Who’s going to work today?

[Lemonsqueeza]

Hello, I’m new here.

 

what are your thoughts on aerial rescue with the social distancing rules?

obviously I’d carry out an aerial rescue if needed but should we be climbing non emergency jobs at all....

 

Can we perform our job safely? 
 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, Lemonsqueeza said:

Hello, I’m new here.

 

what are your thoughts on aerial rescue with the social distancing rules?

obviously I’d carry out an aerial rescue if needed but should we be climbing non emergency jobs at all....

 

Can we perform our job safely? 
 

 

There’s theory and there is practice.....  The 2 rarely meet nicely in the middle because theory will almost always play second fiddle. 
 

Firstly, staff working (esp climbing) should only be those without symptoms (of any sort not just C19.)
 

Yes, you ‘could’ be asymptomatic but what is the probability?

 

Second, how many genuine aerial rescues are conducted daily in UK Arb? 
 

Answer, nobody knows but I’d take a punt it’s between 0 and zero. 
 

Also, if we ‘know’ we have additional considerations we should moderate our working behaviour accordingly - add higher levels of risk mitigation.  Don’t do the more complex tasks. 
 

If you combine the probability of those 2 adverse situations, factor in the likelihood of them BOTH being present at the same time, consider the potential impact of infection for a (presumed) young, fit and healthy worker then balance it all out against the financial, physiological and physical impact of NOT continuing in employment for the individual, the potential cumulative deleterious effect upon national GDP - and the consequential life expectancy effect of a >6% drop in GDP....

 

Then you’ll have your own personal answer!

 

Good luck, let us know what you come up with ?

[Lemonsqueeza]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There’s theory and there is practice.....  The 2 rarely meet nicely in the middle because theory will almost always play second fiddle. 
 

Firstly, staff working (esp climbing) should only be those without symptoms (of any sort not just C19.)
 

Yes, you ‘could’ be asymptomatic but what is the probability?

 

Second, how many genuine aerial rescues are conducted daily in UK Arb? 
 

Answer, nobody knows but I’d take a punt it’s between 0 and zero. 
 

Also, if we ‘know’ we have additional considerations we should moderate our working behaviour accordingly - add higher levels of risk mitigation.  Don’t do the more complex tasks. 
 

If you combine the probability of those 2 adverse situations, factor in the likelihood of them BOTH being present at the same time, consider the potential impact of infection for a (presumed) young, fit and healthy worker then balance it all out against the financial, physiological and physical impact of NOT continuing in employment for the individual, the potential cumulative deleterious effect upon national GDP - and the consequential life expectancy effect of a >6% drop in GDP....

 

Then you’ll have your own personal answer!

 

Good luck, let us know what you come up with ?

Thanks for your reply.

 

i think you’ve hit the nail on the head there ? 

 

cheers

Edited March 31, 2020 by Lemonsqueeza

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

31 minutes ago, Woodworks said:

Post the data from the next 2 months or so and it wont look so harmless. Coronavirus has barely got started on the worlds population

 

I have no idea why people keep playing it down. Death rates are estimated between and 1% and 3.4% and 70% of us need to have it before we get herd immunity. World populating is 7.7 billion and 70% get it thats 5.46 billion people. If just 1% die that is 546,000,000 people dead!  

Agreed. 
 

We’re at about 1700 UK deaths attributed to C19 so far - granted, unfortunately, there is huge potential for that to go through a steep upward curve. 
 

We already, routinely, have 50,000 excess winter cold deaths pa and I’d guess a lot of people have never even heard of EWD. 
 

All I’m thinking is, is there parity in our approach to premature mortality?  Maybe this situation will make us think differently. 

[eggsarascal]

13 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There’s theory and there is practice.....  The 2 rarely meet nicely in the middle because theory will almost always play second fiddle. 
 

Firstly, staff working (esp climbing) should only be those without symptoms (of any sort not just C19.)
 

Yes, you ‘could’ be asymptomatic but what is the probability?

 

Second, how many genuine aerial rescues are conducted daily in UK Arb? 
 

Answer, nobody knows but I’d take a punt it’s between 0 and zero. 
 

Also, if we ‘know’ we have additional considerations we should moderate our working behaviour accordingly - add higher levels of risk mitigation.  Don’t do the more complex tasks. 
 

If you combine the probability of those 2 adverse situations, factor in the likelihood of them BOTH being present at the same time, consider the potential impact of infection for a (presumed) young, fit and healthy worker then balance it all out against the financial, physiological and physical impact of NOT continuing in employment for the individual, the potential cumulative deleterious effect upon national GDP - and the consequential life expectancy effect of a >6% drop in GDP....

 

Then you’ll have your own personal answer!

 

Good luck, let us know what you come up with ?

Probably no aerial rescues on a daily basis, I was part of a rescue team on the water for 11 years, never did go down the hole to rescue anyone.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

7 minutes ago, Lemonsqueeza said:

Thanks for your reply.

 

i think you’ve hit the nail on the head there ? 

 

cheers

It’s just a guess, but I’d take a punt on the risk of cross infection being vastly higher for those getting on the buses, trains, underground to go to work than it would be for a climber / rescuer. 
 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

Probably no aerial rescues on a daily basis, I was part of a rescue team on the water for 11 years, never did go down the hole to rescue anyone.

I know ‘daily’ is a flawed basis for analysis. It should perhaps be pa or even longer and the consequence of needing it is also relevant. 
 

Slightly aside, I consider the rescue climber requirement to be a fairly dull consideration anyway (minor injury = self recover, major injury wait 5-10 minutes for rescue whilst bleeding out or self recover - get to ground by route alpha) but that’s for another day. 

[tree-fancier123]

52 minutes ago, Woodworks said:

 World populating is 7.7 billion and 70% get it thats 5.46 billion people. If just 1% die that is 546,000,000 people dead!  

Argument valid, but 1% figure out by factor of 10

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I know ‘daily’ is a flawed basis for analysis. It should perhaps be pa or even longer and the consequence of needing it is also relevant. 
 

Slightly aside, I consider the rescue climber requirement to be a fairly dull consideration anyway (minor injury = self recover, major injury wait 5-10 minutes for rescue whilst bleeding out or self recover - get to ground by route alpha) but that’s for another day. 

I'd dare bet most of you lads have never gone up to get someone down, like you say, bleeding out you would get yourself down.

[Kent Arboreal]

I don’t know for sure but I reckon the risk of mortality from cutting your arm off whilst hanging 40ft in the air from a rope would be a touch higher than from a case of the covid ...