Latest Social Distancing *Rules (13 May 2020) - *"Guidelines"

OP
Rooster1

Rooster1

I was right about that saddle
Thank you for all of your various points of view and having read through all of them it has aleviated any concerns of judgements I may have cast.
 

Ajax Bay

Veteran
Location
East Devon
cyclingnews - belgian-study-on-safe-distancing-while-exercising-goes-viral

They found that with a slipstream, a much larger distance is needed to avoid exposure - up to five metres (16 feet) at a fast walking pace.
"The results indicate that the largest exposure of the trailing person to droplets for walking and running is obtained when this person is in line and with leading person and positioned in the slipstream of this person.
"Exposure increases as the distance between leading and trailing person decreases."

But surely this is just common sense though isn't it? I don't get the debate you're trying to push. Is your point that 2 metres is fine, no matter what you're up to? No matter what pace?
By the way, your gleeful targeting of my "I felt" as just mere, ignorant opinion is undermined somewhat by your own use of "I think", they're the same thing of course. You think my opinion is b****cks, and I'm calling yours the same. Just pure, unadulterated "I'll do what suits me" and sod everyone else" b*llocks.
Thank you for responding.
From the article you quote (Cycling News summary): "The Blocken paper is an interesting study that can serve as a guideline for exercising outside but what it is not is any evidence whatsoever that SARS-CoV-2 is spread by aerosols in the outdoors."
This paper has been widely criticised, not least because it was shared on social media (Linked-in) with no peer-review, presumably for (Eindhoven University of Technology aerodynamic department) publicity purposes. The Daily Mail has been responsible for hyping its validity up - there's a recommendation. Make the right assumptions and a mathematical simulation can prove anything (eg lead mouth at 168cm).
From an epidemiologist at US Communicable Disease Dynamics: "virality of Blocken's research is harmful"
"Where the droplets are is much less relevant than the amount of transmission that occurs via this route"
the overall risk of transmission appears to be less outdoors. Transmission depends on a host of factors; scientists believe an important one of these is “viral load,”
"On the epidemiology side—where the droplets are is much less relevant than the amount of transmission that occurs via this route," "Advice on physical distancing is really about *reducing* the risk of transmission rather than eliminating it altogether."
US CDC said studies like this are "not really useful. Not to epidemiologists anyway. The amount of transmission from this route even if it is possible will be dwarfed by that from others."

I've done a little more 'work' on this and, yes, I think that the level of risk is as low as practical (ALARP) at 2 metres. Cycling along we just don't know whether a greater distance is required to achieve the same level of risk (ALARP). Intuitively it'd be more than 2m but 4m, 6m? I note that Audax Australia have reintroduced audaxes, but require 10m between riders (one behind the other), but without any apparent scientific basis for that distance. The Blocken social media post suggests that riding in echelon (and not because of a cross-wind) reduces the concentration of the lead cyclist's exhalation particles.
The corresponding WHO SD guideline is to keep distance to one metre (increasingly being adopted by countries as they forge a path out of 'lockdown'. So the UK 2m already has a 100% safety margin built in.
From the summary: "The virus has to get to your mucous membranes - your nose, mouth, or eyes. Even if you're in the slipstream of someone who coughs and is infected, science has not yet determined how many virus particles are needed to cause disease."
And from the article: "Airborne [as opposed to droplet] transmission is very unlikely in regular outdoor environments like parks, hiking trails, because they are not in a closed space."

I have due respect what you feel, of course. I think (feel) that your inference that people shouldn't be associating with another person (even if SD limited) unless they're a relative or 'close friend' is b*****ks wrong. And your use of the 'irresponsible' card for those who are interpreting the revised guidelines reasonably is pejorative bullying. I'm not doing 'just what suits me' (and I expect that goes for everyone on here and across the whole community). We are all making an effort to not catch COVID-19 and not pass it on even if we don't know we're infected. Our efforts are guided by government guidelines and these need to be interpreted sensibly. Some, like you, may exercise additional restrictions. But please don't try to apply community/social pressure (calling people "irresponsible") for those additional restrictions on other 'responsible' cyclists.
It's sunny down here today so I'll be out for a long cycle. I'll be wearing gloves; I'll not be going into shops or toilets; and I'll be washing my hands on return. What's the effect on the virus of sunscreen PF30, I wonder?
 
Last edited:

SkipdiverJohn

Veteran
Location
London
Everyone seems to want to impose their own, generally stricter, version of the guidelines on others. And the arguments can get quite vituperative.
I don't. As far as I'm concerned it's a load of hysterical nonsense, and for anyone that doesn't have any serious medical conditions that makes the virus dangerous to them, it doesn't matter anyway if you do catch it.
There's no doubt millions of people who are suffering all kinds of inconvenience and disruption to their routines, and are walking around wearing silly masks to try to stop the virus - when in reality they've already had the virus weeks or months ago without knowing it. The whole thing has degenerated into a total farce.
 

Phaeton

Guru
Location
Oop North (ish)
I don't. As far as I'm concerned it's a load of hysterical nonsense, and for anyone that doesn't have any serious medical conditions that makes the virus dangerous to them, it doesn't matter anyway if you do catch it.
I know a 33 year old mechanic who since his apprenticeship at the age of 16 has never had a day off sick, he has no underlying health conditions, this virus floored him, put him on his back for 7 days, at one point it looked like he was going to have to be admitted to hospital. He is now slowly recovering physically it could be several more weeks before he is fit again, but the mental issues it has left him will take a lot longer if they ever heal.

So with regards to "hysterical nonsense" I believe you are incorrect.
 

dodgy

Legendary Member
Location
Wirral
I don't. As far as I'm concerned it's a load of hysterical nonsense, and for anyone that doesn't have any serious medical conditions that makes the virus dangerous to them, it doesn't matter anyway if you do catch it.
All depends on how many degrees of separation there are between you and someone vulnerable.
Quite a selfish and arrogant viewpoint.
 

Banjo

Fuelled with Jelly Babies
Location
South Wales
You carry it for about a week before showing symptoms.During that time you can pass it on to people for whom it may be life threatening.With all the publicity do people really not know that?
 

Ajax Bay

Veteran
Location
East Devon
You carry it for about a week before showing symptoms.During that time you can pass it on to people for whom it may be life threatening.With all the publicity do people really not know that?
Hope they do. And I think Sd John is talking b****ks, or as @Phaeton sardonically put it: "incorrect". The 'mask thing' is a separate issue (for confined spaces imo). I wonder what his conditions at work are like or whether he actually has contacts with other humans. I have a good friend who has just made it through, but then had a stroke after coming off a ventilator.
What's your recommendation then, @Banjo? What's the plan? The ability of asymptomatic carriers to infect others will not change with time, but the number of infected people will be dramatically reduced, so the risk to any individual is less. And the more care (rational, evidence-based actions/restraints to keep risk ALARP) we all take, the better for all, but balanced by the need to 'get back to work'.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Veteran
Location
London
. The 'mask thing' is a separate issue (for confined spaces imo). I wonder what his conditions at work are like or whether he actually has contacts with other humans.
I personally know 1 person at work that has actually been hospitalised by the virus (underlying medical conditions), plus his family at home all had it too but they weren't that ill. Someone else who was on a 12-week medics warning to keep out of the way died last week, but it appears the cause of death wasn't virus-related. I'd say about 25-30% of the people I work with have had virus-like symptoms in the last three months, including myself. Of course no-one knows for sure if they've had it unless they tested positive, but I believe a very significant proportion of the population have now had it, and the reason the numbers are not spiking despite the lockdown being widely ignored now, has a lot to do with the fact that there are less and less receptive victims around for a virus infectee to spread it to. After all, if a carrier comes into contact with five people, and two of them have already had it so are immune, then the maximum they can infect is another three, even assuming they are 100% effective in transmitting it, which of course they won't be.
 

matticus

Senior Member
...but I believe a very significant proportion of the population have now had it ...

Well that's me convinced.
Meanwhile the ONS are 95% confident the figure is between 0.17% and 0.41%
Just to be clear - the ONS say that roughly 1-in-400 people (that's 0.25%) have HAD the virus? Is that your statement?
I'm pretty sure there was a report last week of a much higher number. :-/
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Just to be clear - the ONS say that roughly 1-in-400 people (that's 0.25%) have HAD the virus? Is that your statement?
I'm pretty sure there was a report last week of a much higher number. :-/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020 is the latest I found. Let's say they are out by a factor of 10, is that really a significant number of the population. I believe we need 60% for herd immunity to begin to work.
 
Top Bottom