2 metre rule

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Syd
Posts: 473
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Syd » 20 Jun 2020, 4:22pm

De Sisti wrote:
Syd wrote:Given that knowledge, and dependent of the tone of your reminder, I can understand why some interactions may get heated.

There always is the possibility to pass at a safe distance that doesn't annoy the person being overtaken.
It's like with motor vehicle drivers. They approach a cyclist from behind. Sometimes they slow down,
wait for it be safe to overtake, and then make their manoeuvre. Some don't and don't care how their
actions are preceived.

It doesn't matter what the tone is. Some people don't like their shortcomings pointed out to them. :roll:

There is a safe distance and there is 2 metres, given the police safe pass mats show 1.5 metres.

There are also cycle paths that aren’t two metres wide themselves.

I agree courteous passing should be the norm. If you are being passed dangerously close then that is an issue in itself and shouldn’t be confused with the Covid-19 social distancing argument for reasons given above.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1498
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Jun 2020, 5:52pm

The W.H.O. have always said 1 meter is adequate distancing, based on what they know about the size and weight of the SARS-CoV-2 virons. 2 meters was a figure plucked out of the air, by politicians. There was an interesting experiment conducted a couple of weeks ago, where they used computer modelling, and input about the physical properties of the SARS-CoV-2 virons, where they had a scenario of an infected person on a tube train. It showed the ‘cloud’ of expelled virons, falling pretty much straight to the floor. It’s different if there is a cough or sneeze, or loud shouting involved, but for normal breathing / speaking, 1 meter looks to be more than adequate.

Jdsk
Posts: 761
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Jdsk » 20 Jun 2020, 7:01pm

Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Commentary: COVID-19 Evidence is lacking for 2 meter distancing
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-evidence-is-lacking-for-2-meter-distancing/

Jonathan

PS: From the aspect of transmission alone the further the better.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1498
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Jun 2020, 7:32pm

Jdsk wrote:PS: From the aspect of transmission alone the further the better.

Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

User avatar
Syd
Posts: 473
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Syd » 20 Jun 2020, 7:45pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:PS: From the aspect of transmission alone the further the better.

Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

The WHO doesn’t claim aerosol transmission. It states droplet transmission which it very different but still requires an element of distancing.

Jdsk
Posts: 761
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Jdsk » 20 Jun 2020, 7:50pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:PS: From the aspect of transmission alone the further the better.

Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

Are you distinguishing aerosol from other airborne routes, or suggesting that there is no airborne transmission?

Thanks

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with Syd's post.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10729
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Cunobelin » 20 Jun 2020, 8:00pm

Only 2......

I believe Hase holds the record at 93 trikes in a linked moving train

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1498
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Jun 2020, 9:59pm

Jdsk wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:PS: From the aspect of transmission alone the further the better.

Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

Are you distinguishing aerosol from other airborne routes, or suggesting that there is no airborne transmission?

Thanks

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with Syd's post.


Not aerosol, very possibly coughs and sneezes. Common sense deals with coughs and sneezes, 1 meter deals with normal breathing.

User avatar
Syd
Posts: 473
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Syd » 20 Jun 2020, 10:55pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

Are you distinguishing aerosol from other airborne routes, or suggesting that there is no airborne transmission?

Thanks

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with Syd's post.


Not aerosol, very possibly coughs and sneezes. Common sense deals with coughs and sneezes, 1 meter deals with normal breathing.

Someone speaking can also generate droplets.

COVID-19 has a low infectious load compared to flu, for example, and as low as 20 virus particles can cause infection. The risk of reaching that number increases by how close you are to a person shedding the virus and how long you spend there.

tim-b
Posts: 1345
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby tim-b » 21 Jun 2020, 6:37am

Hi
If you're downwind of another cyclist then the distances possibly need to be much greater (link) It's all subject to debate amongst scientists though (and on here apparently :) )
Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 13464
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Cyril Haearn » 21 Jun 2020, 7:16am

Simples
Nobody knows
Keep as much separation as possible
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1498
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 21 Jun 2020, 7:47am

Cyril Haearn wrote: Simples
Nobody knows

The science is getting there.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Keep as much separation as possible

It would be lovely if it were that simple. Our economy really can’t function properly unless we work out what the minimum safe distance is.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15660
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby mjr » 21 Jun 2020, 8:47am

Syd wrote:COVID-19 has a low infectious load compared to flu, for example, and as low as 20 virus particles can cause infection.

Where's that from, please? The numbers I'd seen were around 500-1000. Is 20 just the absolute theoretical minimum?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Jdsk
Posts: 761
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Jdsk » 21 Jun 2020, 8:57am

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

Are you distinguishing aerosol from other airborne routes, or suggesting that there is no airborne transmission?

Thanks

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with Syd's post.


Common sense deals with coughs and sneezes...

What does that mean? I can't control whether another person coughs or sneezes, only the effects of that on me.

Thanks

Jonathan

Jdsk
Posts: 761
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: 2 metre rule

Postby Jdsk » 21 Jun 2020, 8:59am

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:Absolute nonsense. It doesn’t transmit by aerosol, if it did, things would be a lot worse than they are. Touch transmission must be the primary mechanism, in which case as long as you don’t touch what the infected person did, and maintain good hand hygiene, 1 meter is fine.

Are you distinguishing aerosol from other airborne routes, or suggesting that there is no airborne transmission?

Thanks

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with Syd's post.

... 1 meter deals with normal breathing.

What's the evidence that there's no risk beyond 1 metre from tidal breathing?

And from talking, as above?

Thanks

Jonathan