Coronavirus and Audax

[Hot Flatus]

Regarding exercise at the moment, moderate exercise improves the immune system, so you are less likely to catch covid-19.

Sure about that?

That implies some people have natural immunity to Covid.

Mind you, a month ago you were advising people to just carry on as normal but avoid pangolins. 

[Davef]

Regarding exercise at the moment, moderate exercise improves the immune system, so you are less likely to catch covid-19.

Sure about that?

That implies some people have natural immunity to Covid.

Mind you, a month ago you were advising people to just carry on as normal but avoid pangolins. 

It implies nothing of the sort. You do however have an innate “generic” immune system as well as the adaptive “learned” immune system. I was advising people to avoid pangolins and I saw no problems with audaxes if people had to ride solo, with only info controls. I was absolutely not saying to carry on as normal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hot Flatus]

With 80% of people expected to 'catch' Coronavirus, I'm not sure you are correct. If what you meant was that the outcome might be better for fitter people, then yes.

[zigzag]

I posted the article, to advertise the reality of cycling, slipstreaming, and passing, or being passed by other cyclists... I still see cyclists following others on the roads, its just to reinforce the issue... I am aware of the disinformation out there, and checked that the study was genuine... As an ex NHS Paramedic and previously a lecturer in global health dn pandemic crisis response, I think the article is valid... Whether the  correct grammar of English and its use is important, is up for interpretation... A moot point... Stay safe folks, stay at home, eat CAKE, and cycle it off when this is over... X

it's a very poor model and "study", it appears that runner has a mouthful of water and sprays it out on each exhale. this doesn't represent real life scenario. also no vortices and turbulence that follow the wake of moving object (let alone are present in natural environment) are shown in the model.

humans breathe in ambient air with higher o2 concentration and breathe out heated air with higher co2 concentration, hardly any "droplets" unless they cough or sneeze. if the virus could spread by breathing (it' doesn't) it would infect everyone sharing the same space (public transport especially).

[Davef]

No, I meant exactly what I said. 80% is a worst case scenario not an expected value. Even so I would rather be part of the 20%.

 Edit: and it depends also on what you mean by ‘catch’, if you are exposed to the virus and your innate immune system kills it off, or it hangs around long enough for the adaptive system to kick in and you dont get ill. On that definition about 5-10 million people currently have or have had it in the U.K. already.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[telstarbox]

What's this got to do with Coronavirus and Audax though?

[S2L]

With 80% of people expected to 'catch' Coronavirus, I'm not sure you are correct. If what you meant was that the outcome might be better for fitter people, then yes.

Best estimates suggest 5-10% at most in countries which have long past their peak... so, unless there is a massive second wave, I don't we'll get anywhere near 80% any time soon.

Anecdotally, I know only one person who has tested positive...

[Hot Flatus]

No, I meant exactly what I said. 80% is a worst case scenario not an expected value. Even so I would rather be part of the 20%.

 Edit: and it depends also on what you mean by ‘catch’, if you are exposed to the virus and your innate immune system kills it off, or it hangs around long enough for the adaptive system to kick in and you dont get ill. On that definition about 5-10 million people currently have or have had it in the U.K. already.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The "20%" are not predicted to not "catch" the virus because their immune system fought it off. They are not going to catch it because they are not going to come into contact with an infected person.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Regarding exercise at the moment, moderate exercise improves the immune system, so you are less likely to catch covid-19.

Sure about that?

That implies some people have natural immunity to Covid.

Mind you, a month ago you were advising people to just carry on as normal but avoid pangolins. 

With 80% of people expected to 'catch' Coronavirus, I'm not sure you are correct. If what you meant was that the outcome might be better for fitter people, then yes.

You've let Davef off the hook. Coronavirus is the (class of) virus, COVID-19 the disease, so you can be infected with the virus but without the disease, if you're one of the many we're told have asymptomatic infection. 

Pangolins, however, are banned from entering audax events due to the requirement for "human muscular power". 

[grams]

You are not allowed to ride as a group anyway

If you've been out at all you'll know there are now far more cyclists on the road than in normal times, and therefore far more interactions between cyclists.

The study may be valid or it may be total bollocks, but the complete absence of any official guidance of how the "2m rule" applies to moving objects is real.

[S2L]

The study may be valid or it may be total bollocks, but the complete absence of any official guidance of how the "2m rule" applies to moving objects is real.

That is possible, however, the Virus will spread like any other respiratory system virus. Whenever I caught a rhinovirus (the common cold) I always know how I got it... it was because I spent some time in a crowded room... there has been no exception to this rule. I always get a cold a week after students arrive at Uni for term 1 and sometimes even for term 2. They come loaded with virus from holidays and inevitably they pass it on. By week 3, out of a class of 150, about a third are coughing during a lecture.

It has never happened to me that I was in a position to wonder whether I caught it whilst cycling, it's just not a thing... from an academic perspective, it might be intriguing to look at how aerosol particles travel in air, but realistically nobody catches a virus whilst drafting for a couple of seconds before overtaking... the exposure and the viral load is not enough

[Davef]

Anticipating this I posted #24 above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattc]

He did - and over a month ago!
(but not having produced a bunch of pretty graphics, it wasn't going to get much attention)

Apparently if you sit on the back of a group and never take a turn then you are cycling in a stream of exhaled droplets. if you spend more time at the front you are safe.

[guidon]

With 80% of people expected to 'catch' Coronavirus, I'm not sure you are correct. If what you meant was that the outcome might be better for fitter people, then yes.

Best estimates suggest 5-10% at most in countries which have long past their peak... so, unless there is a massive second wave, I don't we'll get anywhere near 80% any time soon.

Anecdotally, I know only one person who has tested positive...

Aye there's the rub - testing??? Unless antibody tests are widely available we'll never know the true extent of this pandemic.....Let alone how many audax riders have had it???

[ian_oli]

cut

 Edit: and it depends also on what you mean by ‘catch’, if you are exposed to the virus and your innate immune system kills it off, or it hangs around long enough for the adaptive system to kick in and you dont get ill. On that definition about 5-10 million people currently have or have had it in the U.K. already.

cut

Where does the 5 to 10 million come from? I ask because Patrick Vallence came out with a high number too.  I don't know what it's based on.

I have to have regular blood tests and had one last week and was asked to donate a bit more (actually quite a big phial) for a double blind experiment at Oxford which was  trying to test something around immunity, but I had no real details.

[S2L]

With 80% of people expected to 'catch' Coronavirus, I'm not sure you are correct. If what you meant was that the outcome might be better for fitter people, then yes.

Best estimates suggest 5-10% at most in countries which have long past their peak... so, unless there is a massive second wave, I don't we'll get anywhere near 80% any time soon.

Anecdotally, I know only one person who has tested positive...

Aye there's the rub - testing??? Unless antibody tests are widely available we'll never know the true extent of this pandemic.....Let alone how many audax riders have had it???

Well, if this was to hit 80% of the population, and from the curve we know we are about half the way through, then it means around 25 million UK citizens have it or had it already. If you allow for a 1% death rate, that would be 250,000  and we are nowhere near that. If you allow for a 0.1% death rate, then the number would be close to where we are, but it would also mean it's not a lot worse than a bad flu and we know this is not the case.
So the best assumption is that we are somewhere around 5% of the population, with a death rate just under 1%, as widely accepted

[Hot Flatus]

We arent half way through and we are only on the first curve. We are a long way off being over this, I'm afraid.

[Davef]

cut

 Edit: and it depends also on what you mean by ‘catch’, if you are exposed to the virus and your innate immune system kills it off, or it hangs around long enough for the adaptive system to kick in and you dont get ill. On that definition about 5-10 million people currently have or have had it in the U.K. already.

cut

Where does the 5 to 10 million come from? I ask because Patrick Vallence came out with a high number too.  I don't know what it's based on.

I have to have regular blood tests and had one last week and was asked to donate a bit more (actually quite a big phial) for a double blind experiment at Oxford which was  trying to test something around immunity, but I had no real details.

I have far less data than Patrick Vallance so I am looking at cumulative deaths to date and the shapes of the death curves in Spain and Italy to estimate cumulative deaths in 3 weeks time (average time to death from infection is 3 weeks) and then using by the fatal infection attack ratios from China.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[S2L]

We arent half way through and we are only on the first curve. We are a long way off being over this, I'm afraid.

You have been fairly pessimistic all the way through, however, if you look at the shape of the contagion curve, then we are at the top, more or less, you can argue there will just as many or maybe twice as many before it falls to very low numbers, but not 10 times as many.
Hospital admissions, which is another, probably better way to look at it are already falling in London, so it's past the peak of infection... of course hospital admissions are about 3-4 days ahead of test results and probably 7-10 days behind the real picture.
So, if you look at today, in terms of how many people will get in contact with the virus, that should be significantly less than what the tests show, which is a snapshot of a couple of weeks ago, give or take.

Of course it's not over... it might never be over, but I doubt it will get worse in terms of hospital admissions, patients in ICU and so on, which is what you seem to imply.
The 80% figure might be reached in the absence of a vaccine over a prolonged period of time (> 1 year)... as a first wave we'll not get anywhere near that figure

[Hot Flatus]

We arent half way through and we are only on the first curve. We are a long way off being over this, I'm afraid.

You have been fairly pessimistic all the way through, however, if you look at the shape of the contagion curve, then we are at the top, more or less, you can argue there will just as many or maybe twice as many before it falls to very low numbers, but not 10 times as many.
Hospital admissions, which is another, probably better way to look at it are already falling in London, so it's past the peak of infection... of course hospital admissions are about 3-4 days ahead of test results and probably 7-10 days behind the real picture.
So, if you look at today, in terms of how many people will get in contact with the virus, that should be significantly less than what the tests show, which is a snapshot of a couple of weeks ago, give or take.

Of course it's not over... it might never be over, but I doubt it will get worse in terms of hospital admissions, patients in ICU and so on, which is what you seem to imply

Bolded: I think you'll find I haven't. I dont think I made any predictions other than saying we would be in lockdown when some other people were having pointless arguments about whether they should do an audax that I (correctly) said would not be happening.

This will not be a sharp spike and sharp decline situation. It's a sharp spike, then a long gentle decline, and all the while people will be dying in their hundreds, daily.  We are not, as you suggest, half way through this.

Remember: There is no vaccine.

[Davef]

We arent half way through and we are only on the first curve. We are a long way off being over this, I'm afraid.

You have been fairly pessimistic all the way through, however, if you look at the shape of the contagion curve, then we are at the top, more or less, you can argue there will just as many or maybe twice as many before it falls to very low numbers, but not 10 times as many.
Hospital admissions, which is another, probably better way to look at it are already falling in London, so it's past the peak of infection... of course hospital admissions are about 3-4 days ahead of test results and probably 7-10 days behind the real picture.
So, if you look at today, in terms of how many people will get in contact with the virus, that should be significantly less than what the tests show, which is a snapshot of a couple of weeks ago, give or take.

Of course it's not over... it might never be over, but I doubt it will get worse in terms of hospital admissions, patients in ICU and so on, which is what you seem to imply

Bolded: I think you'll find I haven't. I dont think I made any predictions other than saying we would be in lockdown when some other people were having pointless arguments about whether they should do an audax that I (correctly) said would not be happening.

This will not be a sharp spike and sharp decline situation. It's a sharp spike, then a long gentle decline, and all the while people will be dying in their hundreds, daily.  We are not, as you suggest, half way through this.

Remember: There is no vaccine.

You said you that are expecting an 80% infection rate. I would regard that as pessimistic as that would result in around 350,000 deaths.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hot Flatus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51698000

It's the worse case scenario. But it's the scenario if no vaccine. In the absence of a vaccine this will not be the only curve. Remember that the lockdown isnt to prevent deaths, it's to prevent them happening at the same time, and to buy time for vaccine development.

Unless of course you think the virus will just go away...like magic.

[Davef]

Ah, before you were saying expected number of deaths, that is very different from reasonable worst case scenario. 80% infection and 510,000 deaths was the rwc. If you expect the worst to happen that is I believe the definition of pessimism. Qv #654 and #656


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hot Flatus]

I'm not expecting 80% of the population to die from coronavirus, no. 

Without a vaccine, worst case scenario for infection is the scenario. If it all comes at once, lots of dead people because NHS swamped. Without a vaccine, this current curve will not be the only curve. Also, without a vaccine, the curve is not even, it's a sharp rise and long decline. People dont stop dying just because the 'peak' is reached.  This isnt pessimism, this is reality.  Last time I checked there was no vaccine. It is estimated that it will take a year, minimum. Even when it is developed and approved it will take a long time to vaccinate 66, 000, 000 people, wont it.

I'd love for the above to be 'pessimistic', but unless I've misunderstood the science (which is possible), it isnt.

[ian_oli]

cut

 Edit: and it depends also on what you mean by ‘catch’, if you are exposed to the virus and your innate immune system kills it off, or it hangs around long enough for the adaptive system to kick in and you dont get ill. On that definition about 5-10 million people currently have or have had it in the U.K. already.

cut

Where does the 5 to 10 million come from? I ask because Patrick Vallence came out with a high number too.  I don't know what it's based on.

I have to have regular blood tests and had one last week and was asked to donate a bit more (actually quite a big phial) for a double blind experiment at Oxford which was  trying to test something around immunity, but I had no real details.

I have far less data than Patrick Vallance so I am looking at cumulative deaths to date and the shapes of the death curves in Spain and Italy to estimate cumulative deaths in 3 weeks time (average time to death from infection is 3 weeks) and then using by the fatal infection attack ratios from China.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you, but this doesn't take where the 5-10m or Patrick Valance number comes from forward. Taiwan which has probably dealt with CV better (and tested better) than any other country has had a death rate of 1.5%. Given the UK's under measuring of everything, that probably translates to a million who have had CV bad enough to notice it. Until large scale studies like the one I contributed blood to give some results, all we have are models and I can't see how the infection rate for symptomless people is anything other than a guess.