured by the vaccine? -->https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22 

If all the information you have been given by the "experts" is truth, then why will this post be flagged, and probably deleted for challenging the narrative? Why are counter arguments silenced on social media?

The mental hurdles you have to jump over to buy into the narrative are almost to much to handle, and that is why ALOT of people no longer care about one of the largest nothing-burgers ever pushed on the people.  "They" have done well to fearmonger and scare the uneducated to be literal useful idiots in pushing through these draconian rules set in place well before anyone knew what we were dealing with. I don't know if it is pride or ignorance, but people have dug there heals in believing that this thing is so dangerous when the data clearly show it isn't.  The only person holding you back from "life normalcy" is you Marc801.  You have been tricked, and you are to embarrassed or prideful to admit it.

Most important factor I left out was this: You(everyone on here), are willing to take a factor 2 fall on a harness constructed out of materials gathered from the lowest bidder, on a rope of the same lowest bidder, on a nut/cam/bolt/ring stuck into a crack in the rocks, all while being belayed by someone who you hope is paying enough attention to arrest your fall effectively...and if any of these systems fail you will most likely die.  You do it though right?, and you have the choice to error on the side of caution and not climb. You do it because life has risks if you want to feel somewhat ALIVE. you can cruise through life mitigating risks, but that is your personal choice to make for yourself.  If you say I have to wear a mask in public for my safety and yours, then I say you cant climb anymore for your safety and mine.

ubuwrote:

You keep bringing up this straw man.  Nobody on this thread is asking for a lockdown.  Nobody.

Instead, people are asking you, and others like you, to wear a damn mask while in public.  Why?  Because we'd like to see fewer people die, and see the economy get back to business as quickly as possible.  Masks will do both.  It has nothing to do with how you "feel".

Did you just assume my gender? That is violence and I do not appreciate it.

Bart Simpsonwrote:

I did my homework when it comes to this subject

Let me guess: Fox & Friends?

Bart Simpson wrote:
Check the statistics on mask wearers and covid transmission.

By all means, please do.  I look forward to seeing your data.

Bart Simpson wrote:
If masks work, then why social distancing?

If masks work, why do people still test positive for covid even if they wear masks?

If seatbelts work, why use airbags?

if seatbelts work, why do people still die in car accidents?

Most of your questions boil down to "if x works, then why are there still cases of it not working?" The answer is because nothing works 100% of the time. What you're presenting isn't a counter-argument, it's conspiracy theories and uninformed pseudo-science.