Author Topic: Coronavirus and Audax  (Read 53783 times)

Chris F.cc

  • Rapha tart
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #775 on: 29 April, 2020, 07:53:34 pm »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #776 on: 29 April, 2020, 08:06:19 pm »
Are we still fwapping on about audaxes?

Doing jigsaws is the new audax. Especially ones with trains.

αdαmsκι

  • Twitter @Dr_AAY Instagram @ucfaaay Strava @ucfaaay
  • Look haggard. It sells.
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #777 on: 29 April, 2020, 08:09:19 pm »
Is there points depending on the number of pieces?
What on earth am I doing here on this beautiful day?! This is the only life I've got!!

https://tyredandhungry.wordpress.com/

bhoot

  • MemSec (ex-Mrs RRtY)
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #778 on: 29 April, 2020, 08:28:43 pm »
Is there points depending on the number of pieces?
And AAA (alternative aspect acheivement) points if you do the jigsaw upside down?

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #779 on: 29 April, 2020, 08:48:26 pm »
If you take it outside and spend the next 12 months looking for the lost pieces you can get a JRTY: jigsaw round the yard.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #780 on: 29 April, 2020, 09:34:57 pm »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(
That is the opinion of one non expert writer. The example of an infected bar tender infecting lots of people he served by “talking to them” ignores the more obvious fact that people were drinking from glasses he had his infected paws on. Peer reviewed papers by experts are the place to go. If vigorous exhalations were the main cause wearing masks would simply solve it and we could go back to normal.

Edit: and even if it turns out the predominant transmission is not via fomites then being in the open air is the safest place to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #781 on: 29 April, 2020, 10:45:06 pm »
On parkrun, I think there’s at least two more reasons why I’d not reopen that next:
As well as the standing spaced out before, and Greenbank’s pinch point, the mid range 200 people take maybe half an hour, give or take? So they’re not far from a bunch of other people for some time. That sounds like more of a risk than passing another runner for a moment when just out for a run.
And that’s the other reason. As a runner and cyclist I’ve been able to keep my thing going on my own. Parkrun, and audax is it’s own way, are adding a group aspect to something that we can do perfectly well on our own. Is competition, over exercise, worth it?
Restriction lifting needs to balance risk with maximising the numbers that feel a benefit. As May starts and the rain falls, golf or a swim in the sea might be something that appeals to people that haven’t yet wanted to run or cycle. I avoid both, but that doesn’t mean they’re wholly without merit. They can probably be arranged to give exercise but not too much contact. Or maybe they’d rather have a different shop to go to, or an office.

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #782 on: 30 April, 2020, 07:12:10 am »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(
That is the opinion of one non expert writer. The example of an infected bar tender infecting lots of people he served by “talking to them” ignores the more obvious fact that people were drinking from glasses he had his infected paws on. Peer reviewed papers by experts are the place to go. If vigorous exhalations were the main cause wearing masks would simply solve it and we could go back to normal.

Edit: and even if it turns out the predominant transmission is not via fomites then being in the open air is the safest place to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would not put much faith in peer reviewed papers at all.  90% of published research in my personal experience has major flaws.  Epidemiology papers particularly are blinded often by a lack of actual medical knowledge. 

All of this discussion about droplets and the 2m distance is pure guesswork based on no science about dosage required for infection, etc.  The data on the multi metre trail from cyclists is true (technically) but ignores the hole behind each rider, and the degree of dispersion leading to a low droplet density.  Drafting properly is probably extremely safe.

I would happily walk next to someone outside on a normal windy day but worry much more in a supermarket, where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight!

Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #783 on: 30 April, 2020, 07:19:49 am »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(
That is the opinion of one non expert writer. The example of an infected bar tender infecting lots of people he served by “talking to them” ignores the more obvious fact that people were drinking from glasses he had his infected paws on. Peer reviewed papers by experts are the place to go. If vigorous exhalations were the main cause wearing masks would simply solve it and we could go back to normal.

Edit: and even if it turns out the predominant transmission is not via fomites then being in the open air is the safest place to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would not put much faith in peer reviewed papers at all.  90% of published research in my personal experience has major flaws.  Epidemiology papers particularly are blinded often by a lack of actual medical knowledge. 

All of this discussion about droplets and the 2m distance is pure guesswork based on no science about dosage required for infection, etc.  The data on the multi metre trail from cyclists is true (technically) but ignores the hole behind each rider, and the degree of dispersion leading to a low droplet density.  Drafting properly is probably extremely safe.

I would happily walk next to someone outside on a normal windy day but worry much more in a supermarket, where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight!
I will put my faith in papers written by scientists and checked by scientists. I am not sure what you mean by “where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight”. The fomites in a supermarket will be trolley handles and baked bean tins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #784 on: 30 April, 2020, 07:53:42 am »
Glad to know that the fomites are so discerning.

I'll avoid touching baked-bean cans and trolley handles and carry on licking the checkout conveyor.

S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #785 on: 30 April, 2020, 09:00:00 am »
The droplet study is a typical case of someone doing research in something nobody wants to fund in normal times, so takes advantage of the exceptional circumstances to promote their research and maybe get some funding.

The chances of catching a bug while slipstreaming another cyclist are probably in the same ballpark as those of getting pregnant by sharing a spa tub in a health club .. kind of the "urban myth" scenario...

That said, if you slipstream, beware of the snot... that can be a more serious threat

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #786 on: 30 April, 2020, 09:43:53 am »
He'll change his mind... restrictions are here to stay... there might be restrictions in 10 years time.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's all conjecture at this point.

Once they do the maths and realise the costs involved in having gatherings inside and outside bars, venues and pubs and how the tax revenue doesn't make up for that, you'll see that there will be plenty of restrictions... Covid or not... we'll learn to live with restrictions, which is probably a good thing in an overpopulated world

All varieties of pandemic die out in time, along with the temporary measures put in place to control them. This one will be no different. In two years' time, there will be little remaining of any of the measures currently in place. Life will get back to normal eventually, no matter how much you might wish it were not so.

HIV never went away, we just learned to live with it... the kind of free sex that was common in 60s and 70s has long gone.

I was reading today that Covid 19 has the same hospital death rate of Ebola, which is quite sobering
I thought it was a ridiculous statement as most people do not end up in hospital with covid, in fact many don't even realise they have it, while everyone with ebola ends up in hospital. Infection fatality of covid is less than 1% ebola is more like 50%. Any country showing greater than 1% is not detecting all their cases, look at Iceland figures where they tested everyone.


Eddington  100miles

S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #787 on: 30 April, 2020, 09:51:38 am »

I thought it was a ridiculous statement as most people do not end up in hospital with covid, in fact many don't even realise they have it, while everyone with ebola ends up in hospital. Infection fatality of covid is less than 1% ebola is more like 50%. Any country showing greater than 1% is not detecting all their cases, look at Iceland figures where they tested everyone.

I guess what it shows is not that the mortality rate is similar to Ebola, but that if you are unlucky enough to end up in hospital, then the treatment available is very limited, in the same ballpark as diseases we consider "untreatable".

Some mortality rates don't stack up, Singapore has 0.1%, which by all means seems very low. Russia has 1% but we all know it's not true... might be tempted to believe in Iceland numbers, if their population wasn't less than that of Leicester

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #788 on: 30 April, 2020, 10:03:05 am »
Glad to know that the fomites are so discerning.

I'll avoid touching baked-bean cans and trolley handles and carry on licking the checkout conveyor.
Fomite is the technical word for an object droplets might have landed on and be conveyed to someone else. The checkout conveyor is another fine example of a fomite.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #789 on: 30 April, 2020, 10:15:23 am »
The best current estimate for CFR for covid-19 is 1.38%
The best current estimate for CFR for EVD is 82.8%

I would personally rather not be infected by either, but given the choice I would go with sars-cov-2


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #790 on: 30 April, 2020, 10:20:57 am »
Glad to know that the fomites are so discerning.

I'll avoid touching baked-bean cans and trolley handles and carry on licking the checkout conveyor.
Fomite is the technical word for an object droplets might have landed on and be conveyed to someone else. The checkout conveyor is another fine example of a fomite.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Really? Fuck me I thought it was a type of insect.

You learn something everyday.

S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #791 on: 30 April, 2020, 10:28:45 am »
The best current estimate for CFR for covid-19 is 1.38%
The best current estimate for CFR for EVD is 82.8%

I would personally rather not be infected by either, but given the choice I would go with sars-cov-2


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good thing that's the infection available at the moment then...  ;D

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #792 on: 30 April, 2020, 11:54:06 am »

I thought it was a ridiculous statement as most people do not end up in hospital with covid, in fact many don't even realise they have it, while everyone with ebola ends up in hospital. Infection fatality of covid is less than 1% ebola is more like 50%. Any country showing greater than 1% is not detecting all their cases, look at Iceland figures where they tested everyone.

I guess what it shows is not that the mortality rate is similar to Ebola, but that if you are unlucky enough to end up in hospital, then the treatment available is very limited, in the same ballpark as diseases we consider "untreatable".

Some mortality rates don't stack up, Singapore has 0.1%, which by all means seems very low. Russia has 1% but we all know it's not true... might be tempted to believe in Iceland numbers, if their population wasn't less than that of Leicester

Singapore has had a recent explosion in cases without time for them to be resolved one way or the other.

Eddington  100miles

S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #793 on: 30 April, 2020, 12:00:56 pm »

I thought it was a ridiculous statement as most people do not end up in hospital with covid, in fact many don't even realise they have it, while everyone with ebola ends up in hospital. Infection fatality of covid is less than 1% ebola is more like 50%. Any country showing greater than 1% is not detecting all their cases, look at Iceland figures where they tested everyone.

I guess what it shows is not that the mortality rate is similar to Ebola, but that if you are unlucky enough to end up in hospital, then the treatment available is very limited, in the same ballpark as diseases we consider "untreatable".

Some mortality rates don't stack up, Singapore has 0.1%, which by all means seems very low. Russia has 1% but we all know it's not true... might be tempted to believe in Iceland numbers, if their population wasn't less than that of Leicester

Singapore has had a recent explosion in cases without time for them to be resolved one way or the other.

It was very low even before the current outbreak...

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #794 on: 30 April, 2020, 12:59:21 pm »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(
That is the opinion of one non expert writer. The example of an infected bar tender infecting lots of people he served by “talking to them” ignores the more obvious fact that people were drinking from glasses he had his infected paws on. Peer reviewed papers by experts are the place to go. If vigorous exhalations were the main cause wearing masks would simply solve it and we could go back to normal.

Edit: and even if it turns out the predominant transmission is not via fomites then being in the open air is the safest place to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would not put much faith in peer reviewed papers at all.  90% of published research in my personal experience has major flaws.  Epidemiology papers particularly are blinded often by a lack of actual medical knowledge. 

All of this discussion about droplets and the 2m distance is pure guesswork based on no science about dosage required for infection, etc.  The data on the multi metre trail from cyclists is true (technically) but ignores the hole behind each rider, and the degree of dispersion leading to a low droplet density.  Drafting properly is probably extremely safe.

I would happily walk next to someone outside on a normal windy day but worry much more in a supermarket, where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight!
I will put my faith in papers written by scientists and checked by scientists. I am not sure what you mean by “where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight”. The fomites in a supermarket will be trolley handles and baked bean tins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sorry it should have been not only fomites from direct contact but also from droplet spray.  My poor typing prior to coffee.

Your faith in scientists is touching but naive.  Scientists are no more right than non-scientists in many areas.  What the pandemic has shown is that the paradigm even most scientists have been using has been incorrect.  Scientists are usually wedded to a single view of the world on which they have built there career, grant funding, etc.

Recent examples would be treatment of stomach ulcers, where i heard the then senior upper GI surgeon state that ranitidine would be useful for 5 patients per year in the West of Scotland.  he could not accept a medical treatment for stomach ulcers. 

Then there was the idea that a bacteria causes stomach ulcers!!  How stupid.  Until it was proved right.

IBM thought we needed was it 1000 computers in the world?  They no longer exist

Elon Musk and electric vehicles

In my own field, Needle Aponeurotomy for Dupuytrens and then collagenase for Dupuytrens.  Both of which a senior Academic surgeon threatened to report me to the GMC for popularising.

There are multiple other examples why we should not believe scientists.

S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #795 on: 30 April, 2020, 01:19:16 pm »
There are multiple other examples why we should not believe scientists.

It's a short step from there to believing utter boxxocks...

Bear in mind there are people in high placed jobs who think maybe it's all as simple as cleansing the body by injecting a disinfectant

Who do you believe then? The mad scientist who wants to treat everybody with chloroquine?

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #796 on: 30 April, 2020, 01:31:20 pm »
Very interesting article here;
https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

If this exercise in citizen science turns out to be true then to summarise; C19 doesn't seem to spread so much by touching door handles, packaging or even by sitting next to a C19 carrier in a quiet bus, train or plane.
It mainly spreads by people breathing in each others faces; singing, ordering drinks in noisy bars, air kissing at social events, talking loud and close to partially deaf old people, and crucially for Audax (and Parkrun) being downwind of somebody breathing heavily.
The Guangzhou restaurant example, where diners downstream of the aircon caught it, means the focus will be on limiting social activities where people might catch each others' vigorous exhalations.
- and I guess that'll be seen by society (and insurers) to include groups of cyclists :(
That is the opinion of one non expert writer. The example of an infected bar tender infecting lots of people he served by “talking to them” ignores the more obvious fact that people were drinking from glasses he had his infected paws on. Peer reviewed papers by experts are the place to go. If vigorous exhalations were the main cause wearing masks would simply solve it and we could go back to normal.

Edit: and even if it turns out the predominant transmission is not via fomites then being in the open air is the safest place to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would not put much faith in peer reviewed papers at all.  90% of published research in my personal experience has major flaws.  Epidemiology papers particularly are blinded often by a lack of actual medical knowledge. 

All of this discussion about droplets and the 2m distance is pure guesswork based on no science about dosage required for infection, etc.  The data on the multi metre trail from cyclists is true (technically) but ignores the hole behind each rider, and the degree of dispersion leading to a low droplet density.  Drafting properly is probably extremely safe.

I would happily walk next to someone outside on a normal windy day but worry much more in a supermarket, where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight!
I will put my faith in papers written by scientists and checked by scientists. I am not sure what you mean by “where not only fomites but droplets will be covering everything in sight”. The fomites in a supermarket will be trolley handles and baked bean tins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sorry it should have been not only fomites from direct contact but also from droplet spray.  My poor typing prior to coffee.

Your faith in scientists is touching but naive.  Scientists are no more right than non-scientists in many areas.  What the pandemic has shown is that the paradigm even most scientists have been using has been incorrect.  Scientists are usually wedded to a single view of the world on which they have built there career, grant funding, etc.

Recent examples would be treatment of stomach ulcers, where i heard the then senior upper GI surgeon state that ranitidine would be useful for 5 patients per year in the West of Scotland.  he could not accept a medical treatment for stomach ulcers. 

Then there was the idea that a bacteria causes stomach ulcers!!  How stupid.  Until it was proved right.

IBM thought we needed was it 1000 computers in the world?  They no longer exist

Elon Musk and electric vehicles

In my own field, Needle Aponeurotomy for Dupuytrens and then collagenase for Dupuytrens.  Both of which a senior Academic surgeon threatened to report me to the GMC for popularising.

There are multiple other examples why we should not believe scientists.
You believe the link between h pylori and peptic ulcer was proven by a non scientist ? Science evolves, that is its essence.

Many scientists are working on many different covid19 vaccines. Not all will work. This is not a failure of science or scientists and it is highly unlikely a vaccine will be developed by a non scientist.

P.s. IBM annual turnover last year was 77 billion $ so it still exists.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #797 on: 30 April, 2020, 01:44:22 pm »
There are multiple other examples why we should not believe scientists.

It's a short step from there to believing utter boxxocks...

Bear in mind there are people in high placed jobs who think maybe it's all as simple as cleansing the body by injecting a disinfectant

Who do you believe then? The mad scientist who wants to treat everybody with chloroquine?

The problem is that what the scientists say is frequently utter bollocks.  people think science is is objective. It is not at all.

Scientists make a lot of money out of backing the "best" current idea.  They churn out paper after paper to support their view and rubbish grant applications that suggest a "new" theory as that would end their own grant applications.

Just this last week a paper was published showing that a highly regarded therapy splint was of absolutely no value at all.  The response was to accept the data and stop using the splint :) ::-)

Of course it was not!  The response was, well other weaker studies have shown a possible benefit, we will just keep doing what we are doing.

Iconoclasts will be wrong most of the time but occasionally will change the world.  The Americans perhaps understand this more than we do.  They will often be quite happy to still back someone who has gone bankrupt several times on the basis, that next time will be the good one.

It does become very difficult knowing who to trust and the answer is not to trust anybody and to question everything.  i tell all my patients for example to ask their surgeon if the surgeon enjoys doing the operation suggested.  If the surgeon says yes, it is a favourite then you should automatically knock 15% of the claimed success rate.

Actually science rarely evolves, if you mean a gradual change in beliefs.  Science is actually much more like the wiping out of the dinosaurs.  Usually done by new, very young and inexperienced people in a field.  H2 receptor antagonists followed by PPI and H Pylori for example changed the face of general surgery completely from a specialty where i spent many hours doing highly selective vagotomy to the present where the operation is never performed.


S2L

Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #798 on: 30 April, 2020, 01:50:39 pm »
You haven't answered any of the questions though, you just bring up cases of poor research papers... of which there are many... so what? That's why you need a good body of evidence before taking any decision, rather than running around like a headless chicken after every contradictory report...

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Coronavirus and Audax
« Reply #799 on: 30 April, 2020, 02:01:47 pm »

I thought it was a ridiculous statement as most people do not end up in hospital with covid, in fact many don't even realise they have it, while everyone with ebola ends up in hospital. Infection fatality of covid is less than 1% ebola is more like 50%. Any country showing greater than 1% is not detecting all their cases, look at Iceland figures where they tested everyone.

I guess what it shows is not that the mortality rate is similar to Ebola, but that if you are unlucky enough to end up in hospital, then the treatment available is very limited, in the same ballpark as diseases we consider "untreatable".


It doesn't necessarily show that, though, does it.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.