COVID19 and Audax UK

[rob]

Hadn’t seen the extra bit about face coverings and storage.  I carry my mask in a back pocket and pop it on when going into shops or cafes.  It goes in the wash with the rest of my kit when I get home.

When I have forgotten to put it on (twice), I have been politely reminded by the cafe staff.  On the 2 200s I have ridden in the last week I went in 3 shops on each.

[mattc]

I'm applying the same finger in the air resining you are.

Interesting you say that ...

I've been following Gov guidance, the laws that apply to us, the statements from qualified scientists, and the guidance from British Cycling.

All of which says that riding long distances (even in small groups) is perfectly reasonable. If I stop at 3 pubs on Mon-Wed, the government will subsidise me by £30 

[Davef]

The idea of not reusing masks after taking them off until you wash them off is similar to not reusing hankies. By wearing the mask you have hopefully trapped all the nasties on the inside. Once it has been in your pocket there maybe nasties all over including the outside so the next time you put it on it is not effective. Folding it in half to keep the inside inside would help a little.

[Ajax Bay]

The idea of not reusing masks after taking them off until you wash them off is similar to not reusing hankies. By wearing the mask you have hopefully trapped all the nasties on the inside. Once it has been in your pocket there maybe nasties all over including the outside so the next time you put it on it is not effective. Folding it in half to keep the inside inside would help a little.

It's an idea, except hankies are deliberately used to blow/wipe one's nose: not breath through. And a face covering's purpose is to reduce markedly the volume of any putative viral load going out and is absolutely not designed to prevent "nasties" being breathed in, aiui. And if one puts a mask or buff back on again, then it's the wearer's "nasties" on the inside, and they (the bugs) will be in happy home territory, if indeed there are any "nasties" around to start with. At the end of the ride: wash as normal.
We went through a phase (in the spring) of arguing against masks on the basis that people didn't know how to take them off with professional medical staff correctness (or indeed NBC respirator drill accuracy). But since the wearer is either infectious/ive or not it doesn't seem to matter, in practice. In a hospital, "nasties" may be all around, so it makes absolute sense to use, remove with care, and dispose of safely. But going into shops?
I do think, based on observation this month, that mask wearing indoors (eg shops) gives people a false sense of security and therefore they pay less attention to 'social distancing': bit like wearing a helmet may make riders take more risk 'cos they're protected.

[Bianchi Boy]

There is no issue travelling non locally to an area of similar infection level. There seems to be a perception that it is like spreading flu to the aztecs (or was it mayans). I don’t believe there is anywhere on mainland Britain that has avoided covid and the infection rate is pretty constant bar from a few areas where it is higher.

You should avoid travelling to those areas because you are more likely to catch covid because more people have it. You should avoid travelling from those areas as you are more likely to have it and spread it.

The testing lags the cases by about 2 weeks. So you do not know the risk of traveling until later. Who would have thought last week that travelling to Aberdeen would have been an issue. So in short if we all keep to the social distancing rules and there is no rise in infections there is no added risk in travelling, but you do know the travelling risk until later. By the way the way the flu (or smallpox) spread in populations that had no immunity to those viruses is exactly the same as happened at the start of the infections. The main advantage that we had is that we had some understanding of how these things spread.

BB

[Davef]

The idea of not reusing masks after taking them off until you wash them off is similar to not reusing hankies. By wearing the mask you have hopefully trapped all the nasties on the inside. Once it has been in your pocket there maybe nasties all over including the outside so the next time you put it on it is not effective. Folding it in half to keep the inside inside would help a little.

It's an idea, except hankies are deliberately used to blow/wipe one's nose: not breath through. And a face covering's purpose is to reduce markedly the volume of any putative viral load going out and is absolutely not designed to prevent "nasties" being breathed in, aiui. And if one puts a mask or buff back on again, then it's the wearer's "nasties" on the inside, and they (the bugs) will be in happy home territory, if indeed there are any "nasties" around to start with. At the end of the ride: wash as normal.
We went through a phase (in the spring) of arguing against masks on the basis that people didn't know how to take them off with professional medical staff correctness (or indeed NBC respirator drill accuracy). But since the wearer is either infectious/ive or not it doesn't seem to matter, in practice. In a hospital, "nasties" may be all around, so it makes absolute sense to use, remove with care, and dispose of safely. But going into shops?
I do think, based on observation this month, that mask wearing indoors (eg shops) gives people a false sense of security and therefore they pay less attention to 'social distancing': bit like wearing a helmet may make riders take more risk 'cos they're protected.

When you stick it in your pocket you will spread your nasties all over it so they won’t be contained just on the inside. When you put it back on it has your nasties on inside and outside, which you then share around. Hence the suggestion that once used you seal away until you wash it.

[Davef]

There is no issue travelling non locally to an area of similar infection level. There seems to be a perception that it is like spreading flu to the aztecs (or was it mayans). I don’t believe there is anywhere on mainland Britain that has avoided covid and the infection rate is pretty constant bar from a few areas where it is higher.

You should avoid travelling to those areas because you are more likely to catch covid because more people have it. You should avoid travelling from those areas as you are more likely to have it and spread it.

The testing lags the cases by about 2 weeks. So you do not know the risk of traveling until later. Who would have thought last week that travelling to Aberdeen would have been an issue. So in short if we all keep to the social distancing rules and there is no rise in infections there is no added risk in travelling, but you do know the travelling risk until later. By the way the way the flu (or smallpox) spread in populations that had no immunity to those viruses is exactly the same as happened at the start of the infections. The main advantage that we had is that we had some understanding of how these things spread.

BB

My daughters test came back (negative) in 5 hours. Last week travelling to Aberdeen wasn’t an issue. When a rise in cases is detected you impose a local lock down so that they stop increasing.

If you prefer you can think of it the other way round. Everywhere is in lockdown but where the cases are low and appear to be staying low lockdown is temporarily eased. That is pretty much everywhere currently.

Rather than us come up with our own rules to save the economy and stop the spread, I will do what the government says, which currently allows unlimited travel by car or bicycle to pretty much everywhere.

[Jaded]

I'm applying the same finger in the air resining you are.

Interesting you say that ...

I've been following Gov guidance, the laws that apply to us, the statements from qualified scientists, and the guidance from British Cycling.

All of which says that riding long distances (even in small groups) is perfectly reasonable. If I stop at 3 pubs on Mon-Wed, the government will subsidise me by £30 

Long distance riding is allowable. The thread is about Audax. Go and do long distance rideswitihin the guidelines.

No need to compare infecting people with the risk of crashning.

[Lightning Phil]

Most of this thread is not about audax. Instead it’s more about general Covid stuff. But to be expected with thread drift.

[mattc]

I'm applying the same finger in the air resining you are.

Interesting you say that ...

I've been following Gov guidance, the laws that apply to us, the statements from qualified scientists, and the guidance from British Cycling.

All of which says that riding long distances (even in small groups) is perfectly reasonable. If I stop at 3 pubs on Mon-Wed, the government will subsidise me by £30 

Long distance riding is allowable. The thread is about Audax. Go and do long distance rideswitihin the guidelines.

So explain why you want my Audax rides constrained.

[Jaded]

I'm applying the same finger in the air resining you are.

Interesting you say that ...

I've been following Gov guidance, the laws that apply to us, the statements from qualified scientists, and the guidance from British Cycling.

All of which says that riding long distances (even in small groups) is perfectly reasonable. If I stop at 3 pubs on Mon-Wed, the government will subsidise me by £30 

Long distance riding is allowable. The thread is about Audax. Go and do long distance rideswitihin the guidelines.

So explain why you want my Audax rides constrained.

Ah: Me!

[mattc]

Haha, nice try; there are many people asking to do validated rides! (and many more have been riding 200km+ under COVID - they just can't be arsed with arguing with people like you on the internet)

But even if it was just me, what right have you got to constrain "my" riding? Try answering that if you prefer

[Jaded]

I’m not constraining you’re riding. That’s your imagination 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

What is the advantage to AUK and to society in general of not validating solo and small group perms >200km? Please consider those other activities that are being actively encouraged during this time.

[bairn again]

What is the advantage to AUK and to society in general of not validating solo and small group perms >200km? Please consider those other activities that are being actively encouraged during this time.

.

This ^

I felt that AUK were taking a cautious but logical approach up to 1 August (and came in for some unfair stick imho) but I dont think anybody can tell us what has to change now in order for perms over 200km to resume, unless AUK believe that in allowing a resumption at such distances there is a risk that AUK members will breach local regulations / the law.  Of course as mattc among others has pointed out that risk existed & was accepted pre Covid.

Self interest alert.....

If i knew that a validated 300/400/600 wasnt going to be possible by 30-09-20 Id make a plan to ride those distances just as bike rides, but if hanging on a bit meant those distances could be validated Id prefer that. 

However with 7 weekends left until the end of the season, doing both isnt going to be possible or practical.

[Nick Firth]

I enjoyed watching Milan-San Remo yesterday, all 305 kms of it, 150 riding together with inches separating them, thousands of spectators watching on at the roadside, where's my Audax ?

[frankly frankie]

hint: not Milan-San Remo

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I always like cool photos of Brits doing eccentric things.

[FifeingEejit]

I enjoyed watching Milan-San Remo yesterday, all 305 kms of it, 150 riding together with inches separating them, thousands of spectators watching on at the roadside, where's my Audax ?

Have both randoneuring and audax restarted in Italy? Suppose you could go there and work to their rules.

AUK has restarted audax, with their interpretation of what can be done under the 4 sets of UK laws and British cycling guidance.
It's just rather blunt.

I saw someone having a grumble about the format of the triathlon mentioned earlier.
It's a bit like the CTT rules, except people are starting in small groups rather than solo.


Based on the FM hitting back at the rags talking about phase 4 with  "were a long way from phase 4", recent climbing infection rates particularly with the "interesting" Aberdeen outbreak. I don't think restrictions on gatherings are going to be lifted anytime soon. So Well be stick with Auks interpretation of how to restart within the restrictions and implementation of them well into next year...

It's basically a choice between shit or not taking part at all.

I call the Aberdeen cluster interesting because in some ways it's been Incredibly lucky.
It was first identified due to the offshore industry's pre-flight test and isolate system.
If that hadn't caught it then the routine sports bubble testing the Aberdeen players who breeched both government guidelines and the further restrictions imposed on them would have identified it (2 out of 8 positive so far).
The only other people receiving routine testing are selected health and social care staff who for reasons (not of enforcement) are less likely to be out on the piss right now.
That means it's been caught within a week of the superspreading event.

It's also interesting because:
- Being the 3rd football outbreak in Scotland it's also the first where clear breech of both government and SFA guidelines have occurred and the political and clinical leads have gone apoplectic on them, and has included phoning club chairmen and captains, telling the sfa/spfl that they cannot put on a match (realistically it'll be Aberdeen next 3 matches) and essentially warning them that if it happens again that their agreement on restarting will be cancelled.
- The 5 mìle travel limit has no exemption like it did previously that allows you to exceed 5 miles while exercising.
- That venues where people have visited will be named (and shamed) before they receive contact from the gov.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Davef]

Encouraging people to cycle and exercise in general is beneficial to society. I would have liked to see Auk organising some “couch to 50km” rides ( as BC are) and some transition rides to increase distance. Generally in my self appointed mission to get people exercising more I had been getting people to join auk and do addaxes, but clearly not currently but I have persuaded someone to do their first TT tomorrow and got a couple of people doing long distance open water swimming. All these activities carry some risk but this has to be balanced with the benefits. Also, exercise apart, if you are cycling many hours you are not doing other activities. The other week I cycled pretty much every waking hour with minimal interaction with other humans. This week I have been to Wickes , B&Q, Waitrose and our for lunch with my father. My “indoor, other people x minutes” count is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than my cycling week.

[LMT]

Honest question. What's the tangible benefit/purpose for people wanting their ride validated?

[Nick Firth]

OK forget Milan San Remo, I've enjoyed watching some of our AUK members doing some pretty audacious rides on YouTube, 3 riders have done successful LeJog's & one has done a 200, 300, 400 ride with a 600 planned, nobody is stopping them doing those rides, so if that's the case it must be safe to do them.

[Philip Whiteman]

Honest question. What's the tangible benefit/purpose for people wanting their ride validated?

The other day I went for a 200km ride without a brevet card or submitting a GPX file to be validated.  I would never have previously considered this, as I wrongly thought the world would end.  Instead, I gained perspective and realised that it is possible to ride a bicycle with receiving a validation.  I feel liberated.

Clearly, my impression on the world ending was due to reading too many comments by people complaining about a lack of audax validation.

[FifeingEejit]

Yes, if its apparently safe for me to travel to Stornoway by train, bike and ferry, riding huge distances is also surely fine.
Edit: But organizations that activley encourage this have a few other things to consider than I do when cycle touring.


Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[frankly frankie]

Honest question. What's the tangible benefit/purpose for people wanting their ride validated?

If, as Dave says, encouraging people to exercise is beneficial to society (personally I'm doubtful about that**) then validation provides motivation.  It may not seem very 'tangible' but plenty of people here and elsewhere have already declared how important to them it is.

** my observation yesterday and today is that this little island is way too crowded for everybody to just charge about doing whatever they want in the name of healthy exercise. 
I'm lucky enough to live on the edge of what I've always thought of as 'open country' but since the lockdown eased it's become very obvious that it's not 'open' country at all but criss-crossed with a network of narrow navigable paths.  In fact I chose to live where I do because it's equidistant from 2 interesting and attractive canals (about 200m walk to each) - these towpaths have now been taken over by Undesirables (into which category I place (a) cyclists and runners and (b) parent/child 'bubbles'  ) and the remoter paths have become increasingly populated as well.

Ironically, when we had total lockdown in April, exercising locally was easy for everyone - the roads were empty so it was easy to socially-distance anywhere - but especially the golf courses were closed, and our three local courses welcomed walkers with a friendly "but please stay off our greens" message, allowing any number of people to promenade in pleasurable safety.  Once golf resumed, of course these huge areas of open space became off-limits again and now there is no-where to go - this morning I saw an actual queue of people forming to get on to our local mixed-use trail (12 miles of ex-railway) - no way is that a health benefit to society.