Cycling and running as exercise, disease vectors?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

There is a lot of arguing going on about appropriate exercise during the lock down. 

Government advice is that it is OK to run or cycle from home. I am not sure it is. 

Both cycling and running are particularly snotty exercises, even more so in the cool March air. Both activities are accompanied by lots of coughing, hawking, gozzing and regular use of the footballers handkerchief. 

On group rides, friendly fire is often suffered within the peleton as the vortex brings it around. 

Given that Covid 19 is a respiratory infection, most easily spread by the aerosols associated with these sports, should we be doing them? 

84
 LCWatson 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I would have thought that the government's advice about exercising by yourself or with the individuals you live with means no group rides should be happening. 

1
 Run_Ross_Run 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

You haven't been keeping up with the gov announcements then? Group activities are banned.

I was out in the bike yesterday (on my own) and didn't see any groups. 

1
In reply to LCWatson:

Sure, but the group riding statement is a side point used to inject a little humour.

My main point still stands, should we be participating in these snotty activities in a period of time when some are recommending that we wear masks? 

Yes, yes, I am well aware that the advice to wear masks is seriously flawed. 

40
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

This keeps coming down to where you live and when you go out. If you live in Assynt, or somewhere similarly remote - do what you like. If you live in a high-rise in central London, think very carefully about where and when and how you exercise. 

Many of us are somewhere between those two. I'm just heading out to run now. No one is moving about yet in our area and we have a very wide park space that our back gate opens into. From there I can access quiet woodland. No reason not to run at this time in morning. 

There is no "one size fits all", it totally depends on your circumstances. Just understand what we are trying to achieve and live accordingly.

1
Northern Star 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Good point. If you feel strongly about this then why don’t you share your concerns by writing to the Senior Virologists currently advising the government? You could highlight your credentials to them and suggest where they might be currently going wrong?

4
 coinneach 05 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:
 

This . . .

I’m also lucky enough to live in the sticks. Was on the MTB for around an hour yesterday and saw three people, one dog and one car.

Don’t think I’d be out at all if I was city based.

In reply to girlymonkey:

We can all find ifs and buts to work around the restrictions. I am lucky enough to live within cycling distance of any number of high quality crags, where I could go soloing within my grade, having seen no one on the road. It is the old drunk driving to take your in labour wife to hospital excuse. 

There are threads on here where posters are legitimately concerned about viral transfer via post, via handling food etc. 

Yet we are clearly ignoring a rather large elephant in the room. 

49
In reply to Presley Whippet:

And we all know what's in an elephants trunk. 

6 feet of snot. 

1
 MG 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

If you do it following the guidelines, how can there be any tranfer? 

1
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

It's not work arounds. It's genuine assessment of risk. We have been asked not to climb due to the high risk nature of it. A local run or cycle is not high risk if you are in a low population density area and you can step off the path if needs be to avoid people. Keeping fit is essential, vitamin D is excellent for our health, fresh air and exercise is excellent for our mental health. Just do it safely!

This is not a 3 week lockdown. This is a long one. We need to keep healthy and do it safely.

The biggest risk is the supermarket! If our society could organise enough food delivery that none of us had to go to the shops in person, that would be the biggest step forward!

2
In reply to MG:

> If you do it following the guidelines, how can there be any tranfer? 

Do I really need spell it out? 

Aerosols from a runners/cyclists emissions will travel further than 2m,many cycle paths, country lanes, footpaths do not enable 2m separation when passing a slower party. 

Emmissions on the floor from all this picked up on shoes, clothing, pets and passed on. The virus can survive for days on some surfaces. 

To all/most

Rather than thinking, this may stop me running or cycling and I have already stopped climbing/socialising/weekends away. Think about how you can limit the time you are restricted for. 

33
In reply to girlymonkey:

No, it is a work around. 

The mental health argument is very poor, sorry to get emotive but a cycle ride in the sun vs the loss of a colleague, friend, loved one. Which one really hits the mental health? 

Vit D and fresh air can be had without the increased risk that the snotty activities add. Go for a walk? 

39
 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Aerosols from a runners/cyclists emissions will travel further than 2m,many cycle paths, country lanes, footpaths do not enable 2m separation when passing a slower party. 

How many country lanes do you know of that are narrower than 2m?  It won't be many, because a good many vehicles are wider than 2m.  Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing a width restriction of less than 6' 6" which is basically 2m.  Might even be the legal minimum width for a road?

Regarding paths, one needs to choose sensibly, and there are certainly some I am presently avoiding that aren't 2m wide and have nowhere to stand back out of the way.

> Emmissions on the floor from all this picked up on shoes, clothing, pets and passed on. The virus can survive for days on some surfaces. 

It is sensible to wash your hands after removing your shoes, those being the bit that have touched something potentially contaminated.

And it would be highly antisocial to snot-rocket, spit etc.  Take a handkerchief and a bottle of water instead.

 SouthernSteve 05 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> This is not a 3 week lockdown. This is a long one

Yes, the last big (flu) pandemic lasted over 3 years, something that seems to have been quietly put to the side.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

I would be a mental case if I couldn't go out running a few times a week - I need to look after employees, colleagues, friends, students and family and nearly everyone has similar responsibilities and duties whilst trying to operate from their living rooms. Balancing exercise and risk is a good question, but the three week period is just the introduction, if I seriously thought that was it, I would accept no running, but that is so unlikely. 

Luckly I can choose a country lane route for a run, see 4 people and a couple of cars. I am sure that if I lived in a conurbation I would have to consider my strategy very carefully.

2
 twoshoes 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Both cycling and running are particularly snotty exercises, even more so in the cool March air.

It's April now mate, so it's not a problem. 

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

> How many country lanes do you know of that are narrower than 2m?  It won't be many, because a good many vehicles are wider than 2m.  Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing a width restriction of less than 6' 6" which is basically 2m.  Might even be the legal minimum width for a road?

I will use the lane I live on as an example. I have not measured it, it is little more than 2m wide with little or no verge 2 people walking next to each other are well within the 2m radius just due to the space they occupy. My lane is not unusual for the area. 

> Regarding paths, one needs to choose sensibly, and there are certainly some I am presently avoiding that aren't 2m wide and have nowhere to stand back out of the way.

Not everyone is as considerate as you or I

> It is sensible to wash your hands after removing your shoes, those being the bit that have touched something potentially contaminated.

Of course it is. Removing the hazard in the first place is more effective. 

> And it would be highly antisocial to snot-rocket, spit etc.  Take a handkerchief and a bottle of water instead.

As above, not everyone is as considerate as you or I. 

12
 MG 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

The logical conclusion is to lock everyone up with three weeks rations. No exceptions. Most people think that is too extreme so it becomes a question of how many restrictions. Exercise is also important for health so we (society) have decided to keep it, with sensible restrictions. I think you are way over estimating any risk. Most of us don’t go around snorting everywhere either...

Post edited at 08:39
2
 joem 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

This has been done to death on other threads, which have become far too nasty imho. 
 

I think the mods should pull this one now before that happens.

1
In reply to SouthernSteve:

> In reply to Presley Whippet:

> I would be a mental case if I couldn't go out running a few times a week 

If that really is the case and I doubt that it is, you should seek help. 

31
 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> If that really is the case and I doubt that it is, you should seek help.

You are aware, presumably, that some people with mental health issues are actually being prescribed exercise (due to endorphins) as a means of treating their condition with which they have already got help?  That may not be true of the person you're replying to, but please do be a little more considerate.

Quite a lot of people, and I'm afraid I include you in this, are being very "I'm all right Jack" about all this (edit: in terms of consideration of mental health, I mean), and I find it uncalled-for and quite unhelpful.

Post edited at 09:10
3
 flatlandrich 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

We all have our own level of risk we are prepared to accept for any activity at any given time. The government have considered it ok and if people are comfortable to exercise outside, within the governments rules/conditions, then let them. If you consider it to risky you don't have to partake.

 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to flatlandrich:

I think there's a lot of virtue signalling going on (as distinct from risk assessment) TBH...

Post edited at 09:11
2
 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> If that really is the case and I doubt that it is, you should seek help. 

''I would be a mental case if I couldn't go out running a few times a week - I need to look after employees, colleagues, friends, students and family''

It seems healthy enough to me, given said responsibilities.

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

Of course I am and if this is the case I apologise for my comment. 

Mental health is a very serious issue but is often misused in conversation.

"I would go mad without climbimg/running/my train set/gin" 

No you wouldn't, your life would just be less pleasant. 

5
 im off 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I would hope and expect that the government has already considered this. Surely they have carried out the nec esary spitting and gozzing tests already. I suspect in a wind tunnel or something. Who knows, maybe this is how Boris became infected.

Personally I have taken to gozzing before the cycle in the family grouping, much to the disdain of my wife, it has to be said.

 the sheep 05 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> It's not work arounds

Exactly, it’s the current government advice as on the whole a fitter more active population is better able to fight the virus and not require hospital treatment.

so whilst the vulnerable need protection the greater population need to be also healthier too.

Its not a one size fits all policy but several all running in parallel to try avoid overloading the NHS as much as possible.

 DaveHK 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Are you playing the devil's advocate here or are you actually suggesting an exercise ban?

 bpmclimb 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Sure, but the group riding statement is a side point used to inject a little humour.

> My main point still stands, should we be participating in these snotty activities in a period of time when some are recommending that we wear masks? 

Sorry, but how can the group riding be a side point? Without that scenario the whole point of your OP is gone. 

In reply to DaveHK:

I am suggesting some thought is given to the types of exercise recommended. 

I have not seen any argument against mucus and it aerosols being the main method of virus transfer, or running and cycling being activities which increase production of mucus. 

5
 Coel Hellier 05 Apr 2020
In reply to im off:

> Surely they have carried out the nec esary spitting and gozzing tests already. I suspect in a wind tunnel or something.

I bet they haven't. 

Anyhow, on the more general point: panting runners should take it upon themselves to give walkers and everyone else a wide berth -- but other than that, yes, let them run. 

1
 BnB 05 Apr 2020
In reply to the sheep:

> Exactly, it’s the current government advice as on the whole a fitter more active population is better able to fight the virus and not require hospital treatment.

No. In the context of the lockdown, as in a traditional prison, outdoor exercise is a pressure release valve that means we will be more willing en masse to endure a lockdown of sufficient duration to suppress the virus. For that reason mass but compliant exercise is vital for all, even those who are not exercising!

Mr Whippet, you decide how you are going to behave. I’m getting on my bike this glorious morning, as instructed by the government.

1
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> No, it is a work around. 

> The mental health argument is very poor, sorry to get emotive but a cycle ride in the sun vs the loss of a colleague, friend, loved one. Which one really hits the mental health? 

I will let my GP friend, who is also still running, that she can't use that to deal with the chaos currently going on because some random person on UKC said so! 

I am starting work tomorrow in a care home and planning to do at least half the commute by bike. When chatting with the manager about where to leave my bike etc, she was very much in favour of it as it will help me to process my day. 

Medical concencous seems to be that it's worthwhile!

2
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Btw, my run was lovely, thanks. We saw some people at the far side of the golf course, and once stopped and moved to the side for someone. Sunshining, still fresh enough not to be a sweat fest. I feel good and ready for another day of lockdown 😊

1
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to BnB:

> Mr Whippet, you decide how you are going to behave. I’m getting on my bike this glorious morning, as instructed by the government.

Enjoy your ride! Lovely day for it 😊

1
 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Of course I am and if this is the case I apologise for my comment. 

> Mental health is a very serious issue but is often misused in conversation.

> "I would go mad without climbimg/running/my train set/gin" 

> No you wouldn't, your life would just be less pleasant. 

It's worth remembering that we're all on a different point of the spectrum, with a different capacity to cope, and that some people manage their tendency towards depression with exercise. I know of one poster on here who does, but it's not my place to say who (just in case).

Post edited at 09:40
1
In reply to BnB:

> Mr Whippet, you decide how you are going to behave. I’m getting on my bike this glorious morning, as instructed by the government.

Hopefully within the guideline times... 

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/amp31973975/coronavirus-uk-exercise-ru...

6
 DaveHK 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

The proximity to a carrier is not the only factor in transmission, the length of time you are close to them is also important. My understanding is that a second or two within 2m of someone represents a miniscule risk of transmission. This is why it's hoped closing schools and workplaces will make a difference because there's both proximity and duration there. And is one reason why exercise has been allowed to continue.

Another reason exercise is allowed is for the long term sustainability of these measures. If it were just a couple of weeks then perhaps a total lockdown would be accepted but it's likely to be months.

The things to worry about with transmission are the remaining places where people still congregate ie those workplaces that are still open and shops.

 the sheep 05 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Enjoy your ride! Lovely day for it 😊

It’s glorious, just need the kids to get up and we are off for a run over the fields 

Then it’s some work in the garden, bouldering mats are now used by the kids as giant cushions for doing tumbling.

Following that’s it’s going to be a BBQ and beers

1
 marsbar 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I don't think you know much about mental health.  Please stop talking now.  

2
In reply to marsbar:

Careful there

14
 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't think you know much about mental health.  Please stop talking now.  

He's putting things in a rather blanket way which gives the impression he doesn't I agree.

1
 BnB 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Hopefully within the guideline times... 

My daughter and I tend to mtb for about an hour*. Frankly, with “out the back door” access to the hills, we could go all day without going within 20 metres, let alone 2, of anyone else. It must be much harder for city dwellers and I’m very grateful for our good fortune.

* We’d do more if she didn’t give me such a thorough beasting! She’s a competing amateur boxer.

1
 im off 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

At the end of the day, the aim of lockdown isn't to completely stop any disease transmission. This isn't possible in reality. The aim is to reduce tm rates to spread the cases out so that hospitals wont be overwhelmed. As I'm sure you're aware of sir.

So, as far as I'm aware, the tm rate post lockdown has dropped from 3 to 0.6 which is where it needs to be. So in my mind, the lockdown guidelines have worked....And we dont need to reduce it further.

Theres a balance to be sought between lockdown levels and infection rate. Some continued transmission is required.

That's my understanding. 🤷‍♂️

In reply to Timmd:

You will just have to trust me. I am not prepared to share here. 

6
 skog 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I think you're missing a few, very important things there.

Firstly, the importance of exercise, and the benefits of vigorous exercise. Mental health has been discussed, and I agree with people that's important, and very much more important for some people. Those telling individuals who claim to need it that they have a problem and should seek help - well, stop a moment and consider that they may be fully aware of that, and may indeed have sought help. Depression is not a rare condition at all, and exercise can be a powerful treatment for some.

However, physical health is also critical here, particularly having as many people as possible with strong, healthy lungs. And covid-19 absolutely is not the only thing killing people just now, and won't be in the future. Fitness is very very important.

Thirdly, your risk management is way off. You highlight scenarios where people could spread the virus, and you're generally right, they could. But they're mostly low-risk, and mostly avoidable, and done correctly are probably almost insignificant compared to the higher risk activities still happening legitimately - going to the supermarket, and going to work.

And yes, like it or not, different people live in different circumstances and some can easily get out with no real risk of spreading or catching it, while others will struggle to get out of their flat without much higher risk of exposure. Making your way down from a tenement and along a busy street to huddle in a crowded park simply is not the same as leaving a suburban house at a quiet time, hopping on your bike, and going for a cycle where you may even not come within twenty metres of anyone.

Also, there's population psychology at play. Getting out for exercise can be an important and low-risk 'pressure valve', helping to increase cooperation from the population, reducing the number of people flouting the restrictions in higher risk ways and ultimately helping to preserve social order. If, as is entirely possible, we have many more weeks of this ahead, this will become increasingly important.

Lastly, you appear to be missing that the current strategy is to slow the spread of the virus to manageable levels, not to eliminate its spread completely. The benefit of an activity has to be weighed against the risk, and the activities judged worthwhile have to be managed to minimise the risks when doing them - it isn't about eliminating ALL risk.

It's probable that we'll be living with a set of restrictions for some time, and they're likely to be adapted as circumstances change - a tighter lockdown could be put in place temporarily, perhaps only in regions seeing the most pressure, and we may have to accept a lesser set of restrictions for many months after the current lockdown ends. We should endevour to live to the restrictions as they're applied and removed - but not to make up our own, and certainly not try to force our own on others who are already doing their best to help and cooperate.

In reply to BnB:

> My daughter and I tend to mtb for about an hour*. Frankly, with “out the back door” access to the hills, we could go all day without going within 20 metres, let alone 2, of anyone else. It must be much harder for city dwellers and I’m very grateful for our good fortune.

Perhaps I should have added a smiley to indicate the playful nature of my post. I'm sure it is vexing not to be able to take advantage of your proximity to the hills. 

> * We’d do more if she didn’t give me such a thorough beasting! She’s a competing amateur boxer.

Sounds like you're holding her back! You need to get fitter (☺ - tongue firmly in cheek mode!). Enjoy. 

1
 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to BnB:

I'm not sure if the time guidelines make a lot of sense. If most people live in urban areas, restricting the time to an hour(ish) could mean more people coming into proximity to one another due to not going as far before returning home again, so that there's more people contained within the same area while out and about, compared to going out for longer and being further away when others are outside of their homes, being out for longer could mean the same amount of people in a bigger area.

There might be a human psychology quirk which means it doesn't quite work like that, but on the face of it it seems logical...

Post edited at 10:06
 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Hopefully within the guideline times... 

The personal opinion of Michael Gove neither constitutes law nor official guidelines.

 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

A lot of people are getting very anal over this 2m distancing. 
 

Close personal contact is 2m for 15minutes. 
 

It’s difficult to measure 15minutes so it’s a blanket 2m rule. 

Passing someone briefly closer than 2m is extremely unlikely to pass on the virus on. 

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The personal opinion of Michael Gove neither constitutes law nor official guidelines.

See the follow up message to BnB. 

 BnB 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

All taken in the right spirit. But no way am I ever going to be that fit! 😊

1
 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock: 

The Wölfel paper explains we must focus our efforts on stopping the spread of droplets. This is because the virus is primarily transmitted through tiny droplets of saliva ejected when we speak. You can’t see them, but they are there. We also know that these droplets can go significantly further than the 6ft which is widely cited as a safe distance.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/04/why-wear-a-mask-may-b...

 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

As I say. Passing someone briefly is unlikely to infect you. If it it did the whole of London would have been infected within days. We haven’t even seen massive numbers of infections in tube trains. Just one person would have infected a complete carriage. 

In reply to BnB:

> All taken in the right spirit. But no way am I ever going to be that fit! 😊

Last year my 9 year old son ran faster than my wife in a 5k fun run. To be fair she paced him (held back on lap one) and had a nasty chest infection but it's not fun when they're snapping at your heels! 

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

we don't know how unlikely tho. this paper suggests more likely than first thought: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852

(turbulent gas clouds relevant to cycling, running, talking downwind of someone etc)

how do you measure infections from tube trains?

 mack 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> The proximity to a carrier is not the only factor in transmission, the length of time you are close to them is also important. My understanding is that a second or two within 2m of someone represents a miniscule risk of transmission.

Not necessarily, it's then transmission method that is important. For example, lets say you are jogging/cycling and there is someone in front of you keeping a decent distance apart. If that person (having the virus) coughs downwards then no harm done, but if that person coughs upwards then by the time you reach where they coughed you will get a face full of virions. Only takes a split second to inhale them (average cough releases 20,000 - 100,000 virions). Unless you are jogging/cycling whilst holding your breath and with eyes closed then there is fairly good chance of getting it even though you  have abided by the rules.

Same goes for anyone entering a supermarket. Coughs/sneezes spread particles further than 2m and can linger in the air longer than one might think.

 Luke90 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I'm not sure if the time guidelines make a lot of sense. If most people live in urban areas, restricting the time to an hour(ish) could mean more people coming into proximity to one another due to not going as far before returning home again, so that there's more people contained within the same area while out and about, compared to going out for longer and being further away when others are outside of their homes, being out for longer could mean the same amount of people in a bigger area.

I don't think that makes sense. Comparing a 30 minute walk with an hour's walk, you're still within 15 minutes walk of your house for the same amount of time. More time out might let you spend more time further away from your house, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the time you spend close to your house. And in most big cities, the extra time isn't going to get you into a particularly quiet area anyway.

 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> You will just have to trust me. I am not prepared to share here. 

I would be surprised that if you've been in dark places when those around you haven't been, you haven't found out how subjective and personal mental health can be, that your own strengths don't uniformly apply to everybody else. 

Post edited at 10:57
1
mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

At 7.30 this morning, when those two cyclists came wobbling and huffing and puffing and spurting up a farm track 2.1 metres from me and my daughter and dog, I would have said ‘ban the fekin lot of them.’  They’d clearly dusted down the bikes and decided not to follow government advice to exercise in their garden.  But it’s hard to have a one size fits all ruling.

For anyone who thinks they would go mad if they didn’t go running etc, this is by and large clap trap.  Most of us have lay offs for long periods, you will be ok.

20
 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> I don't think that makes sense. Comparing a 30 minute walk with an hour's walk, you're still within 15 minutes walk of your house for the same amount of time. More time out might let you spend more time further away from your house, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the time you spend close to your house. And in most big cities, the extra time isn't going to get you into a particularly quiet area anyway.

I was thinking of more variation being possible in the amount of time people could be out for, meaning there'd be less chance of being in proximity to as many people than if there was a time limit most people were adhering to. 

Post edited at 11:04
2
 im off 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

One rule for you, another for them....sort of thing. Walk your dog in the garden for a few weeks.

1
 DaveHK 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mack:

I didn't say no risk of transmission in that scenario. You've suggested some very specific circumstances where transmission could occur from people running, walking or cycling following the recommendations. Totally agree that's possible but I don't think such specific circumstances constitute sufficient reason for further restrictions (I realise you weren't suggesting that). 

In the interest  of transparency I'll declare my strong bias towards at least maintaining the current situation around exercise and also that I live in a pretty sparsely populated area where it would seem to carry minimal risks.

mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to im off:

That’s what I’ve been doing.  But because I’ve been working my fekin arse off all week and done 10 x 10 hours days on the trot, decided I would take my dog out.  I was sensible, unlike the cyclists.

19
 Yanis Nayu 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

You were out too, so perhaps a tad hypocritical. 

1
 Wiley Coyote2 05 Apr 2020
In reply to skog:

You Sir/Madam, are talking far too much sense and have no place on UKC

1
 Yanis Nayu 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I think we need a competition to find out who’s the most virtuous isolator. 

1
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> For anyone who thinks they would go mad if they didn’t go running etc, this is by and large clap trap.  Most of us have lay offs for long periods, you will be ok.

Any lay offs I have had have not totally stopped me exercising completely. I have had to stop running recently due to a tendon issue, but have been able to cycle (today just my second run in ages). I have had injuries which have limited me to swimming for a while, or climbing was fine but not running etc. If someone is completely unable to exercise, they are usually able to go out with friends to take their minds off it. My experience with friends who have become totally housebound due to medical issues is that they often have really struggled with mental health.

1
 timjones 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes, of course we should still be doing them as long as we can maintain adequate distance from others.

If you are coughing and hawking you should maybe consider backing the pace off a little.

If you are riding in a peleton these days you should be very ashamed.

 timjones 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> The mental health argument is very poor, sorry to get emotive but a cycle ride in the sun vs the loss of a colleague, friend, loved one. Which one really hits the mental health? 

There is no universal answer to that question, we're all different.

 mack 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Sorry Dave, that was my clutsy way of addressing your point of 'time' close to a carrier. The time isn't really that important in the scale of things. I could be stood less than 1m from someone for a long time and not get it as long as that person doesn't cough, sneeze, or start ranting (any way for spray droplets from the mouth to reach me) - the transmission method.

Lots of folk believe they are impervious from the virus at all times if they stay 2m from everyone. Although this IS a good rule and I heartily agree with it as it really does help, it is the coughing/sneezing in public that also needs addressing. It seems that covering the mouth when coughing/sneezing is too complicated for some people to grasp. 

Anyway, after saying that, I'm with you on maintaining the current level of exercise. 

 timjones 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> It's worth remembering that we're all on a different point of the spectrum, with a different capacity to cope, and that some people manage their tendency towards depression with exercise. I know of one poster on here who does, but it's not my place to say who (just in case).

I know that I'm not the person you are thinking of but I will put my hand up and admit that I keep myself sane with excercise and social contact with other people.  One of them is gone already, it would be brutally hard if the second was ruled out as well. At present all is good as it's a busy time in the sheep farming year but when lambing finishes I am going to seriously need a safety valve.

1
 bpmclimb 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Hopefully within the guideline times... 

What guideline times? Nothing in the main article you linked, as far as I can see, and later on one person (Gove) expressing his personal opinion saying what times he "would have thought reasonable for most people". Meaningless, in my opinion. The official position did not at any stage and still does not specify maximum times for different forms of exercise. 

.... and before you say it, by the way, the comparison between broad recommendations for general health published by the Government, NHS (or any other organisation for that matter) and hypothetical (non-existent) maximums in the current crisis is tenuous, to say the least. To take the former and call them "official" or even "guideline" times (without qualification, in the context of a discussion about the conavirus crisis) is a deception; worse still is to proceed to point an accusing finger at people who don't adhere to those times.

........ in my opinion. 

Removed User 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I see your points but the risk of transmission will be reduced if there's a breeze and the time someone spends in a cyclist's wake is short.

There's cycling and there's cycling. You'll be much less of a risk traveling at a sedate pace and breathing normally than expending maximum effort and gasping for breath. I'd suggest that if you're engaged in the latter type of excercise you are unlikely to be close to anyone.

Perhaps a sensible precaution for cyclists who intend to excercise to the point of heavy breathing near other people is to either not do that or wear a mask?

 nufkin 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

>  The Wölfel paper explains we must focus our efforts on stopping the spread of droplets.

The link you posted is quite at odds with an article - also from the Guardian - from earlier in the week that was more along the lines of 'masks are of fairly specific and limited use, jogging past someone is very unlikely to risk transmission', etc etc. It seems to reflect the difference in attitude between the UK and US authorities (your linked article was aimed at the US readership, I think, quoting American scientists and using 6ft rather than 2m as the distancing measure). 

I'm still in the 'time outside outweighs the risk of transmission' camp. Masks for all, all the time seems unreasonably drastic. It might be contrary to the science in that article, but I'm not convinced that was definitive

 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> That’s what I’ve been doing.  But because I’ve been working my fekin arse off all week and done 10 x 10 hours days on the trot, decided I would take my dog out.  I was sensible, unlike the cyclists.

If they were 2.1m from you, they were not doing anything wrong.

One thing that seems to be coming to the fore with all this is selfish hypocrisy, and your post bluntly is another example of it.  If you are allowed to walk your dog, they are allowed to ride their bicycles.  If one should be banned, so should the other.  (I'll except actual mountain biking from that due to the high injury risk, but we're not talking that here, and if we were you shouldn't be on the hills either).

Many people are dusting off bikes, running shoes, walking boots etc because their normally preferred form of exercise isn't available, e.g. climbing, swimming, racquet sports, golf, the gym, Crossfit, group exercise, whatever.  And if the odd few are exercising who wouldn't, why's that a bad thing?  Prevents this turning into a general health crisis too...

Peoples' ire needs to be directed at those not complying with the law - specifially lads (and it is lads) congregating in groups in parks.

Post edited at 12:18
mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Not at all hypocritical.  I’m not bothered about people being out, it’s about people not being sensible meaning those that stretch the rules might spoil it for everyone else.  I think going cycling on narrow farm tracks is selfish because the nature of cycling means 1) they are forced away from the edge of the track, 2) forceful breathing.  I live on the edge of a very built up area so these examples are common.

I just get jarred off when people who act sensibly (like me and no doubt vast majority of people posting on this site) get ‘put out’ by the dicks.  And it does look increasingly  likely that my twice weekly* dog walk exercise will have to become nil coz of these dicks. Not a big deal really tho.

edit*  what was, until recently, my twice daily dog walk.

Post edited at 12:26
10
 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

You said they were 2.1m away from you.

If they were, they were doing as they have been asked to do.

It is not for you to introduce your own "vigilante" rules and guidelines and impose them on others.  If you consider that the Government guidelines are inadequate to protect you, you will need to modify your behaviour, such as choosing somewhere else to walk your dog that does fulfil your criteria.

Cycling and running are specifically suggested as permitted activities, and it is not for you to say that your walk takes priority over them.

Post edited at 12:20
1
In reply to bpmclimb:

> What guideline times? Nothing in the main article you linked, as far as I can see, and later on one person (Gove) expressing his personal opinion saying what times he "would have thought reasonable for most people". Meaningless, in my opinion. The official position did not at any stage and still does not specify maximum times for different forms of exercise. 

> .... and before you say it, by the way, the comparison between broad recommendations for general health published by the Government, NHS (or any other organisation for that matter) and hypothetical (non-existent) maximums in the current crisis is tenuous, to say the least. To take the former and call them "official" or even "guideline" times (without qualification, in the context of a discussion about the conavirus crisis) is a deception; worse still is to proceed to point an accusing finger at people who don't adhere to those times.

> ........ in my opinion. 

You missed my admission of an omission of a smiley further on in the post. It was a gentle swing at BnB. 

Northern Star 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> At 7.30 this morning, when those two cyclists came wobbling and huffing and puffing and spurting up a farm track 2.1 metres from me and my daughter and dog, I would have said ‘ban the fekin lot of them.’  They’d clearly dusted down the bikes and decided not to follow government advice to exercise in their garden.  But it’s hard to have a one size fits all ruling.

Mick, have you actually read the governments advice?  Where does it say you must excersize in your garden?

People on this thread spouting complete b*llocks, and making up their own rules really do need to get a grip.  Read what the government guidelines actually say, mind your own business, and as Skog says, stop trying to force your own made up rules on others who are already doing their best to help and cooperate.

People need to understand that the government is not trying to stop anyone from getting this virus, they are merely trying to slow the spread so as not to overwhelm the NHS.  They want everyone to catch it in due course, that's how immunity builds up and this thing finally dies out. 

Unfortunately if the virtue signalers, the doom mongers, the vigilantes, and the 'lock em all down' brigade get their way then not only will the economy get further trashed, but there really will be no steady ongoing virus transmission, perhaps meaning that virus transmission stalls, only to rear it's head again in the autumn/winter flu season when the NHS is already starting to get over stretched.

Steady, regular transmission and building up immunity is the way to beat this thing, hopefully all being done by the summer, unless the doom mongers and their made up rules get their way and try to shame everyone into submission - in which case the economy really is 'effed' and we are probably in it for the long hall.

Post edited at 12:33
1
 jkarran 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Aerosols from a runners/cyclists emissions will travel further than 2m,many cycle paths, country lanes, footpaths do not enable 2m separation when passing a slower party.  Emmissions on the floor from all this picked up on shoes, clothing, pets and passed on. The virus can survive for days on some surfaces. 

It's about risk reduction, not elimination, we still need to balance our various needs. If the government cannot ask us to stay in because they're felt to be asking too much too soon then they face telling us to stay in. If we're already fractious and call their bluff they're faced with rapidly losing control of the populous and what little control they have of the virus or testing the army's resolve. This goes to shit fast if they get it wrong. It has to be avoided.

If we follow the rules, don't go out with symptoms, full stop. Go out infrequently and briefly for food, work or exercise keeping distance from others. That keep the risk of transmission low since to pass it on you need to be infectious yet well enough to be doing sport (debatable how common this is), and rather unlucky to transmit it at a distance as you pass someone or via the floor, shoes, floor, washed hands to face. Not impossible but low enough risk hopefully to not outweigh the physical, mental and social health benefits of a little freedom and exercise.

> Rather than thinking, this may stop me running or cycling and I have already stopped climbing/socialising/weekends away. Think about how you can limit the time you are restricted for. 

Perhaps not the best argument, the fastest way out of restrictions is a deadly wildfire of infection. Other than that we're looking for technological and behavioural solutions in tandem with steadily increasing immunity.

jk

 wercat 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

cycling has specifically been mentioned as a suitable form of exercise in the dictats of several ministers of varying rank

Frankly you are wasting your breath unless you spend it warning cyclists not to make physical contact with anything during rides without cleansing it afterwards and just to keep a sensible spacing from others as applies to everyone

I'm sure I am just as snotty when I sneeze and cough when out walking just close to the house where you meet loads of people but then it is teh remains of something I had in December/January and the air is dusty and smoky here

Are you saying NO FORM OF EXERCISE IS GOOD?

Post edited at 12:45
1
 jkarran 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I'm not sure if the time guidelines make a lot of sense. If most people live in urban areas, restricting the time to an hour(ish) could mean more people coming into proximity to one another due to not going as far before returning home again, so that there's more people contained within the same area while out and about, compared to going out for longer and being further away when others are outside of their homes, being out for longer could mean the same amount of people in a bigger area.

The longer we're each out of the house the more people in public space simultaneously. That probably matters more from the perspective of not creating the illusion others are flouting rules than from a transmission risk perspective in and of itself. Where we see and believe others to be behaving it's easier for us to make the sometimes painful choices to do so too.

jk

Post edited at 12:47
1
 wercat 05 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

not if we avoid other people then there is no shared public space, just as aircraft can fly safely by avoiding the same 4 dimensional coordinates

Time domain multiplexing

Post edited at 12:46
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Perhaps not the best argument, the fastest way out of restrictions is a deadly wildfire of infection.

At great psychological cost to NHS staff implementing rationing of critical care and having no choice but to play god with people's lives. I don't think we should callously impose that on NHS staff without doing our best to minimise it.

Post edited at 12:56
 jkarran 05 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

People out longer does mean more out simultaneously. I agree we can easily safely avoid each other but I don't think that's necessarily the most important thing, maintaining some sense of abnormality for all at the moment strikes me as important.

jk

mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Northern Star:

> Mick, have you actually read the governments advice?  Where does it say you must excersize in your garden?

Yes.  I clicked on that runnersworld website where it quoted the government say ‘if you have a garden, make use of the space for exercise and fresh air.’ I never used the word must, you decided to include it.  Why?

7
 jkarran 05 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> At great psychological cost to NHS staff implementing rationing of critical care and having no choice but to play god with people's lives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for it!

jk

 elsewhere 05 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for it!

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that.

mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I’m not imposing anything on anyone and I am a fairly staunch ‘anti-vigilante’.  And fully agree that I need to modify my behaviour, it’s what I have been doing.  I just don’t like it when some unfit pie eating Wiganer breathes their germs over me. (I don’t believe this 2 metre stuff for heavy breathing, I’ve learnt to take most things that our government with a pinch of salt).

8
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Not virtuosity, more fear and a questioning mind. 

Both my wife and myself fall into risk categories.

Whilst there has been a lot of justification as to why various posters are special and should be allowed to exercise. There has been little or no challenge to the initial premise that both sports are snotty and that this is an effective transmitter of the virus.

Being passed by a panting cyclist or runner whilst out walking the dogs is concerning to say the least. 

Not great for the mental health eh Tim? 

8
 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

i'm with you Presley and so is the science..

5
 mondite 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> i'm with you Presley and so is the science..


Dont suppose you will provide this "science" will you?

1
In reply to malk:

Thanks, I expected a rough ride here. Good to know there are others who share my concerns. 

1
mick taylor 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

And me.  Just clicked on the Brighton Pier webcam.  Beggars belief.

Northern Star 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Good to know there are others who share my concerns. 

Just not the doctors and scientists advising government!

 DaveHK 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

>  Just clicked on the Brighton Pier webcam.  Beggars belief.

It's wonderful to live in an age where we can indulge our righteous indignation so easily. And all from the comfort of your own home.   

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Dont suppose you will provide this "science" will you?


copied from my earlier post: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852

1
In reply to Northern Star:

> Just not the doctors and scientists advising government!

I wouldn't rush to say that, given how "sick and tired of experts" our government is. 

1
 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Northern Star:

> Just not the doctors and scientists advising government!


and look where that's got us!

4
Northern Star 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> and look where that's got us!

Ah, great okay then, next time my grandad has chest pains I’ll come on here and ask for advice rather than, you know, take him down the doctors, because clearly this forum is full of people who would obviously know better.

 wercat 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Whilst there has been a lot of justification as to why various posters are special and should be allowed to exercise.

There has not.  This is a serious misrepresentation.  I have not seen ANY posters thinking they should have special privileges

you will influence no one by spouting untruths

Post edited at 14:02
 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Northern Star:

ask yourself- do you trust dominic cummings?

https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/20991-coronavirus-the-politic...

Post edited at 14:38
2
 mondite 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> copied from my earlier post:

That looks to be a comment piece as opposed to fully researched and reviewed piece of research.

No mention of cycling and running at all or the finer detaileds of "snotty".

So, again, feel free to provide the supporting evidence.

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

i guess we'll have to see for supporting evidence. are you feeling lucky?

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Northern Star:

ps no disrepect to doctors intended- it appears that the modellers and behavioural scientists (i smell cummings) are more important to government action..

Post edited at 14:30
 mrphilipoldham 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

It won't be me that you are thinking of, but that is me. If I don't exercise my mood exponentially decreases every day. I genuinely fear for a 'total' lockdown, and if it became the case then I am scared that they may end up chalking another one up to Covid-19, even without infection. 

Climbing has been my main form of exercise for 5 years now, doing something more or less every possible day - weather and work (self employed, hours here there and everywhere) permitting. Running has taken up some of that time over the last 2 years and has thankfully picked up the tab whilst climbing is out. 

I'm hopefully in a minuscule minority, but climbing (and the friendships etc that come with it) has literally kept me alive over this time and it is hurting so much to not be able to do it now because of something out of my control. There are some on here who need to accept that it isn't always 'just a hobby'. 

In case anyone wishes to know, I tried the NHS. It took months to even get a group session through the self referral scheme my local trust operates. I didn't want to use medication, I very, very rarely do for anything - even if I did, it'd have taken just as long to get to the point of a prescription. It was during that time that I began self medicating with exercise, and fell in to climbing. I'd be in the same situation if I was a swimmer, martial artist, kayaker.. whatever.

So here's the situation I'm in. If I get my daily exercise, I'm the happiest bunny alive. If I'm forced to stop, I'm now likely to become a burden on the NHS, if receiving any help at all. I don't even have any work as a photographer to keep my distracted either, just to rub salt in to the wound! I wish I could say I was stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it's just two hard places for the time being. 

 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Biggest disease vector... the nhs and it's 1 million workers, they all need to travel, live at home, shop, eat, fuel their car etc. There is no escape from the virus, only slowing it's spread to a manageable level. 

Cycling 2m apart is kind of irrelevant, when people are all touching the same things, forget to wash your hands once or touch your face without thinking after being in a high risk area just once in the next 6months and you've likely got it. 

2m is just a guide too, there's nothing proven. I could spit cough or sneeze further. 4m might be a safe range, but completely impractical, so we'll pretend to do our bit by queuing 2m apart at the check out, but then all touch the same key pad and baskets/ trolleys!! 

The alarmists who think lock down will be over by May if everyone behaves are dreaming. Look at Italy and Spain. 

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

not only coughing and spluttering but breathing esp. heavily as during exercise..

1
 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> not only coughing and spluttering but breathing esp. heavily as during exercise..

Think they need to close the under ground, stop the buses and trains Monday to friday, before worrying about the same people being out in the open air on a weekend. 

 wercat 05 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

The government has threatened to ban all exercise because of the actions of some people still congregating and socialising, particularly young people according to the report I heard.  In other words ignoring the government's advice and wishes completely.  There has not been any suggestion that they are going to ban it because of people cycling or running.   There is an atmosphere of insanity on this thread when it is suggested that we should not cycle, sensibly, of course.

Post edited at 14:50
In reply to summo:

> Biggest disease vector... the nhs and it's 1 million workers, they all need to travel, live at home, shop, eat, fuel their car etc. There is no escape from the virus, only slowing it's spread to a manageable level. 

That's defeatist and obviously untrue.  You just need to look at the graph for China.  Down to five deaths a day in a country with 1 billion people.

It is entirely possible to escape from the virus with only a small fraction of the population getting infected.  Lockdown until it is suppressed.  Hard quarantine on borders to prevent cases from outside the UK causing many new infections.  Test, contact trace + maintain lower level of social distancing to stamp out 'sparks'.   Use tracking technology to get really effective suppression and ultra fast contact tracing without a blanket lock down.

We can get into a state where we've got many but perhaps not all industries back at work but with modified processes and hold out until there's a treatment or vaccine.

 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

I think the media add to it, they are probably roaming the streets looking for a good camera angle, claim a story, forcing ministers act. 

A few hundred or a thousand people were naughty in London yesterday, out of what 6 or 7million, that's a success! 

How many will share public transport on Monday? 

Post edited at 14:55
 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It must be true, China claimed it!? I'm pretty sceptical. 

Plus they only locked down the hot spots, not the country. And their lock down was proper, the UK is pretend, they've stopped the economy but still enable the spread. Worst of both worlds. 

1
 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> We can get into a state where we've got many but perhaps not all industries back at work but with modified processes and hold out until there's a treatment or vaccine.

Hold out how long? 

Vaccine.. hopeful, but not a certainty. 

 Wimlands 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I’m in agreement with and I’m a reasonably keen runner. I think the onus in the current climate is for runners to stop and give way.
 

Out for my run this morning and there were a few older people out walking. I made sure that I gave them a huge gap or simply ran up a side road until they passed. If you are 70+ these must be scary times and the last thing you want is someone breathing heavily as they go past you...

I see it as basic politeness.

Post edited at 15:14
 mondite 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> i guess we'll have to see for supporting evidence. are you feeling lucky?

I am not sure preferring an evidence based approach is the same as "feeling lucky". It particularly isnt the same as deciding on a position and then announcing the science supports it.

 BnB 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> You missed my admission of an omission of a smiley further on in the post. It was a gentle swing at BnB. 

Gentle swing? I'm still groggy

Just for balance, we were obliged today, on our bike ride, to dismount and cross someone's garden on a public footpath. The path ran so close to the house that we realised it would steer us between the family, playing in the garden, and their own home. I politely enquired whether they minded us walking so intrusively through their homestead, fully expecting, and willing to comply with, a stern refusal, notwithstanding the public right of way. Instead, the mother waved us through, but not before engaging us in ten minutes of conversation, at a suitable distance, concerning the lock-down and the challenge in keeping themselves and their youngsters occupied. It was a fairly remote spot so I guess they were glad of some company, and I suppose that a dad and his daughter is not an intimidating invasion. But it was so refreshing not to encounter the fear and suspicion that characterises certain encounters down in town.

 Timmd 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Not virtuosity, more fear and a questioning mind. 

> Both my wife and myself fall into risk categories.

> Whilst there has been a lot of justification as to why various posters are special and should be allowed to exercise. There has been little or no challenge to the initial premise that both sports are snotty and that this is an effective transmitter of the virus.

> Being passed by a panting cyclist or runner whilst out walking the dogs is concerning to say the least. 

> Not great for the mental health eh Tim? 

I notice you've not challenged the premis that mental health is a very personal and subjective experience, too. 

I'm in an at risk group too in being a type 1 diabetic, so I'm well aware of the sense of vulnerability. I manage my mental health with pills and exercise, and somehow manage to give people 'at least' six feet of space or more while pottering along which is my usual style of cycling - moving meditation or 'zoning out' .  It depends on where one lives, but it isn't impossible to go for a cycle and to give people 12 feet/4 metre gaps while not cycling hard enough to be spreading possibly covid laden droplets within the vicinity, it depends on personality too, if I'm pottering about and I'm approaching where other people are, during these times for my own peace of mind I'll change course and go somewhere else. Like discussions about many things on here, there's a danger of things becoming rather binary. Liking to be in my own reverie like I can do when in the Peak, before covid19 appeared I'd give people their space in the outdoors and go somewhere else, since we all need our times of solitude. 

Post edited at 15:37
In reply to BnB:

> Just for balance, we were obliged today, on our bike ride, to dismount and cross someone's garden on a public footpath. The path ran so close to the house that we realised it would steer us between the family, playing in the garden, and their own home. I politely enquired whether they minded us walking so intrusively through their homestead, fully expecting, and willing to comply with, a stern refusal, notwithstanding the public right of way. Instead, the mother waved us through, but not before engaging us in ten minutes of conversation, at a suitable distance, concerning the lock-down and the challenge in keeping themselves and their youngsters occupied. It was a fairly remote spot so I guess they were glad of some company, and I suppose that a dad and his daughter is not an intimidating invasion. But it was so refreshing not to encounter the fear and suspicion that characterises certain encounters down in town.

It's timely to remember, within the confines of this forum, that many of us will struggle in ways we've never really known, and deal with things not always with alacrity and good grace.

Chapeau to you.

In reply to summo:

> Hold out how long?

They are saying 18 months for a vaccine.

I think what will happen is that people and business will adapt and after 6 months to a year could be working quite effectively.   There will be more home delivery, we might start to see the delivery robots that various companies have been testing in the US being deployed.  With the streets empty it is a more friendly environment for robots.    Businesses will have replaced face to face meetings with online collaboration tools and videoconferencing.  Office workers might actually be more productive without the hours wasted commuting.   The trend away from paper mail will accelerate as will the trend towards electronic payments rather than cash - another good thing.  We will start seeing intelligent UV lighting being deployed to blast shared spaces with UV-C when there is nobody in them.  People may come out with stick-on coverings to put on door handles etc which virus can't live on for any length of time.  

The game changer will be tracking apps on phones or wearable devices issued by government.  If you can physically measure when someone is within 2m of another person who isn't in their household and for how long you can take the data as a measure of the actual risk for that person and for all people in the community and start developing tailored strategies to reduce it.   There should be no need for brute force lock downs.  The data will also let you instantly contact trace if someone gets infected.

I think we will also find that the people who come into contact with most others and are hence the most likely to spread are the ones who will catch it first and get immune fastest.   If we test and find the immune people and use them in the high contact jobs then we will get benefit even with a relatively low percentage of the population being immune.

> Vaccine.. hopeful, but not a certainty. 

And we can probably get into an acceptable situation without one if necessary.

 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

Instead of spreading relatively slowly by doubling every 2 days you’d be having massive jumps in infections. One person on a tube would be infecting 100 others at a time. 

 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020

More of an issue with people doing strenuous exercise is that if they have an accident or need medical attention, 

a) they will have to wait a long time for an ambulance  

b) that ambulance will take them away from the area where they are managing to keep a safe distance from people who ‘might’ be carriers, to a hospital where they will be very close to people who are definitely carriers of the virus.

Keep it safe.

 summo 05 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tracking devices... are you posting during your afternoon snooze, dreaming? Most populations won't even have an identity card and you think you'll track them. They'd leave it in the house in London and head off to conquer Mount Snowdon. 

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

have you actually read that link? makes sense to me. good luck but think of others..

Post edited at 16:43
 Neil Williams 05 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Those robots are in use in MK and have been for over a year - it's uniquely suited to them as they can run on the Redway cycleway/footpath network which is totally separate from the roads.

 malk 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Keep it safe.

we don't know what safe is..

have you heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ?

don't go out. save lives..

Post edited at 17:17
3
Northern Star 05 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The game changer will be tracking apps on phones or wearable devices issued by government.  If you can physically measure when someone is within 2m of another person who isn't in their household and for how long you can take the data as a measure of the actual risk for that person and for all people in the community and start developing tailored strategies to reduce it.   There should be no need for brute force lock downs.  The data will also let you instantly contact trace if someone gets infected.

Whoaaah, just have a think about what you are suggesting there for a second.  This would be a  MASSIVE invasion of freedom, privacy and civil liberty and would not be tolerated.

1
 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

Danger is all around us. Maybe we should stay in bed and not cook hot food, not chop vegetables, not go down any stairs, not take a bath in case we slip over. 
 

Far better to asses your risk objectively. One of my friends has been out running today and fallen over grazed her knee. Could have been worse she could have needed stitches.

I ran 10 miles easily and slowly. 
 

Slow down and concentrate on everything you’re doing. Be aware of your surroundings.
 

Stay safe.  

 gethin_allen 05 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

So it seems that most people who are massively bothered by people taking a quick ride on their bike are either old people, have underlying ailments or are walking the dog.

People falling into the first groups should read the government advice and get back in the house and if we ban dogs we can get rid of the others and also get rid of the ridiculous amount of dog sh!t that seems to be getting dumped everywhere recently.

Just thought I'd join in with the general trend of ignoring the advice of the government and making up my own ridiculous rules and regulations.

 gethin_allen 05 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> Tracking devices... are you posting during your afternoon snooze, dreaming? Most populations won't even have an identity card and you think you'll track them. They'd leave it in the house in London and head off to conquer Mount Snowdon. 


In South Korea the government regularly call the phones of people they are tracking and if they don't pick up there are harsh penalties.

I'd be knackered, I always forget to turn my phone off silent and miss all my calls even with it in my pocket.

 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to gethin_allen:

It’s people who have access to social media with nothing better to do than complain about other people. 
 

We know a very small minority of people are going out on the odd group ride. That’s not really the issue. The issue is the people who turn up to Brighton beach and have a barbecue. 
 

The majority of people are carrying on with the distancing rules and exercising sensibly. 

We also know there’s an element of society who are really anal and will get out a tape measure to measure that 2m.

There’s something about the BritIsh public who are always insisting everyone else follows the rules. But they can bend the themselves because they know what they’re doing. 

Post edited at 18:20
 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I broke the rules today. I went and visited my parents. We sat in their garden at a 2m distance around a fire pit. Maybe we were bending the rules rather than breaking them as they count as very vulnerable (well, my dad does!) I used the walk up there as the dog walk for the day. Maybe I should report my recklessness to the authorities!

5
 DancingOnRock 05 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

Depends if you’re telling other people they shouldn’t be going out on their bikes. 

 girlymonkey 05 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Lol, not me! Actively encouraging people to exercise to keep strong and healthy bodies to deal with a visious virus!

In reply to Northern Star:

> Whoaaah, just have a think about what you are suggesting there for a second.  This would be a  MASSIVE invasion of freedom, privacy and civil liberty and would not be tolerated.

It would but it brute force rules confining people to their homes and shutting whole categories of business are also an invasion of freedom, privacy and social liberty.    Nobody has anything to hide at the moment because they're not even allowed to go out.

The thing about measuring the extent of social contact is you have a metric you can then work to optimise.   So if a shop introduces protocols to allow them to operate while maintaining social distancing you have numbers which tell you if the protocols are actually effective.  If they aren't you can tell them to do more or close.

Having good data means you don't need arbitrary rules, you can react to measured risk.    It lets you get to a situation where people can live a far more normal life, many businesses can operate but with changed procedures and you can still get effective suppression of virus transmission.  That's what we need if we are to stick this out until there is treatment or a vaccine.

2
gezebo 06 Apr 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

I didn’t go and see my mum very much for fear of passing on infection when she had chemotherapy. It was winter and with 2 toddlers who were constantly being snotty they didn’t get to see her either. 

She then dropped down dead at the end of her chemo from a complication and I wish that I’d taken the chance.
 

Sometimes it’s perfectly ok to bend the rules...

> I broke the rules today. I went and visited my parents. We sat in their garden at a 2m distance around a fire pit. Maybe we were bending the rules rather than breaking them as they count as very vulnerable (well, my dad does!) I used the walk up there as the dog walk for the day. Maybe I should report my recklessness to the authorities!

In reply to summo:

> Tracking devices... are you posting during your afternoon snooze, dreaming? Most populations won't even have an identity card and you think you'll track them. They'd leave it in the house in London and head off to conquer Mount Snowdon. 

No they wouldn't.  You build the tracker into a badge, front of the badge is an e-ink screen which displays their picture and a QR code which is coloured.  If it's green they are allowed outside.  If it's red they aren't.

CCTV operators or cops just need to check the colour of the code and that the person looks like their picture.   Nobody gets into shops or onto public transport without a badge.

If someone is immune their badge is green all the time.  If someone who isn't immune is racking up too many interactions with other people their badge gets switched to red.   If they test positive or report symptoms their badge gets switched to red until they recover.   Contacts of people who test positive get their badge switched to red until they take a test.   As long as you are careful to stay 2m away from other people you can go out and your badge stays green.

8
 Blue Straggler 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Are we back on this again? Did you have a removal of your short-term memory? 

1
 BnB 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Have some support. I’m surprised more people aren’t seeing the economic and emotional benefits, little things like getting your income back or seeing your children/parents who live a day’s journey away. Oh, and eliminating transmission of the virus, that’d be be useful too.
 

I’d sign up in an instant.

 mondite 06 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> have you actually read that link? makes sense to me.

Yes I have. Now, once again, explain how it supports your hypothesis.

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> No they wouldn't.  You build the tracker into a badge, front of the badge is an e-ink screen which displays their picture and a QR code which is coloured.  If it's green they are allowed outside.  If it's red they aren't.

> CCTV operators or cops just need to check the colour of the code and that the person looks like their picture.   Nobody gets into shops or onto public transport without a badge.

> If someone is immune their badge is green all the time.  If someone who isn't immune is racking up too many interactions with other people their badge gets switched to red.   If they test positive or report symptoms their badge gets switched to red until they recover.   Contacts of people who test positive get their badge switched to red until they take a test.   As long as you are careful to stay 2m away from other people you can go out and your badge stays green.

You think we can manufacture 60 million of these and distribute them when we're having trouble with tests?

If this approach is used, a mobile phone app (as South Korea have used) is the only viable way.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

There’s no trouble with getting hold of tests. The problem is there is disagreement between the experts as to how reliable they are in a non clinical environment on people with very low viral loads. Figures being banded about are 50%, if that’s true we may as well just toss a coin. 

1
 kathrync 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If someone is immune their badge is green all the time.  If someone who isn't immune is racking up too many interactions with other people their badge gets switched to red.   If they test positive or report symptoms their badge gets switched to red until they recover.   Contacts of people who test positive get their badge switched to red until they take a test.   As long as you are careful to stay 2m away from other people you can go out and your badge stays green.

One of the problems with this is that it still relies on self reporting.  How many people do you think wouldn't report a mild temperature because they really need to go and do some shopping (for example).  It would also rely on much wider-scale testing than we currently have in place (especially given mounting evidence for large numbers of completely asymptomatic infections), and more information about long-term immunity than we currently have.

The other problem is that to me this sounds a little too much like certain yellow badges used in Nazi Germany.  Personally, I am quite keen not to live in that kind of society...

 DaveHK 06 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> have you actually read that link? makes sense to me. good luck but think of others..

I read your link and it made some interesting points about coughs and sneezes dispersing particles further than you might think or further than was previously thought.

It says nothing about running or cycling and it's a massive leap to suggest it is evidence of those activities posing serious risks.

 kathrync 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I am another one of those people who's mental health deteriorates quite quickly if I am not exercising regularly (and yes, I have sought help).  I don't see running or cycling as a problem as long as everyone is respectful of everyone else and sticks to the guidelines.  I don't see vigilante-ism as helpful, especially when someone is imposing personal guidelines that are in excess of official guidelines on others.

What I really wanted to say though is that everything has to go both ways. My usual run follows a riverside path that is around 3m wide.  I usually run hard to one edge of it and step off if I need to, or wait at narrower sections for other people to go through. Passing someone who is walking hard to the other side of the path should be no problem. Yesterday, I passed several family groups out for a stroll who were walking 3 or 4 abreast and making no effort to make space for others. I don't have any problems with them going out for a walk, but it doesn't take much effort to step to one side of the path and walk in single file for a couple of metres to give others space. Of course runners and cyclists should be responsible and make way for others - but those going out for a walk should do this too.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to gezebo:

> I didn’t go and see my mum very much for fear of passing on infection when she had chemotherapy. It was winter and with 2 toddlers who were constantly being snotty they didn’t get to see her either. 

> She then dropped down dead at the end of her chemo from a complication and I wish that I’d taken the chance.

> Sometimes it’s perfectly ok to bend the rules...

You can’t base your behaviour on hindsight.

If your mother had died from a cold passed on from your children, you’d be telling a different story. 

This is an example of how lots of people completely unaware of cumulative risk. 
 

You’re only one person so it doesn’t matter. If everyone thinks like this then it stops being one person and that really does matter. 
 

Is meeting for a cup of tea worth someone’s life? Is potentially killing someone because you might never get the chance to see them again really joined up thinking? 
 

It’s one thing bending the rules, it’s another advocating people do. As I say, if you’re bending the rules, it’s probably not great to then go and castigate others for doing the same thing. Look at the Scottish Health Advisor. 

1
 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

> The government has threatened to ban all exercise because of the actions of some people still congregating and socialising, particularly young people according to the report I heard.  In other words ignoring the government's advice and wishes completely.

More it's the excuse they need in the first instance to apply pressure so we shame each other into better compliance then to take the next necessary steps to further restrict our freedom and regain the control they squandered through February and March. This has to be 'our fault' if it isn't to trigger a revolution because it's going to be long and bloody awful.

jk

Post edited at 11:51
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Maybe. But the government haven’t actually threatened anything of the sort. 

1
 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There’s no trouble with getting hold of tests. The problem is there is disagreement between the experts as to how reliable they are in a non clinical environment on people with very low viral loads. Figures being banded about are 50%, if that’s true we may as well just toss a coin. 

Not necessarily if they're only inaccurate one way, if that's the false negative rate but the false positive rate is very low they're still useful, people with positive tests know they've very very probably had it. For what that's worth.

jk

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to kathrync:

This 2m rule is being taken far too literally. It applies for stopping and talking, for queuing, for avoiding crowds and at work. It’s completely impractical and unnecessary when passing the odd person briefly in the street.

Anyone who has been out running or cycling in cold weather knows what happens to your breath. You can see it in action. 
 

Post edited at 12:00
 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Erm? Ministers are already rumbling about restricting public exercise if we don't change our behaviour. That won't change anything virus wise except to make policing easier so if the admission rate doesn't come under control within a week or two (as a result of existing measures) further more effective measures will be necessary, probably closing all non-essential workplaces then if that fails it'll be further controls on access to food shops and public transport.

jk

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

They are only inaccurate in one way. They require a high viral load to detect the virus. Ie lots of false negatives in people who are not in hospital in a bad way. The people who are asymptomatic or have it mildly. 

 Robert Durran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If someone is immune their badge is green all the time.  

The prospect of getting a green badge would make it very, very tempting for people in low risk categories to go out of their way to get the virus and so end up immune. This might badly undermine the system - basically it would pay individuals to ignore measures intended for the public good.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

One minister who was pushed for an answer on live TV, that the media pounced on to create sensationalism. 
 

When he reiterated later what he meant, the BBC, amongst others, backtracked and changed their online headlines. 
 

This media feeding frenzy is feeding misinformation. It’s a tiny minority of people sunbathing and picnicking . It’s not people out for a run or a cycle. 

 wercat 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

OK then a government minister.  as law is given by dictat at the moment it amounts to the same thing

1
 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

So perhaps not ideal but not dangerous either. Hopefully with some more work or the import of others' work sensitivity can be improved without sacrificing specificity. On the other hand it may turn out the sensitivity tallies with our degree of immunity and the 'flaw' in the tests actually proves valuable by happy accident. Time will tell. If only we'd bought a bit more of it.

jk

 kathrync 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> This 2m rule is being taken far too literally. It applies for stopping and talking, for queuing, for avoiding crowds and at work. It’s completely impractical and unnecessary when passing the odd person briefly in the street.

Sure, I agree.  But I'm also not into frightening people who may be more worried about it than I am by passing close to them unneccessarily. And I'm not into receiving dirty looks for being closer to that to other people when I am already making a sensible effort to make space and they are not.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

We have a contract of £3.7m worth of kits ready to be delivered. It’s not the number of kits, it’s the reliability. 

 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> This media feeding frenzy is feeding misinformation. It’s a tiny minority of people sunbathing and picnicking . It’s not people out for a run or a cycle. 

Where have I suggested otherwise. Still, those few and the media frenzy and our righteous ire provide the government with a welcome figleaf for their manifold mistakes.

jk

 mondite 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

>  people with positive tests know they've very very probably had it. For what that's worth.

The problem is that seems restricted to those who have had it extremely badly as in ended up in hospital. So a small subset of the population who could have probably guessed they had it anyway.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

It doesn’t. It was a remark made on live TV which has since been clarified. 

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to kathrync:

Totally, but it’s subjective and there are people who love to go on social media and cause drama by saying things like a runner ran past me, it was really awful and I nearly died. Swiftly followed by loads of people offering up sympathy and then a load of runners arguing. 
 

It’s crazy. 
 

Just became someone ran past someone briefly. 
 

No one even considers that loads of people would probably not be out running or cycling if they felt even vaguely unwell. My runner friends are hypochondriacs. 

 BnB 06 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> More it's the excuse they need in the first instance to apply pressure so we shame each other into better compliance then to take the next necessary steps to further restrict our freedom and regain the control they squandered through February and March. This has to be 'our fault' if it isn't to trigger a revolution because it's going to be long and bloody awful.

Completely agree. In Italy, France and Spain they have gone from basic lock-down into an exceptionally strict form of lock-down in what I interpret as a final squeeze on the virus' ability to spread, hospital-related incidents notwithstanding. It is entirely reasonable to expect a two-week long final push at some point in the UK. Perhaps sunbathers on Brighton beach, or, more likely, park-goers massing unavoidably, will get the blame. But to me, it's in the schedule already, and if it hastens the easing of restrictions, it's to be welcomed as a sign that we are making progress.

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

> OK then a government minister.  as law is given by dictat at the moment it amounts to the same thing

No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't.

 Richard Horn 06 Apr 2020
In reply to BnB:

Are the "final squeeze" tactics used by Italy/France/Spain based on any medical evidence, or simply a panic measure from their increasingly desperate governments so show they are doing something? The fact that they were introduced well before any conclusions based on the existing measures could be drawn hints at the later.

I believe Australia has not been panicked into putting people under house arrest and are still seeing their case reductions fall with social distancing measures. 

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to BnB:

Yes, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on the plan, and I would expect it around the peak.  Indeed I did wonder if we'd get it across Easter weekend.

 BnB 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

> Are the "final squeeze" tactics used by Italy/France/Spain based on any medical evidence, or simply a panic measure from their increasingly desperate governments so show they are doing something? The fact that they were introduced well before any conclusions based on the existing measures could be drawn hints at the later.

More likely, as headline infection/death rates fall, it’s a way of combatting complacency and maintaining the population’s diligence by upping the ante. Less likely driven by non-compliance or medical evidence. That’s my inference.

Post edited at 13:59
In reply to Neil Williams:

> You think we can manufacture 60 million of these and distribute them when we're having trouble with tests?

I think you could get the cost below $50 for a card with an e-ink screen, a flat Li ion battery, a low end ARM chip, small amount of memory and a Bluetooth chip.  Less if you made an ASIC but that would take longer.   Plenty of companies in China could build them in the tens of millions, there's no new science involved.

You could make it so people got the badge and initialised it themselves with a web app and a photo they took of themselves.  So the distribution problem can be solved by Amazon.  

You could make the system so it did not collect names or tie into a government ID, it wouldn't be as strong in that it could be vulnerable to people buying more than one badge, but it would be less threatening from a civil liberties perspective.

> If this approach is used, a mobile phone app (as South Korea have used) is the only viable way.

It doesn't rule out an mobile phone app.  You could give badges to people who don't have smartphones.  But it's better than a mobile phone because it is light enough to use as a visible badge, it is less expensive, it is less vulnerable to simple hacks and it has very low power consumption so the batteries will last for maybe a week with the display active 24/7.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> The prospect of getting a green badge would make it very, very tempting for people in low risk categories to go out of their way to get the virus and so end up immune. This might badly undermine the system - basically it would pay individuals to ignore measures intended for the public good.

That's true.  It's a downside of any scheme that tries to identify the immune and treat them differently, including the government's certificates.   The badge is better than a paper certificate because it can be revoked remotely.  If it turned out immunity did not last you could require regular re-testing or if the tracking data or CCTV showed a person was acting dangerously you could revoke.

The upside is that organisations could select immune people for roles which involve regular contact with the public so you start to see 'herd immunity' effects with a far smaller number of infected people.

 wercat 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

You only have to read the threads here to see how anything said by a minister is thought by people to be "law" and extensible to the liking of the person quoting it..  WhenI pointed out this I was accused by some of wanting "special rules".  So, I conclude, ministerial interviews are "law" in the new Britain

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It’s more likely that would be the way to organise or police. Require companies to test their own staff. Any staff that failed would just not be allowed in the workplace. 
 

Then everyone stay at home or go to work in exactly the same way as we are doing. 
 

Company owners are not going to risk their entire business all catching it from one infected person. 

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to wercat:

Wouldn’t you be better off by just refuting misinformation instead of trying to be clever? 

In reply to kathrync:

> One of the problems with this is that it still relies on self reporting.  How many people do you think wouldn't report a mild temperature because they really need to go and do some shopping (for example).  It would also rely on much wider-scale testing than we currently have in place (especially given mounting evidence for large numbers of completely asymptomatic infections), and more information about long-term immunity than we currently have.

The distance sensor aspect doesn't require self reporting.

It would be possible to put more sensors into the badge but that makes it more intrusive.  It can be used in conjunction with IR CCTV cameras which are starting to come on the market: the CCTV has a normal camera plus an infra red one.  The IR camera spots people with temperatures and the image from the normal camera is used to identify them.  With a badge displaying a QR code the CCTV can potentially identify the person with the temperature directly and if it is really high immediately flip their badge to red.

On the timescales it would take to get a badge and infrastructure in place we could assume there was also better testing.  This is more of a six month thing than a two week one.   If it takes 18 months to get a vaccine or effective cure it is still extremely valuable and is a useful preparation in case the virus mutates and we get a second epidemic in a year or two.

> The other problem is that to me this sounds a little too much like certain yellow badges used in Nazi Germany.  Personally, I am quite keen not to live in that kind of society...

I don't think anyone is but I don't think we should fixate on badges as bad because they were used in a bad way by the Nazis.  There are also completely acceptable uses of badges - e.g. employee badges and uniforms.  This isn't about identifying people's ethnicity or politics or sexuality it is about controlling a disease.   It is also about increasing freedom and letting people get out and about their business more without a surge in deaths.

Post edited at 14:24
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It’s more likely that would be the way to organise or police. Require companies to test their own staff. Any staff that failed would just not be allowed in the workplace. 

I think that even if governments reject the idea large companies and organisations like the MOD may well use badges like this to monitor their own workforce and help to develop social distancing procedures based on data,   They'd be able to see which employees were having most contacts where virus transfer was possible before anybody got infected and design measures to reduce the risk or maintain separation between groups to protect some critical function.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Identifying people as different is a bad thing. People already stereotype practically everyone. 
 

Runners/cyclists/drivers/Tories/Labour/brexiteer/remainer, there’s enough division without giving certain people more excuses. 
 

I can just imagine self important people with green badges looking down on and avoiding talking to those without them.

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

This would be helped by the Government funding the sick pay (at full rate) of anyone not able to work due to a positive test.

 mondite 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It would be possible to put more sensors into the badge but that makes it more intrusive.  It can be used in conjunction with IR CCTV cameras which are starting to come on the market: the CCTV has a normal camera plus an infra red one

Do you realise just how expensive a thermal imaging camera is? To be able to pick up temperature effectively they aint cheap. Incidently the ones China are rolling out were ones already in the pipeline to try and bypass people disguising themselves. Hence why some people are cautious about the surveillence state you seem to want to dive headfirst into.

They are also bugger all use for the large number of people who either dont get a fever or dont have one all the time they are infectious.

Still I guess electronic monitoring could let us catch government officials who decide the rules dont apply to them. Would need some careful coding so approved people dont get reported.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

Thermal imaging of people’s skin is pointless anyway. It’s core temperature you need to check. 
 

Some people have some real weird ideas about physics and biology. 

 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to BnB:

I agree but it's progress to nowhere at the moment which is depressing. Still, under control with nowhere to go yet is miles better than the only other alternative! 

Jk

 krikoman 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I can just imagine self important people with green badges looking down on and avoiding talking to those without them.

Eventually there is going to be some sort of segregation needed unless you're going to wait for :

  1. The virus to die out
  2. Everyone to have had it, even then hoping you can't catch it twice.

Both of these  options are going to take ages.

Our only real option is testing and retesting and allowing those who are clear to actually work normally.

The only other option is a vaccine, but that could be even longer.

gezebo 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Interesting comment. I don’t think I would be telling a different story. Life is short and precious and we sometimes can go about doing all the ‘right’ things but at the expense of quality of life. 
 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and how would this reaction the current situation be seen in 12 months, 5 years, 10? We just don’t know. What happens next winter when covid20 arrives or whenever the next thing happens, because it will happen. Do we go into a lockdown every couple of years to ‘protect’ the vulnerable at the expense of everyone else? A difficult question to answer. 

Northern Star 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, have you though perhaps using your tracking system for different types of people in another way, e.g. for Scottish Independence?  A colour coded system could prove useful to identify those who are pro-independence versus those who are traitors?  Traitors would not be allowed back across the Scottish border once they have set foot more than 2.1 metres into English territory.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to gezebo:

When I was in isolation having chemo, I really did not want anyone coming anywhere near me. I can assure you of that. 
 

When COVID-20 comes we will lockdown and trace like the Chinese did. The supermarkets will ration from day one. There’s no doubt about that. People will take it a lot more seriously. 
 

The ‘right’ thing to do is always act on the available information. If that turns out to be wrong so be it, far better than it turning out to be right and you’ve ignored it. 

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Segregation is fine if it’s done with dignity and subtlety. Highlighting and publicly identifying people is not. 

 mondite 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Northern Star:

> Traitors would not be allowed back across the Scottish border once they have set foot more than 2.1 metres into English territory.

Instead of colour codes could have a loud speaker. For every ten minutes spent in England once back in Scotland it can ring a bell and announce "unclean, unclean".

As for any found to have visited  a consersative club and whatever the labour equivilent to them is. Lets just add a tazer I think.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Identifying people as different is a bad thing. People already stereotype practically everyone. 

There are no good options until there is a vaccine or treatment, we are looking for the 'least worst' one.

If you identify the people who are immune and encourage them to take the jobs which involve most person to person contact then you start to get benefits of herd immunity with a far smaller fraction of the population being infected.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Identifying them isn’t the problem. The problem is highlighting differences between people in the general population. You end up with a two tier society. Identify by all means but not when they’re walking down the street. 

 krikoman 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Highlighting and publicly identifying people is not. 

And if some people persistently flaunt the instructions / commands, so we have a number of people who are allowed to carry on but others who aren't choose to ignore the stay a home rule?

 wercat 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

not trying to be clever, a bit sarcastic perhaps, suited my mood at the time

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

If people aren’t following guidelines then that’s their choice and we are fining them aren’t we? 
 

Not sure what you’re saying there. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Identifying them isn’t the problem. The problem is highlighting differences between people in the general population. You end up with a two tier society. Identify by all means but not when they’re walking down the street. 

It depends on how you define the colour code on the badge.  You could make it 'Green = allowed to be out', 'Red = needs to be inside and isolated'  and just have immune people be green all the time where non-immune but non infected people had different policies applied according to circumstances e.g. if there hadn't been any local cases for a while then it was just green all the time but if it was getting bad again it changed to you can have it green for one hour per day.

In that case everybody on the street would be Green, if you are out and your badge is Red you'd be breaking isolation.

You could allow people to choose between the badge and an app on their mobile phone.  They might prefer the visible badge because it would avoid getting stopped and asked to show your phone.

1
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No really. You’re sounding like someone from Dragons Den who’s come up with a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

The only person who needs to know your status is your employer. You don’t need complex badges. You just need the employers to do the testing of the employees. 
 

No one is going to put their workforce or their business at risk. You carry on as we are, if someone shows symptoms who is immune then they don’t need to self isolate. If someone shows symptoms who is not immune, you test them and they isolate if necessary. 
 

It’s simple and effective. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No really. You’re sounding like someone from Dragons Den who’s come up with a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

> The only person who needs to know your status is your employer. You don’t need complex badges. You just need the employers to do the testing of the employees. 

Many employers expect employees to wear badges.  If you have a large workforce it's a practical thing to do.  Sometimes the badges will indicate what areas the employee can access,  Sometimes the badges have chips inside to control access.

Where people work with radiation they sometimes wear film badges which indicate what level of dose they have received.  This idea is similar, the badge is calculating what level of social exposure they have had as a proxy for the risk of them catching the virus.

I don't think it is necessarily that hard a sell to persuade employers to use a slightly more complicated badge.  It is easier to administer than printed laminated badges because its got an e-ink screen.  

2
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don’t know why you’d need to wear a badge. Either you’re immune or you’re not. If you’re not immune and you show symptoms and get tested. If you test positive you stay at home. If you’re not positive you can stay at work. Exactly the same as happens at the moment but you eliminate the people isolating for no need. Your employer will have records of who has been tested and when. 

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

It’s about balance.

to stop road deaths we should make all cars go 10 mph or slower.

we could ban exercise outdoors but the big killers remain heart disease, cancer, strokes and others. in the US COVID isn’t even predicted to be the biggest killer in the short term, but deaths associated with obesity and physical frailty continue to be the greatest risk.

on top of that people who are physically fit are more likely to be ok with COVID.

the big issue is those not complying with social distancing. Shaking hands, standing close. Like Bojo.

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

We don’t know of infected people are immune once recovered.

 jkarran 06 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> In that case everybody on the street would be Green, if you are out and your badge is Red you'd be breaking isolation.

It's all sounding a bit Auschwitzy for my taste. I think we might be able to do better.

jk

 Yanis Nayu 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Would they not be the default (at least for a period of time) given one’s immune system is what beat the virus the first time?

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu: they don’t know. They thought so but a limited number of people have tested positive after being negative. It’s assumed they still have some immunity and a less severe case but it’s a new disease.

 Yanis Nayu 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Cheers (albeit a depressing finding)

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Only cases have been anecdotal and likely to be either false diagnoses in first case or not recovered fully. There have been no clinical cases of reinfection. 

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/27/coronavirus-can-you-catch-covid-19-twic...

It's not a paper, and but it reports on one case. But there are doubts yes.

 SouthernSteve 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> We don’t know of infected people are immune once recovered

The danger will be not that there is no immunity, but that it is poor and lasts only a short time, or that the virus changes overtime and that the immunity is ineffective, or worse that partial immunity results in more severe clinical signs, perhaps by allowing the virus to grow in different cell types or causing an marked unhelpful immune response.  

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

27th February? That’s not up to date in any way. 

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

What do you mean. We aren’t talking about 1918. It’s an example 6 weeks ago.

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> they don’t know. They thought so but a limited number of people have tested positive after being negative. It’s assumed they still have some immunity and a less severe case but it’s a new disease.

*If* I've had it there is a considerable chance I've had it twice, much milder the second time (though not *that* bad the first), which might tally with it being mutated so the original antibodies sort of working.  But also there's the fact that just before it came on I properly exhausted myself with a long distance Scout hiking event - something which really knocks your immune system for six (which is one reason why distance running, probably more than a half marathon or so, is not a great idea at the moment).

Or I've had something else twice.  It definitely involved the same symptoms both times and was not a regular cold (colds always have the same symptom pattern for me and I get loads of them, normally the only way I ever get sick).

If I did it'd be interesting to know if a third was possible, i.e. like with many vaccines will a "second dose" have given me stronger immunity.

Will be interesting to find out!

Post edited at 21:48
Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yeah the big thing is we just don’t.

i suspect we will know soon.

the other issue is many of us may have had it. There’s so little data. Until we start random sampling and looking for signs of immunity we really don’t know it’s prevalence.

 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Indeed.  If a reliable (Government approved) antibody test becomes available for purchase, I'd pay a considerable sum for one as I'd really like to know!

I don't like getting sick per-se (hate being laid up, and whatever-I-had-in-February definitely did that, I had no desire to leave the house for a good week or so and my asthma was playing up something rotten so exercise was out too) but when I do I am actually in a way quite fascinated by "experimenting on myself".  I'd sign up for one of the clinical trials for vaccines but for two things, I doubt they'd accept an asthmatic as I technically fall into an at risk group (though it's very mild), and I would potentially create a false result as I believe I may have had it.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

https://www.genengnews.com/news/covid-19-reinfection-not-a-concern-monkey-s...

There has been no medical evidence of reinfection anywhere. It’s a Coronavirus, imunity generally lasts years not weeks or months. 

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Life is too short. You can get reinfected with different strains, we have such poor understanding of how quickly that occurs. Can someone who got infected with it in China catch a strain from NYC? The next strain data shows change. 
 

we catch colds all the time, they are coronaviruses.

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

We know many are mild cases. We don’t know why, we obviously think viral load and health are factors.

its been in the US now for at least almost 2.5 months (wasn’t there 5 cases in the paper when Kobe died). a BMJ paper just found about 80% who came through the Chinese border were asymptomatic, but I’m not sure if they ever developed symptoms or were just tested pre-symptoms. We still know so little.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

The strains are the same. There are many mutations within the strain but it’s still the same strain. 

Roadrunner6 06 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/577546...

There are already suggestions this is already another strain. Others refute it. You seem very confident it isn't. What are your qualifications?

I'd say we are still in the big unknown and have no idea what could happen as this virus spreads.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yep. Two strains with different Genomes. 
19 known mutations within the strains. 
 

They’re using the mutations to determine how the virus is spreading from one region to the other. 
 

For example, mutations seen in the virus in Ireland show that Irish people have been infected at Cheltenham, in Italy and in Norfolk. 
 

All clever stuff.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

> We don’t know of infected people are immune once recovered.

One of the reasons for having a system based on an e-ink badge updated from a cloud database is you can change the rules just by updating software on the servers.  

If they find out immunity is sometimes temporary then they can take account of that by having a time out and removing immune status after a few months unless the person gets tested again.  It's a lot easier than if you were handing out physical 'certificates of immunity' like government were talking about.

3
 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If people aren’t following guidelines then that’s their choice and we are fining them aren’t we? 

> Not sure what you’re saying there. 


I'm saying that unless you give people some sort of identifiable token that they are clear and therefore able to work without infecting other, there will be people, who for whatever reason, will pretend they are OK for work and end up spreading the virus around.

 Strachan 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> The mental health argument is very poor, sorry to get emotive but a cycle ride in the sun vs the loss of a colleague, friend, loved one. Which one really hits the mental health? 

I'm afraid that is a false dichotomy. I would argue that most deaths will not be caused by viral exposure originating from other people's daily exercise, but rather that the supermarket, for example, will be the origin of more infection events. Clearly people can also experience both the negative MH effects of personal or familial loss, and the positive MH effects of exercise, without mutual exclusivity. Therefore I think there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that the permitted daily exercise is of greater public health benefit, given its well known ability to have a widespread positive impact on the mental (and physical!) health of the population, and likely very limited role in infection spread, than locking people indoors to prevent infection, for example, of pedestrians by passing cyclists.

I also disagree with the idea that the benefit of a ride in the sun is insignificant compared to the loss of a loved one. For example, when my Dad died, at 54 (I was 24), I spent the next 3 days on my bike, in the sun, and then went back to work on day 4. I have no doubt that those days spent in the saddle played a huge part in helping me to process that loss and to find some positivity immediately after a traumatic event. The benefits were, for me, enormous.

1
gezebo 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If people aren’t following guidelines then that’s their choice and we are fining them aren’t we? 

I wonder how many fines with be contested in court? The fines issued by the police initially will not be classed as a crime if paid  and only the courts can pass on a criminal conviction and the legislation appears so grey I think a fair few will be challenged. 

 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

That’s why I suggest the employer tests and no one else. They’re responsible for making sure their workplace is safe. 

 SouthernSteve 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> We know many are mild cases. We don’t know why, we obviously think viral load and health are factors.

There may also be genetic factors based around the ACE2 receptor. It will be interesting to see whether this ends up explaining geographic variation in deaths/severe infections

> Life is too short. You can get reinfected with different strains.

The genetic differences are mainly in non-important parts of the genome so the strain data is considered by different people very differently

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Strachan:

I'd agree that supermarkets are a massive, massive vector (and going for a run, or even sunbathing[1], not so much).  I do wonder if the Government should actually be subsidising the employment of a load of laid-off staff as more delivery drivers, possibly even using their own private cars with a law change requiring insurers to cover this or the Government providing the insurance, so as to significantly reduce the number of people in stores.

It wouldn't need to be the "full" service - I think Morrisons have got a good model with their "essentials food box" thing and am really, really surprised they are the only ones to have done it.

[1] It's been acknowledged *somewhere* that sunbathing poses next to no risk; the concern with allowing it is that it normalises other stuff, e.g. "if we can sunbathe why can't we have a game of footy with our mates" - the idea being that if you're out in public you should be moving or carrying out another essential activity e.g. food shopping, not just enjoying the public realm.

Post edited at 08:52
 Richard Horn 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> The mental health argument is very poor, sorry to get emotive but a cycle ride in the sun vs the loss of a colleague, friend, loved one. Which one really hits the mental health? 

Sorry but this shows a pretty staggering ignorance of mental health. The issue is not people who basically had happy lives before where their only concern in life was what route they were going to climb the following weekend and are now weighing up the difficulties of being denied outdoor pleasure time, the issue is people for whom life was difficult before CV even reared its ugly head. Now add on top of that add the anxiety of CV, loss of incomes, trying to hold jobs with no childcare etc - some people are *really* stressed, and yes people have started to kill themselves. Do not underestimate just how important escaping that environment might be for some people (maybe not you, but do not judge everyone on your own situation).

Secondly think of this - some people getting most stressed at the moment are NHS staff, are we going to lock them up on their days off?

 wercat 07 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

it's a kind of caste system

> It's all sounding a bit Auschwitzy for my taste. I think we might be able to do better.

 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

There are other ways to escape your Environment than to go on a 100km timetrial collecting starva crowns. Or pushing the limits on your latest climbing project. 
 

The majority of us manage that quite well, there will be a small minority of people whose mental state and attitude means they’re all or nothing type people, (bipolar?)

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make allowances for them, but to use mental health as a blanket excuse for people to continue as before is disingenuous.

What about all the people who need to meet their mates on a Thursday night for darts in the pub? What about their mental health? 

 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Where people work with radiation they sometimes wear film badges which indicate what level of dose they have received.  This idea is similar, the badge is calculating what level of social exposure they have had as a proxy for the risk of them catching the virus.


Sure, but radiation badges don't change colour to indicate your level of exposure publicly - you send them off regularly to be tested and are informed privately if your dose is too high. No-one can tell anything about your exposure levels by just looking at it. Indicating your status to you privately so you can make an informed decision is one thing, but indicating it to everyone else as you walk down the street, which is what you seem to be advocating, is something entirely different.

Also, you keep talking about "immune" and "non-immune" people.  Right now, we know a very small amount about short-term immunity and nothing about long-term immunity - we simply don't have the data to give people this information.

 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There are other ways to escape your Environment than to go on a 100km timetrial collecting starva crowns. Or pushing the limits on your latest climbing project. 

> That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make allowances for them, but to use mental health as a blanket excuse for people to continue as before is disingenuous.

No-one is saying anyone should be doing those things  or continuing as before right now.  The OP suggested that people shouldn't be running or cycling at all, and the counter-argument was that running/cycling/other exercise within government guidelines is a positive thing for most people and essential for some.

 mondite 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There are other ways to escape your Environment than to go on a 100km timetrial collecting starva crowns. Or pushing the limits on your latest climbing project. 

I like how you jumped all the way to an extreme. Perhaps you should have mentioned people who like building strawmen?

> That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make allowances for them, but to use mental health as a blanket excuse for people to continue as before is disingenuous.

Again a strawman jumping all the way to "continue as before" as opposed to maintaining some exercise.

> What about all the people who need to meet their mates on a Thursday night for darts in the pub? What about their mental health? 

It is a concern and is something which will impact how long lockdown can be maintained for and how severe it can be. At some stage you will hit the point where you will be doing more damage to the countries health than you would be stopping. Of course figuring out that point is all but impossible.

 Richard Horn 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yep another demonstration of ignorance of just how widespread mental health issues are, and how much they are increasing right now. Take your head out of your sports-goal related bubble and look at the real world.

People are not managing well - many people are seriously stressed. If you are finding it easy then either you are truly amazing, or dare I say it you dont have too many responsibilities or problems in life. 

 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

I thought I qualified my use of extremes in my post?

I’ll requalify it. 
 

Some people are using mental health as an excuse to carry on as usual. In a very small minority of cases that might be justified. In the vast majority of cases it isn’t and we should be tailoring our exercise to the current situation. 
 

Is ‘strawman’ some kind of buzzword on this forum? Lots of people seem to love using it, usually inappropriately. Have I stumbled into some obscure university debating society? 

2
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

I am well aware of mental health issues. Maybe we would be addressing those issues  and finding ways to help those people cope rather than blanket using mental health as a excuse to carry your life on as if nothing is going on. 
 

Sure the OP says stop, but raises concerns on why they should be stopped. The only reason for the “coughing, hawking, gozzing and regular use of the footballers handkerchief.” Is if the exercise is done at high exertion levels. 
 

So maybe rather than dismissing concerns we should be working with them to find a solution. 

1
 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I am well aware of mental health issues. Maybe we would be addressing those issues  and finding ways to help those people cope rather than blanket using mental health as a excuse to carry your life on as if nothing is going on. 

Firstly, once again, no-one is suggesting that anyone carry on as if nothing is going on - only that exercising within guidelines is ok.

Secondly, for many people, regular exercise IS part of how they cope and is recommended as part of treatment by mental health care providers. Here is just one peer reviewed article on this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845641/) - there are many more if you look for them.  

This aspect of coping with mental health disorders doesnt require most people to do massive amounts of exercise, just to do a small amount regularly.  For me, although I prefer to do more, a half hour run every couple of days supplemented with some strength training is sufficient to keep me from descending into a downward spiral of anxiety - it is absolutely possible to do this within the current guidelines.

Post edited at 11:03
 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to kathrync:

In any case is there a problem with someone "carrying on as normal" if that normal fits within the guidelines?  As a home based IT worker mine is quite surprisingly close.

It's a bit unfair, but things like this already are, and by working as normal I'm paying tax to keep the economy moving to *some* extent at least.

 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> In any case is there a problem with someone "carrying on as normal" if that normal fits within the guidelines?  As a home based IT worker mine is quite surprisingly close.

Well, yes absolutely. I am in a similar situation with respect to work, although I have changed other aspects of my routine.

It's also worth noting that most of us on this forum are more active than average, and for the majority of people the current guidelines around exercise easily give them enough space to do an equivalent volume of exercise to what they would usually do, even if they have to change how they do it.

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to kathrync:

Even if they went a bit more like the French (something like 30 minutes out of the house per day and within 2km of home) I could still lap the block, though I'd consider that ill-advised as I'd likely meet more people than going off onto one of my "never see anybody" type routes.

I do think some "couch potatoes" are taking the unusual opportunity to virtue-signal!

Post edited at 11:47
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to kathrync:

Indeed. It seemed to be the “gossing and hawking” that the OP is objecting to, not the actual exercise. They make no mention of a gentle walk being an issue. We shouldn’t be exercising at ‘normal’ intensities if that’s what we normally do when working at those intensities. I think it’s a reasonable point. 

Post edited at 11:56
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I don’t think the OP is objecting to people working from home. I think they’re specifically talking about running and cycling at high intensity as a sport. 

Post edited at 11:58
Roadrunner6 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

There's also no new normal.

TBH I think just let people cope how they can. I seriously question why people are doing massive ultra distance efforts, there was a 60 hour virtual race thing this weekend here. That's got to leave you immunosuppressed.

But otherwise just cope and avoid people. It all kicked off on a running facebook group because an Admin totally lost it that people were doing a short virtual race for an NHS fundraiser and people shouldn't be racing right now. Many friends are ICU Drs/nurses and are runners and they love the virtual races because for 15-30 minutes they can just run and forget the stress of the bodies piling up. We've a friend in an NYC ICU where most staff have COVID or work with people who have it. Why should people dictate how people can cope in such an unprecedented time.

With a wife who may get called back shortly, premature twins with obvious health concerns, elderly parents, siblings with at risk health issues. I'm not going to lie that this is easy. My runs are about the only time of the day I've not got a big shadow of anxiety sat on me. Even then sometimes I just have to stop and breath on a run. This is an awful time. Just let people find ways of coping.

Post edited at 13:24
 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Agreed.

If there is one thing that needs to stop, right now, it's the amount of virtue-signalling and vigilanteism going on.  Virtue-signallers are damaging peoples' mental health.

People need to deal with their own compliance to their country's guidance, and if they feel someone is not complying to the point of serious risk then they should report that to their local Police force to deal with.  If they are complying but the virtue-signaller happens not to like what they're doing, tough and mind your own business, as it were.

Post edited at 13:49
In reply to kathrync:

> Sure, but radiation badges don't change colour to indicate your level of exposure publicly - you send them off regularly to be tested and are informed privately if your dose is too high. 

The badge doesn't need to show your exposure publicly.  It just needs your picture and a QR code which is coloured red or green.  Green means OK to be outside and everyone who is outside will have a green badge.  The badge could be green because they are immune or because they are on their exercise period or going to essential work, people looking at it won't know why it is green.

If the person wanted to know their exposure they could use a web interface with a secure login to check the data from their badge.  The same web system could be used to ask for permission for things like a trip to a second house.  If the rule is 'you can't be outside unless your badge is green' but the system behind deciding if a badge is green is complex and flexible we can get more of the economy moving without compromising suppression.

> Also, you keep talking about "immune" and "non-immune" people.  Right now, we know a very small amount about short-term immunity and nothing about long-term immunity - we simply don't have the data to give people this information.

This idea isn't for right now.  It will take time to make the badges and write the code.  It's something for the next pandemic or for six months from now trying to get to a stable livable state while waiting for a vaccine.  By the time the badges are ready testing should be improved.

Post edited at 14:27
4
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Have you written to Dragons Den yet? 

 Tom Valentine 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

>

  Virtue-signallers are damaging peoples' mental health.

What an interesting bit of speculation. 

 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The badge doesn't need to show your exposure publicly.  It just needs your picture and a QR code which is coloured red or green.  Green means OK to be outside and everyone who is outside will have a green badge.  The badge could be green because they are immune or because they are on their exercise period or going to essential work, people looking at it won't know why it is green.

It doesn't matter, you are still creating an "us" and "them" system - even if this is flexible and people can move between the red and green states, I would still imagine that this creates a massive sociological can of worms.

 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> That’s why I suggest the employer tests and no one else. They’re responsible for making sure their workplace is safe. 


I don't have an employer, I work for my own company, but I visit a lot of sites working in different places, how do you control me?

Have a test at every work place? That's a lot of tests I'm using up in a short space of time.

 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Agreed.

> If there is one thing that needs to stop, right now, it's the amount of virtue-signalling and vigilanteism going on.  Virtue-signallers are damaging peoples' mental health.

> People need to deal with their own compliance to their country's guidance, and if they feel someone is not complying to the point of serious risk then they should report that to their local Police force to deal with.  If they are complying but the virtue-signaller happens not to like what they're doing, tough and mind your own business, as it were.

And what about something you see in the street?

We had this at home yesterday funnily enough, son received package, took it outside, disposed of the packing directly to the recycling bin.

Before I entered the scene, his mam had made him get the package out the bin and remove the name and address label.

But then came in the house,  closed the door with his hand and then turned the key.

Then washed his hands.

When I pointed out that he could have closed the door with his elbow, washed his hands then locked the door. It ended up with him getting stroppy, cleaning the door handle and the key.

When I pointed out that he needn't have had to wash the handle and the key, if he'd just thought on, we had a full on row.

So I, according to you I might have been virtue-signalling, I was trying to make our home a safer place, so are you suggesting I keep my gob shut, call the police, or just ignore things I see as a risk.

One thing I do know he won't do the same thing again, and given the same circumstances I'd do exactly the same.

In reply to kathrync:

> It doesn't matter, you are still creating an "us" and "them" system - even if this is flexible and people can move between the red and green states, I would still imagine that this creates a massive sociological can of worms.

If you used it to enforce the current rules most people would be flipping between red and green, people who could prove they'd had it and recovered would be staying green and the infected/self isolating would be red continuously but only for 7 or 14 days.  There shouldn't be any social stigma unless you go out with a red badge.

It is going to be hard to keep things going for 18 months with a system based on rigid rules which apply to everyone.  If we don't get more flexibility into the system for suppression we might get to the lots of death and herd immunity scenario by default.

Post edited at 15:04
3
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Why do you need to be controlled? 
 

What do you do at the moment? 

 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

He only really needs to wash his hands regularly and after he had done all those things. 
 

The likelihood there was any virus on the package that he had managed to pick up onto his hand and then transfer to the key and then someone comes along and transfers that virus onto their hands and then manages to put their hands into their mouth before they’ve washed them again is so unimaginably small it’s just not worth considering. 
 

Wash your hands regularly. 

1
Roadrunner6 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

A report I saw said groceries and mail is low risk due to the various wait times and chances of viral particles surviving with their short halflifes. They may survive X hours but the amount viable halfs every 2-3 hours or something.

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Have you written to Dragons Den yet? 

I'd more suggest he needs to write to his preferred totalitarian regime.

Some concepts of it may work (e.g. a voluntary contact tracing app, after all most people voluntarily or unknowingly provide Google with a location trace anyway) but the whole thing is living in utter cloud cuckoo land.  It might well be highly effective, but it is simply incompatible with a Western democracy.

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> When I pointed out that he needn't have had to wash the handle and the key, if he'd just thought on, we had a full on row.

That's where you triggered it.  That, there.  Yes, it was virtue signalling, or rather being aggressive for the sake of nothing because there was a way to achieve the same end without aggression.

If you'd perhaps said "I know it's difficult to remember all these big changes to life, but you could make your life easier if you thought of X and Y next time, perhaps"? there may have been no row.

What happened is that anger bred more anger, and helpfulness ("here's how you can keep yourself safer in future") breeds more helpfulness.

Teenagers and twentysomethings (I'm guessing he is in that bracket?) have poor innate planning and risk assessment behaviour.  Imagine you were climbing with him and he did something stupid, e.g. set up a bad anchor or placed bad gear.  Surely you'd not have been sarcastic with him then, but shown him and explained to him how to do it properly so he would learn, benefit from that learning and appreciate having been taught it?

Post edited at 15:29
1
 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> He only really needs to wash his hands regularly and after he had done all those things. 

> The likelihood there was any virus on the package that he had managed to pick up onto his hand and then transfer to the key and then someone comes along and transfers that virus onto their hands and then manages to put their hands into their mouth before they’ve washed them again is so unimaginably small it’s just not worth considering. 

That might well be true, but if he hadn't touched the door or key with his hand, then the chances are nil, rather than imaginably small.

the rest of the family and me don't have to wash our hands at all if there's zero chance. The only way the virus is getting into our house is through the front door, none of us are venturing outside. so we don't need loads of soap, or sanitiser, and while it's not great were managing.

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

All that said, regarding virtue signalling, I'm referring to the sort of people who are taking great pride in going well beyond Government advice and criticising others for simply following it, e.g. "how dare those people go for an hour's walk in the park, correctly remaining 2m apart".  A lot of it is coming from the same people who are shouting "full lockdown now" and the likes.

 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That's where you triggered it.  That, there.  Yes, it was virtue signalling, or rather being aggressive for the sake of nothing because there was a way to achieve the same end without aggression.

There was no aggression FFS! I love how people can jump to massive conclusions without any evidence.

If you read your own post, it comes across as aggressive.

There was no anger until later on

and he's 32

Post edited at 15:38
 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Fair point.  However...

What you said to him, if you quoted it correctly in your post, was classic British mild passive-aggression and accusation - it wasn't a positive influence, it was to make someone guilty for a mistake they had made.  I am not in the remotest bit surprised a young lad got cross about it and had a row.  When I was that age, I would have almightily kicked off about it, too, and often did because my Dad had a habit of using that approach at times too.

My experience of teenagers and twentysomethings (I'm not a parent, but I have been involved in Scouting for years) is that if you want to get them on side you need to posit things as opportunities to learn for the future rather than telling them off for things they've done in the past, particularly if those things are things they couldn't get why it was wrong, or if they were things that they'd already realised wasn't quite right so you go and double their guilt to no end.

Positive reinforcement works so much better for teenagers than telling them off, sarcasm or passive-aggression, and now (in a time when their life is disrupted like they've never known and they're possibly very scared too) more than ever.

Post edited at 15:40
1
 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Ah, he's 32?  Maybe should behave less like a teenager, then!

 kathrync 07 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It is going to be hard to keep things going for 18 months with a system based on rigid rules which apply to everyone.  If we don't get more flexibility into the system for suppression we might get to the lots of death and herd immunity scenario by default.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't think that making everyone display their status is the answer.

 Tom Valentine 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

They're not saying "Lockdown now"

They're saying "Lockdown tomorrow if people don't stop taking the piss".

And it's not a wish, more of a prediction.

 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Fair point.  However...

> What you said to him, ....

The majority of what you posted is correct, but your first post, demonstrated everything you were trying to argue against, you assumed a number of things and then told me where I'd gone wrong.

Pretty much virtue-signal right there

Maybe everyone should look at things, however shitty they may appear at first, as though someone is trying to protect THEM and not simply prove how clever and good they themselves are. If we assume someone is virtue-signalling then maybe it is us that needs to change our perception of things?

 krikoman 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> They're not saying "Lockdown now"

Most of the people I know are self imposing a lockdown, unless it's for the shops, or health reasons.

Out of all my climbing buddies and friends, the only people leaving their homes are the one's with dogs or the one's that ned to work NHS staff or careers.

I don't see this as a massive problem for me, so I simply don't go out.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Some concepts of it may work (e.g. a voluntary contact tracing app, after all most people voluntarily or unknowingly provide Google with a location trace anyway) but the whole thing is living in utter cloud cuckoo land.  It might well be highly effective, but it is simply incompatible with a Western democracy.

How would you feel about the same system but without the badge aspect?  So you kept the unit in your pocket like an oversized smart card and it was anonymous but it tracked contacts with strangers so the authorities could get an idea of how effective social distancing was in real time (rather than with two week delay when it shows through as cases and deaths).

 Neil Williams 07 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I would voluntarily sign up for a smartphone version of that, and I think we could well see it.  Provided it was above board (e.g. the source was released as Open Source to prove it didn't have any "back doors" or similar) and could genuinely be removed once the pandemic is over.  And it was not used for any form of enforcement, i.e. it was used for anonymised data collection and contact tracing but the latter only in the event of being tested positive.  I am behaving within the rules/advice, however I do not feel "Big Brother" is appropriate in the UK.

I don't think a separate device is worthwhile.

Post edited at 19:11
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think a separate device is worthwhile.

The separate device could be made for $50, or less if it didn't have the display.  So if government or an employer wants everyone to have one and doesn't want to hand out $500 smartphones it makes sense. 

It would be possible to have a system where people could choose between an app on their phone and carrying a physical device but it's complicating things with different versions of the app for different phones and you'd have to start worrying about whether the different packaging and choice of chips in different phones could affect measurement accuracy when you are trying to decide if they are less than 2m apart.

 Neil Williams 08 Apr 2020

In reply to Davidlees215:

I'm doing more exercise than usual

But yes, this is a good point.  There are many people who get very little exercise.  Corral them at home doing literally none at all (not even walking 200 yards from the car park to their office or whatever) with nothing better to do than eat and what you've got on your hands is a serious obesity epidemic.

 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I don’t think that’s any different to normal. People who get restless go out and do things. People who’ve been sitting around for the last 10 years continue to do so. 
 

I’ve seen more of the latter getting out walking though. 
 

We may be seeing more people because usually everyone would be at work or commuting. 

Post edited at 13:20
 Neil Williams 08 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Also because those who normally exercise in gyms, swimming pools, group outdoor bootcamps and the likes can't, so are walking and running instead.

 mondite 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Also because those who normally exercise in gyms, swimming pools, group outdoor bootcamps and the likes can't, so are walking and running instead.


Yup.  True for me. More runs/riding currently since other stuff isnt available.

Round here it is probably quieter than normal at lunch. Whilst more kids the big business park/uni buildings are empty so all the people who would go for a lunchtime stroll have been displaced somewhere else.

 jkarran 08 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> How would you feel about the same system but without the badge aspect?  So you kept the unit in your pocket like an oversized smart card and it was anonymous but it tracked contacts with strangers so the authorities could get an idea of how effective social distancing was in real time (rather than with two week delay when it shows through as cases and deaths).

We almost all already have that. Why, assuming this is a road we choose to travel, re-invent the wheel or in this case, the phone?

jk

In reply to jkarran:

> We almost all already have that. Why, assuming this is a road we choose to travel, re-invent the wheel or in this case, the phone?

The device would be far cheaper than a phone.  Maybe $50 in lowish volume.  If you are going to had out millions of them that makes a difference.  Also, smaller, lighter, more robust and much longer battery life.  No user interface, just put it in your pocket so anybody can use it.  Harder to hack than an app because no user access.

The device would work better than a phone.  Different phones have different software, bluetooth chips and layout of antenna and case.  Getting an accurate + reliable determination of coming within 2m is easier if all the devices are the same.

It would be possible to do a hybrid scheme with a phone app for anyone with a smartphone or a device for anyone that didn't have one but there would be more work in dealing with all the different phone models.

2
 mark s 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I don't think it will be long till we have the Europe style restrictions on going out. weve followed them on everything else.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Depends where you do it. Went out on the bikes with the family on Tuesday and did not meet a single other human being in 16km. We could be as snotty as we liked.

 Allovesclimbin 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Surface to mouth / mucous membranes is a risk ie opening a gate. 
The 2m rule is evidence based on our current best evidence. Covid is mostly droplet spread. Any aerosol generated by sneezing coughing is , according to infection control, not an issue when more than the required 2m . 
 It’s fine to cycle and run if you keep to the social distancing rules . However, shopping and handling products/ door handles etc is a greater risk 

 CathS 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I think getting everyone out exercising regularly is actually part of the overall strategy for combating the virus:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52076856

The benefits gained in reducing ICU admissions almost certainly outweigh the relatively very small risks.

 Dave the Rave 08 Apr 2020
In reply to CathS:

> I think getting everyone out exercising regularly is actually part of the overall strategy for combating the virus:

> The benefits gained in reducing ICU admissions almost certainly outweigh the relatively very small risks.

Unless your a fat cent slowly pushing your Colnago up a hill with a bosted wheel dressed in Lycra . Seen one of the fattest blokes on spokes today

1
 Dave the Rave 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Allovesclimbin:

Is that a static 2m or does it entertain that the said persons may produce droplets then move into the infected zone whilst still 2m apart?

 DaveHK 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Have we done this yet? Not read it but it's got a fancy graphic:

https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid...

 Neil Williams 08 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

What it omits is whether COVID19 is likely to hang around in those droplets for any length of time.  I did read something to suggest that it was fairly heavy and was unlikely to do so.

OTOH, I hate running 2m from someone, if they stopped I'd go into the back of them.  So it's a bit of a non-situation really.

 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

It’s a biased personal interpretation of a study that hasn’t been released and is about slipstreams when cycling and running. The team thought it would be important so showed it to a Belgium paper. Anyone can write an article on Medium. 
 

As Neil says, loads of the things you read on the Internet just don’t happen in real life when you think about it. 
 

That’s why there are so many arguments on UKC, lots of theorists with no ability to see how it happens in practice. 

Post edited at 23:23
 Neil Williams 08 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think the problem with Medium is twofold:-

1. It looks really polished and reputable, unlike some randomer's Facebook post;

2. Some of the stuff on there is really quite good in terms of content, e.g. Tomos what's-his-name's articles about the "hammer and dance" etc.

This means people don't seem to be applying any critical thinking to it.

I think them having added this:

Anyone can publish on Medium per our Policies, but we don’t fact-check every story. For more info about the coronavirus, see cdc.gov.

...to the top of any article on COVID19 is helpful, though.

Post edited at 23:32
 DaveHK 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Two people commenting on my link but UKC says only one click on it. Who's telling porky pies... 

 Neil Williams 08 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

I've already read it so I didn't see the need to click on the link again

 DaveHK 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I've already read it so I didn't see the need to click on the link again

 Allovesclimbin 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Dave the Rave:

A subject for further research, and is being done . For Covid , the answer is they don’t know (yet) ! 
Al

 DancingOnRock 10 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I told you to get to Dragons Den quick. Someone else has come up with a better idea. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52246319

 DancingOnRock 10 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

“Dr Megan Davies Wykes, from the University of Cambridge, said the results were plausible as if “people are moving they leave droplets in their wake”.

“However, this is an aerodynamics simulation, there isn't any virology in it, so they don't show that the transport of the virus leads to infection or anything close to that,” she said.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I told you to get to Dragons Den quick. Someone else has come up with a better idea. 

It's not a better idea, it is the same idea - using Bluetooth to detect people within 2m and keep a record.

Like I said when I first proposed it a few weeks ago it's fairly obvious and something that was likely to happen.  At which point I got flamed but as soon as Apple say the same thing it's all fine.

If you are concerned about civil liberties the badge is a better way to go because it is overt where a phone based scheme could become covert.  With a badge people once people stop wearing them the tracking is over.  With phone software you'll never really know for sure.

 Neil Williams 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The Apple/Google proposal seems to use Bluetooth only, though, and doesn't have the "track your whole life" aspect you were proposing?  Though to be fair Google already tracks your life.

I think in many ways overt is worse - it harks back too much to yellow stars.

And Google/Apple just do it to make money, they don't do it because of some ulterior motive.  So I'm happier to be tracked by a corporation than a Government, to be honest.

Post edited at 08:33
 mondite 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Like I said when I first proposed it a few weeks ago it's fairly obvious and something that was likely to happen.  At which point I got flamed but as soon as Apple say the same thing it's all fine.

It is? Have you thought people have disagree with it regardless of the proposer.

> With a badge people once people stop wearing them the tracking is over.  With phone software you'll never really know for sure.

Aside from the badges being kept mandatory. Plus, of course, the phone software is already busy tracking but can equally be dealt with by not carrying it. Arguably more usefully.

 David Riley 11 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

>  they don't do it because of some ulterior motive.  So I'm happier to be tracked by a corporation than a Government, to be honest.

They can be lax with the rules / "creative" /do it from another country. Then sell it to any government. No questions asked.

 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> What it omits is whether COVID19 is likely to hang around in those droplets for any length of time.  I did read something to suggest that it was fairly heavy and was unlikely to do so.

plenty long enough for you to inhale running or cycling behind someone

> OTOH, I hate running 2m from someone, if they stopped I'd go into the back of them.  So it's a bit of a non-situation really.

but you'd be happy to do it in principle because you don't trust medium.com?

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

As posted earlier. It’s a study on aerodynamics not virology. That’s not how the virus spreads. If it was, the whole of London would have been infected in only a few days and the R0 would have been huge.

 summo 11 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

By the time any tech was in place and agreed to in parliament, 90% of the population will have been exposed to the virus anyway. It would just be another stable door.

Containment, testing, tracing, tracking etc. Might have been good a month of two ago. By autumn it will have whistled through society pretty much everywhere on the planet.

It's a question of being better prepared next time. 

1
 Neil Williams 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

> but you'd be happy to do it in principle because you don't trust medium.com?

I neither trust nor don't trust medium.com.  It's an open publication service, anyone can post anything at all.  Each article must be taken on its own merits; the platform has no more credibility on its own than Facebook or Twitter.

This:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/v74az9/the-viral-study-about-runners-spr...
 

explains why the article may be suspect.

But anyway, you're missing my point.  I don't run 2m behind someone because I might whack into them if they stop.  So it's neither here nor there whether doing so could give me COVID19 or not.

Post edited at 11:13
 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

you can't dismiss it using that argument given lack of testing and most people may be asymptomatic..

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

You can dismiss it. We know that we’d have been seeing huge number of both asymptomatic and symptomatic people. You don’t get one and not the other. 

 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

no you can't- not enough data. we have little info on where or how people are catching it..

and why do you always extrapolate to the extreme to make your case. the situation is far more complex..

1
 tcashmore 11 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> By the time any tech was in place and agreed to in parliament, 90% of the population will have been exposed to the virus anyway. It would just be another stable door.

> Containment, testing, tracing, tracking etc. Might have been good a month of two ago. By autumn it will have whistled through society pretty much everywhere on the planet.

> It's a question of being better prepared next time. 

It amazes me the statements that people make about what is worth while or not!  No one really has any idea how this is going to pan out, IMO we should do the best we can to help based upon experience to date in the world. Who cares ‘if it should have been a month ago’, the past is gone (to state the obvious). Based upon what’s happened in other countries, it appears the best approach with hindsight was to test, and test.  In this country perhaps we had a certain level of arrogance by the so called experts, but even they have changed tack now.  We need to keep going with whatever we have.  

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

We do have loads of data from loads of countries. We even have data from our own country. We have seen how fast infections grow and we have seen how it slowed when we imposed social distancing. 
 

If more people had caught it, more people would have died. It’s a very simple relationship. 

 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

more than what?

1
 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tcashmore:

I don’t believe there was any arrogance. The scientific consensus was that in Italy only 10% of the population was being hospitalised and this was for some reason different to the figures we had from China. By the time Italy started seeing 20%, we had already been working on a 10% figure for a while. We monitored admissions and when it was clear what was happening we started social distancing. 
 

There’s a lot of people claiming the scientific advisors were wrong, using hindsight. 
 

And when you look at every other country in Europe, the same thing has happened. 
 

You can only go on data as it’s presented. 

 GrahamD 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tcashmore:

I don't think the arrogance was from any real experts in the field. 

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

More than we saw in the first weeks. 

 tcashmore 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock

i only have one response really, Germany!!  They seemed to just get on with it, ramping up testing, continuing with tracing etc. Have we been a bit too theoretical in this country rather than just getting on with the limited actions that we can do.   Testing and tracing, lockdown, what else is there at the moment?

 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

you are moving your argument to things that are obviously true..

1
 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk:

No. If you could catch it from walking past someone, one person would have infected practically everyone in a tube station, everyone they passed on a high street, everyone they stood next to in a shop queue. 
 

That doesn’t happen. It didn’t happen. One person would have infected thousands of people in one day. Then from those thousands of people we would have seen hundreds of hospital admissions. From each infection. The R0 wouldn’t be 2.3! 

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tcashmore:

Maybe. But that’s the Germans and their health service is different to all the others in that It’s not run by a government organisation. 

 wbo2 11 Apr 2020
In reply to malk: Other countries have done mass testing -use that data!

 malk 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It’s a study on aerodynamics not virology. That’s not how the virus spreads.

that's a very bold statement. Dr Wykes actually said 'this is an aerodynamics simulation, there isn't any virology in it, so they don't show that the transport of the virus leads to infection or anything close to that'

the 'anything close to' bit rings alarm bells..

this study has aerodynamics with virology: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852

Post edited at 12:48
 Neil Williams 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No. If you could catch it from walking past someone, one person would have infected practically everyone in a tube station, everyone they passed on a high street, everyone they stood next to in a shop queue. 

> That doesn’t happen. It didn’t happen. One person would have infected thousands of people in one day. Then from those thousands of people we would have seen hundreds of hospital admissions. From each infection. The R0 wouldn’t be 2.3! 

Very true.  I wonder what the R0 of a common cold is by comparison?  If I spend any time near someone with one I always seem to get it, pretty much without fail, with an incubation period of about 4-5 days.  But even that seems to be about spending time with them.

Post edited at 13:20
 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Flu is 1.4. 

 Neil Williams 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Much lower, then.  But the common cold isn't flu, and despite having had the jab for the first time this year I've only ever had it twice in my whole life, whereas I get at least 4-5 common colds per year.

 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

You may already be immune to the flu strains circulating though. 

 Neil Williams 11 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

True, that's a possibility - though herd immunity does affect the R0 figure, doesn't it?

In reply to Neil Williams:

> The Apple/Google proposal seems to use Bluetooth only, though, and doesn't have the "track your whole life" aspect you were proposing?  Though to be fair Google already tracks your life.

Phones are tied to an account with your name on it, they have GPS which can easily determine where you live, they have WiFi which can also be used to figure out where you live, they have microphones which could be used to listen for coughing or to determine how many people are in a house, they could tie your quarantine behaviour to your web browsing or even e-mail.  

A badge with an e-ink display and a Bluetooth chip is a much more limited platform and it is much more quantifiable what it is actually doing.  You don't have to trust 'honest we aren't using the GPS or looking at the cookies on your web browser' because there isn't a GPS chip or a web browser.

The badge will also work better than the phone at determining when the 2m social distancing limit is broken, it is an easier problem to determine distance because all the badges are identical and worn outside clothing in roughly the same place.  You would be trying to work from the Received Signal Strength Indicator but in a phone signal strength would be affected by the choice of bluetooth chip, the antenna and phone case and whether the phone was in a pocket as well as the distance.

> I think in many ways overt is worse - it harks back too much to yellow stars.

The yellow star analogy is purely emotional, this isn't identifying anyone according to race, religion or any other protected characteristic.   If the rule is 'you can't go out unless your badge is green' then *everyone* on the street has the same colour of badge.  

The badges would most likely be hated, which is healthy because it means people would insist the requirement was removed as soon as it wasn't necessary.  Invisible software on a phone would be easier to leave in place.

> And Google/Apple just do it to make money, they don't do it because of some ulterior motive.  So I'm happier to be tracked by a corporation than a Government, to be honest.

In this situation it could be government telling Google/Apple to install software on the phones for them.  It could be integrated in the OS or be a hidden app that users didn't even know was there or be hidden functions inside an app you knew was there.

Post edited at 15:00
1
 DancingOnRock 11 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The phone companies have all that data already I’m afraid. 
 

However, we have very strong laws that prevent even the government from accessing that data. 
 

If your issue is what happens to that data, you would do better to concentrate on what happens to the data. The data needs to be collected for the communications and internet to function. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...