Is it OK to go caving?

[pwhole]

Reading it all at high speed isn't easy, but this paragraph seems the most relevant to here - recommending that face masks seems to the best preventative measure for general use, with respirators being superior. So cavinq with masks anyone?

We found evidence of moderate certainty that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are probably associated with a large reduction in infection, and that distances of 2 m might be more effective, as implemented in some countries. We also provide estimates for 3 m. The main benefit of physical distancing measures is to prevent onward transmission and, thereby, reduce the adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hence, the results of our current review support the implementation of a policy of physical distancing of at least 1 m and, if feasible, 2 m or more. Our findings also provide robust estimates to inform models and contact tracing used to plan and strategise for pandemic response efforts at multiple levels.

The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community setting to be less effective than in the health-care setting, but after accounting for differential N95 respirator use between health-care and non-health-care settings, we did not detect any striking differences in effectiveness of face mask use between settings. The credibility of effect-modification across settings was, therefore, low. Wearing face masks was also acceptable and feasible. Policy makers at all levels should, therefore, strive to address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. One concern is that face mask use en masse could divert supplies from people at highest risk for infection. Health-care workers are increasingly being asked to ration and reuse PPE, leading to calls for government-directed repurposing of manufacturing capacity to overcome mask shortages and finding solutions for mask use by the general public. In this respect, some of the masks studied in our review were reusable 12?16-layer cotton or gauze masks. At the moment, although there is consensus that SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads through large droplets and contact, debate continues about the role of aerosol but our meta-analysis provides evidence (albeit of low certainty) that respirators might have a stronger protective effect than surgical masks.

Biological plausibility would be supported by data for aerosolised SARS-CoV-25,  and preclinical data showing seasonal coronavirus RNA detection in fine aerosols during tidal breathing, albeit, RNA detection does not necessarily imply replication and infection-competent virus. Nevertheless, our findings suggest it plausible that even in the absence of aerosolisation, respirators might be simply more effective than masks at preventing infection. At present, there is no data to support viable virus in the air outside of aerosol generating procedures from available hospital studies. Other factors such as super-spreading events, the subtype of health-care setting (eg, emergency room, intensive care unit, medical wards, dialysis centre), if aerosolising procedures are done, and environmental factors such as ventilation, might all affect the degree of protection afforded by personal protection strategies, but we did not identify robust data to inform these aspects.

 

[mikem]

Problem with face masks is that you'll spend more time touching your face whilst wearing one, than if you weren't - so depends whether you're avoiding breath of other group members, or deposits left by previous cavers!

 

[Bob Mehew]

I recall a friend saying "life is a bitch and then you die" some six months before he died in his 40s from cancer.  The virus is a risk and even at 10m distance you might still catch it.  But one source I read (and have lost the link) made the point that catching the virus depends both upon exposure time and exposure 'quantity' which together give you a virus 'load'.  The basic feature being you need to acquire a certain 'load' in order to have a realistic prospect of some of the virus 'beasties' overcoming your body's defences and infecting you.  So face to face and someone coughs over you delivers a large 'load' of the virus in a short time, whilst further away you get a lower load which is less likely to infect you.  Clearly within a cave the size of drafts will play a significant role in dispersion.  But there is the secondary route of picking up a 'load' of the virus by placing one's hand on a pile of it left there by someone else and then inadvertently transferring it to one's mouth. 

Re the paper, it is basic radiation protection that respirators (which have rubber surfaces to seal onto your face) are far better than surgical face masks.  We have also said in a draft document related to radon that The use of ?dust masks? as respiratory protection will not filter radon gas and have limited impact on filtering the daughter products.  Their use is likely to be compromised by the wet and / or muddy conditions within most caves or mines.  They are thus not considered a practicable means of reducing exposure.

I have yet to envisage an aerosol generating aspect of caving related activities,(provided you don't cough over Dr Nobel's finest!) unless you are like my brother in law and wish to repair a tooth.  Which is why I gather emergency dental treatment is mostly prescription or extraction. 

 

[pwhole]

I know people who cough a lot while they're caving - including me. And shouting, sneezing and laughing would all have the capability to eject droplets a considerable way. Going for walks in the woods with friends occasionally has been instructive to me, as it doesn't take long before involvement in a conversation takes over the basic safety instincts and you gradually get closer to each other, even though you can easily hear each other over a greater distance - then you realise and 'jump' back to 2m and laugh nervously. But that's how easy it is to slip up. A guy I had to share a work van with kept looking at me whilst he was talking, even though he was driving - not a problem normally, but it was loud and he was shouting - I was trying to pull my Buff higher and higher to keep his spit off me until only my eyes were left! So if it's that difficult to do it in a normal scenario, imagine what it'll be like in a cave, especially if it's people you get on with and don't mind being close - which helps for caving, but not for reducing transmission.

As I've posted before, prussicking in a mask, even a high-quality cartridge model, is something to be experienced for sure. It would certainly help matters in terms of reducing droplet emission, but whether you'd actually get enough airflow to climb serious pitches depends on fitness, length, cleanliness and dryness - or not! The problem is that once you start you've got to keep it on - ripping it off halfway up and shouting 'Sod it!' (the most likely scenario) makes the whole thing pointless.

 

[mikem]

Although you're unlikely to be close to sufficient viral material whilst halfway up the pitch.

 

[Badlad]

It is worth remembering that no one is going to make anyone go caving.  If anyone feels vulnerable, concerned about catching the virus, transmission rates, or any other concern - then don't go caving.  However, if you do want to go caving and are prepared to accept the risks, whether they are small or large, then there doesn't seem to be anything much to stop you as long as you adhere to local access conditions.

 

[mikem]

Provided you live in England, have checked the ones you want to visit are open & can get home again within the same day.

 

[PeteHall]

I have recently been sent a copy of a letter from the Dept of Digital, Culture, Media & Sport dated 1st June 2020. 

Is it possible to share the whole letter?

 

[Russell Myers]

As Badlad points out:
However, if you do want to go caving and are prepared to accept the risks, whether they are small or large, then there doesn't seem to be anything much to stop you as long as you adhere to local access conditions.

Another link to information to inform your decision, reasonably reliable, scientific journos with links to MIT Boston USA

https://elemental.medium.com/how-covid-19-really-spreads-f9627bb93645

 

[pwhole]

To be fair, it's not just accepting the risks but accepting that you are increasing the risks to others too, whether they're caving with you at the time or not.

Every little helps  :halo:

That is a really good link by the way - thanks.

 

[PeteHall]

To be fair, it's not just accepting the risks but accepting that you are increasing the risks to others too, whether they're caving with you at the time or not.

I shall refer to my opening post   

Maybe I'm a selfish twat, but I reckon I put innocent people at risk every day (normally). Every time we get in our car, we put other road users at risk, this is massively increased if we are distracted (eg. using a phone, even hands free or dealing with fighting children), are tired (after a long caving trip, or just a late finish at work), or have had even one drink (look at the car park at any pub in a caving area , don't tell me everyone is on water!).
So we're all selfish twats most of the time and we all put others at much more risk than we would put rescuers at by going caving.

 

[pwhole]

Check out this guy - he went to work today probably knowing he had symptoms and has now possibly infected his workplace and many of his colleagues and friends. Watch his hands. This is a clever person, advising us on what is sensible practise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=_yjmz8fFUDg&feature=emb_logo

 

[Ian P]

The original question  ?Is it OK to go caving??

What should be a simple question has resulted in a lot of scientific replies.

Some of the replies would be better answers to:

Is it safe to go caving ?
Is it selfish to go caving?
Is it morally responsible to go caving ?
Is it possible that going caving is anti social ?
Is it possible that going caving has an unacceptable  risk of spreading the virus ?

There is plenty of official information out now for people to make their own informed decisions on whether to go caving or not.

It is well reported that we may have to live with this virus for a number of years if not forever.

Depending on your personal stance  on the original question it could be a long break from the sport / activity / pastime.

 

[mikem]

Check out this guy - he went to work today probably knowing he had symptoms and has now possibly infected his workplace and many of his colleagues and friends. Watch his hands. This is a clever person, advising us on what is sensible practise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=_yjmz8fFUDg&feature=emb_logo

Or it might be very hot in the chamber after the recent weather & he's a nervous speaker - we'll presumably find out in the next few days...

 

[Pete K]

Another link to information to inform your decision, reasonably reliable, scientific journos with links to MIT Boston USA

https://elemental.medium.com/how-covid-19-really-spreads-f9627bb93645

"Simply talking produces 2,600 tiny droplets per second, and when a person is infected, around 1,000 of those droplets can contain the virus, and the droplets can remain in the air for up to 14 minutes.
?These observations confirm that there is a substantial probability that normal speaking causes airborne virus transmission in confined environments,? the researchers concluded May 13 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science."

 

[mikem]

All we can say for certain is that you definitely aren't improving your chances!

 

[owd git]

My turn for a rant! which twat suggests 2M. is a safe separation in a moderate breeze (towards you, yes YOU!)  from a symptomatic, very polite (cough!) oops. family member?. same question  for a stranger? person in an off licence queue? too many variables? answers  on a post card to Boris. sleep well. keep a lert (under your bed, they make great pets.) 

 

[mikem]

Many countries have a distance of 1m, some 3m - none of them are totally safe, just less risky than getting closer.

 

[PeteHall]

Like with everything in life, a matter of assessing the risk and making a judgement on what you are comfortable with.

The difference is that this is a risk we can't see and feel is out of our control, where perhaps we feel in more control going for a bike ride with all the nutters driving too fast on the empty roads...

 

[mikem]

That's okay they increasingly aren't empty any more. Generally the most dangerous things are those you are most complacent with.