Cycling as an activity during the Covid 19 outbreak

[Pete Owens]

The scientific ‘plan’ is based on things being as they are now, with the controls and measures that have been implemented so far. There is no requirement to clamp down any harder, unless people start extracting the proverbial urine.

Another thing worth noting is that since currently we're aiming for "herd immunity" you don't actually want a very low infection rate since that simply drags things out too long.
What you want is an infection rate as high as possible but that is still manageable by the health service.

The trouble is that this virus is both very transmissible and very serious for a significant number of people - and the health service has very little spare capacity.

Looking at things as they are now really doesn't capture the seriousness of a situation when you are dealing with exponential growth. Left to itself cases would double roughly every three days - so times 10 after a week, times 100 after 2 weeks, times 1000 after 3 weeks and so on. We have only been under lock-down for a week so that 100 fold increase in the death rate in two weeks time is already baked in - people already infected who are not showing symptoms yet. If we are very lucky the measures that are in place might be just enough to give the health service time to ramp up capacity to deal with the numbers. More likely is that a triage system will become extremely grim with ventilators limited to the under 60s.

Relying on herd immunity simply is not a sensible strategy unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a million citizens like a first world war general. It might come down to that in the end anyway - but we really want to avoid it if at all possible which means we are in this for a long haul and more severe restrictions could well be necessary. Unfortunately we have been so slow to get a testing regime in place that we don't know how widely the virus is spreading.

We are fortunate that exercise is still regarded as an essential activity. And cycling is probably the least risky way to do this - so long as we stick to roads in order to maintain social distancing.

[nigelnightmare]

It’s coming. Probably within a week. The Government have deliberately left cycling out of their list of ‘approved physical activities’ because of the risk of getting flattened by cretins in vehicles, and detracting from the stretched NHS.

No that's not it. They're just incompetent and left cycling out. Plenty of pedestrians get flattened by the cretins

I have a friend who lives in Spain and he explained to me what is happening there.

I you are an essential worker going to work, or you are going to the shops or pharmacy, you can walk, run, cycle, motorbike, or drive to your destination. All other forms of outside activity are banned - including going to the beach on your own for a swim in the sea. If you have a dog you can go out to walk it. Apart from that you are not allowed to leave your home on foot, by bicycle or car.

I'll say they're bloody incompetent!
We wouldn't be in this situation if they'd shut the borders in the first place.
<FFE> that don't know the meaning of quarantine.

Over 1000 people dead and they're Directly responsible.

[Oldjohnw]

Just for the record, cycling iean approved activity:

shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible.
one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household.
any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid or escape risk of injury or harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.
travelling for work purposes, but only where you cannot work from home.

[nirakaro]

Looking at things as they are now really doesn't capture the seriousness of a situation when you are dealing with exponential growth. Left to itself cases would double roughly every three days - so times 10 after a week, times 100 after 2 weeks, times 1000 after 3 weeks and so on.

I think you need to check your maths there – by my reckoning, doubling every three days means times 5 after a week, times 25 after 2 weeks, times 125 after 3 weeks. Not quite so apocalyptic, but quite bad enough, and not invalidating your post at all.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The scientific ‘plan’ is based on things being as they are now, with the controls and measures that have been implemented so far. There is no requirement to clamp down any harder, unless people start extracting the proverbial urine.

Another thing worth noting is that since currently we're aiming for "herd immunity" you don't actually want a very low infection rate since that simply drags things out too long.
What you want is an infection rate as high as possible but that is still manageable by the health service.

The trouble is that this virus is both very transmissible and very serious for a significant number of people - and the health service has very little spare capacity.

Looking at things as they are now really doesn't capture the seriousness of a situation when you are dealing with exponential growth. Left to itself cases would double roughly every three days - so times 10 after a week, times 100 after 2 weeks, times 1000 after 3 weeks and so on. We have only been under lock-down for a week so that 100 fold increase in the death rate in two weeks time is already baked in - people already infected who are not showing symptoms yet. If we are very lucky the measures that are in place might be just enough to give the health service time to ramp up capacity to deal with the numbers. More likely is that a triage system will become extremely grim with ventilators limited to the under 60s.

Relying on herd immunity simply is not a sensible strategy unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a million citizens like a first world war general. It might come down to that in the end anyway - but we really want to avoid it if at all possible which means we are in this for a long haul and more severe restrictions could well be necessary. Unfortunately we have been so slow to get a testing regime in place that we don't know how widely the virus is spreading.

We are fortunate that exercise is still regarded as an essential activity. And cycling is probably the least risky way to do this - so long as we stick to roads in order to maintain social distancing.

The growth rate isn’t actually exponential, a big problem occurred a few days ago when the government ‘moved the goalposts’ regarding the recording of deaths. Instead of being over an 8 hour period, they shifted it to over a 24 hour period, in one day, I’ve no idea why ( it was in order to ramp the fear factor up ). Anyway, if you do nothing, the experts think that the graph would look more like a great big spike, and the area under the graph, would represent 200000 deaths. In this scenario, the emergency would be over quicker, but 200000 people would rapidly appear in a critical condition, at hospitals, which then really couldn’t cope. With the current measures, the experts think the graph will be far more of a bump in profile, they hope that the area under the graph represents no more than 20000 people , the emergency will continue for a bit longer, but the rate at which the critically ill ( which is still not actually a huge percentage of the infection cases they believe are actually out there) will be lower, and the NHS will be able to cope better, with the decreased ‘flow’ hitting the hospitals. The government rely on over zealous fear mongering, to keep the general population believing that the lockdown is necessary at the level it’s at, and prevent civil unrest and disobedience. Let’s not lose track of the fact that this virus isn’t particularly lethal, the biggest problem is that it’s very contagious ( because it’s novel and nearly everyone will have no natural immunity to it ) and a huge amount of people will contract it.

[roubaixtuesday]

The growth rate isn’t actually exponential....

And, yet again, an unreferenced incorrect assertion.

Exponential growth shows a straight line on a log plot.

Here's the data. Again. It's exponential.

[thelawnet]

The growth rate isn’t actually exponential....

And, yet again, an unreferenced incorrect assertion.

Exponential growth shows a straight line on a log plot.

Here's the data. Again. It's exponential.

In fact it is not.

Viral growth typically follows either a logistic curve or a Gompertz curve (similar but asymmetrical). This means that there is an asymptote. See the Korean and Chinese curves



All countries will experience the same curve, just with different parameters to the (likely Gompertz ) function.

The same function applies even if nothing is done (e.g., viruses in wild animals, plants, etc.), there is always an asymptote.

It is maths, but not as simple as merely 'it doubles every two days'.

There is no such thing as infinite growth.

This is why the correct response is not simple....

[roubaixtuesday]

The growth rate isn’t actually exponential....

And, yet again, an unreferenced incorrect assertion.

Exponential growth shows a straight line on a log plot.

Here's the data. Again. It's exponential.

In fact it is not.

Viral growth typically follows either a logistic curve or a Gompertz curve (similar but asymmetrical). This means that there is an asymptote. See the Korean and Chinese curves



All countries will experience the same curve, just with different parameters to the (likely Gompertz ) function.

It is maths, but not as simple as merely 'it doubles every two days'.

There is no such thing as infinite growth.

This is why the correct response is not simple....

Growth is *currently* exponential. Obviously that can't go on infinitely.

[thelawnet]

Growth is *currently* exponential. Obviously that can't go on infinitely.

Recent data

27-28 March 6999 tests, of which 2510 (35.8%) positive
26-27 March 8911 tests, of which 2921 (32.8%) positive
25-26 March 7847 tests, of which 2129 (27.1%) positive
24-25 March 6583 tests, of which 1452 (22.1%) positive

The rate of growth of the positive test was 20% from 24-25 to 25-26 and to 26-27 but only 9% to 27-28

[kwackers]

Another thing worth noting is that since currently we're aiming for "herd immunity" you don't actually want a very low infection rate since that simply drags things out too long.
What you want is an infection rate as high as possible but that is still manageable by the health service.

The trouble is that this virus is both very transmissible and very serious for a significant number of people - and the health service has very little spare capacity.

Looking at things as they are now really doesn't capture the seriousness of a situation when you are dealing with exponential growth. Left to itself cases would double roughly every three days - so times 10 after a week, times 100 after 2 weeks, times 1000 after 3 weeks and so on. We have only been under lock-down for a week so that 100 fold increase in the death rate in two weeks time is already baked in - people already infected who are not showing symptoms yet. If we are very lucky the measures that are in place might be just enough to give the health service time to ramp up capacity to deal with the numbers. More likely is that a triage system will become extremely grim with ventilators limited to the under 60s.

Relying on herd immunity simply is not a sensible strategy unless you are prepared to sacrifice half a million citizens like a first world war general. It might come down to that in the end anyway - but we really want to avoid it if at all possible which means we are in this for a long haul and more severe restrictions could well be necessary. Unfortunately we have been so slow to get a testing regime in place that we don't know how widely the virus is spreading.

We are fortunate that exercise is still regarded as an essential activity. And cycling is probably the least risky way to do this - so long as we stick to roads in order to maintain social distancing.

In simple terms if you're not within spitting distance of a vaccine then herd immunity is all that's left.
The idea you can "stop" the virus is false, to do that you need the entire world in a lockdown and that's not just us citizens at home, that includes the police, food suppliers even health care (there's growing evidence health care workers are spreading it despite our best efforts).
That's obviously impossible so herd immunity it is.

Once you realise that herd immunity is what you're after then you have to accept that there are some unavoidable deaths, for example most of the people who've died so far probably stood little or no chance anyway since the quality of the health care available to them was second to none.
Obviously if you allow the health service to be overwhelmed then the numbers go up so the trick is that when the numbers of new infections are under control to slowly reduce the level of lockdown to allow some things to return to normality whilst not allowing the situation to escalate.
In the long term though the majority of the population still catches it and folk who would die right now probably still die.

There's also the social aspects of too long a lockdown.
It's still early days, folk are fairly cheerful, the lockdown is still a novelty which makes it easier to stomach but that won't last.
The evidence from other parts of the world suggests that to be the case, particularly in the "free west" where there's growing ambivalence to it not helped by most people now knowing folk who've had it and come out the other end with nothing more than a week of a nasty bug whilst in comparison they'll be seeing a lot of their friends and family financially devastated.

[roubaixtuesday]

Growth is *currently* exponential. Obviously that can't go on infinitely.

Recent data

27-28 March 6999 tests, of which 2510 (35.8%) positive
26-27 March 8911 tests, of which 2921 (32.8%) positive
25-26 March 7847 tests, of which 2129 (27.1%) positive
24-25 March 6583 tests, of which 1452 (22.1%) positive

The rate of growth of the positive test was 20% from 24-25 to 25-26 and to 26-27 but only 9% to 27-28

Testing is limited by testing policy and availability, which is why I posted the death statistics, much less prone to bias.

However, if you want tests, here you go.

Still roughly exponential.

[Cowsham]

Viral load is another factor in the equation of people presenting with serious condition. Doctors say being in close proximity to someone with the virus is increasing that viral load ( like our nurses having to treat a Ward of cv sufferers ) with this in mind it follows that getting out in the fresh air for a good proportion of the day can't be a bad thing as long as we obey the sd rules. I am aware that the first hit of the virus is the most significant part of the viral load issue but continual exposure to the virus or multiple viruses can over stretch the immune system.

I am also aware that too much exercise can decrease the immune system ( I think by depleting the body of stuff to make whatever it needs to fight the infections ) I used to take high dose vitamin C and extra vitamin B12 in my competition days which seemed to help enormously in keeping colds and flu's away. -- I was a chronic asthmatic but kept it very well managed with exercise and inhalers. Now since I learned the importance of outdoor activity I've been inhaler free for the last 15 years which, considering my former condition, I would never have anticipated.

[thelawnet]

Growth is *currently* exponential. Obviously that can't go on infinitely.

Recent data

27-28 March 6999 tests, of which 2510 (35.8%) positive
26-27 March 8911 tests, of which 2921 (32.8%) positive
25-26 March 7847 tests, of which 2129 (27.1%) positive
24-25 March 6583 tests, of which 1452 (22.1%) positive

The rate of growth of the positive test was 20% from 24-25 to 25-26 and to 26-27 but only 9% to 27-28

Testing is limited by testing policy and availability, which is why I posted the death statistics, much less prone to bias.

However, if you want tests, here you go.

Still roughly exponential.

The point you are ignoring is that the growth stops, and has stopped in China and Korea, and will everywhere.

Death statistics lag infections by 2 to 3 weeks so aren't that helpful in determining current growth.

My guess is essentially it infected everyone in Lombardy it wa going to, and the price is now being paid

[rmurphy195]

It seems reasonable not to take risks you can avoid.

I consider my own sedate rides safe, which is why I continue with them. About as risky as my countryside walks. What I would not do right now is walking in mountainous areas where a simple twisted ankle could need other people to come out for me. So while I agree about the seriousness of the situation, I think I am complying with all official advice and not doing anything particularly risky. My last need for any sort of medical attention due to a cycling mishap was more than fifty years ago.

Advice to keep fit so you can better combat the virus, and cycling is mentioned in a positive way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52076856

+1 - have been restricting rides to just shopping, or local loops where I'm no more than a couple of miles walk from home. I can always go round twice! Essential to managing my various health issues.

If the "I know my rights" and "Its vague so I'll push it" crowds are out today, I'll be a tad unhappy 'cos we'll be banned tomorrow - which would be a shame, 'cos on our estate there are far more people with small children riding their bikes over the last few days.

I feel we should have a formal statement from Cycling UK, maybe inserted into this and similar threads, to re-inforce this, and perhaps not have the thread swamped by reams of other stuff.

[PAB855]

The message that outdoor activities such as walking and cycling is ok has not been understood even by Andrew Marr and Hugh Pymm on tv this morning.

Walking. Taking the car to a 'remote' beauty spot for your daily ration is not on, because

1 . You may be involved in an RTA on the way there or back and require the help of the emergency services. Unnecessary use of them.
2. You may while walking, trip, slip and/or fall and require the help of emergency services. Unnecessary use of them.
3. You may on your walk, be passing through a farm or past houses and creating unnecessary possibilities of spreading the viris, never mind adding to the stress of the people who live and work there. Watching you invading their space at such a time might warrant an angry reaction.

Cycling. Taking your bike by car as above is not on for the very same reasons as above.

If this message is not understood by Andrew Marr and Hugh Pymm, what hope is there?

Does anybody disagree?

It would have been a clearer message by the Derbyshire Police, if they had said WHY .

Keep safe, walk or cycle once from your home.