Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Running, Corona Virus and Social Distancing

Options
1…3031333536…43

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,524 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Feic all joggers in the park today. Mostly families and the dog walkers. Rain must be a deterrent...

    The tarmac surfaces are pretty greasy by the way folks, hasn't been raining in a while.


  • Options
    #963
    Melanchthon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    SuspectZero wrote: »
    Honestly,other than the fact that you referred to viral particles(virion) as "100's of viruses" which would automatically discount all your scientific credibility.

    I was clearly referencing the minimal viral load, you know because thats what I said in that f-cking sentence, 100's of viruses which is what is a possible to be the minimal viral load for SARS again what I said in the sentence. So basically your point is just wrong
    SuspectZero wrote: »
    You have missed the crucial part, although aerosol size and concentration did increase with higher inhalation rates, the droplet sizes were still so small that it did not effect evaporation rate, less than .8 seconds.

    If you read other papers and Micheal Ostherholm talked about this on the Joe Rogan podcast a month or so ago, It is not until you get to almost two and a half times the diameter of the aerosol particles mentioned in your studies that you get a significantly slowed evaporation rate known as non-equilibrium evaporation.

    You have the papers ? Go look at video S4 in this paper and you can see the distance of normal (so not somebody panting from exercise) plume.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120871/

    You have stated that evaporation should occur in 0.8 seconds.
    For the breathing modalities, the maximum visible propagation distance and derived exhalation velocity for nasal breathing were 0.6 m and 1.4 m/s, respectively (Figure 4A), and the maximum 2-D area and expansion rate were 0.11 m2 and 0.16 m2/s, respectively (Figure 4B). For mouth breathing, the maximum propagation distance and velocity were 0.8 m and 1.3 m/s, respectively
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613375/#pone.0059970-Tang4

    That is presumably a study of breathing at rest, so that means it can occur to a distance of 1m
    SuspectZero wrote: »
    Now you can say the concentration is higher so that raises a risk but you are talking about something so insignificant that it's not even worth talking about because if you are any distance away from someone, the particles will be gone and if passing by someone on the street while running where you might exhale once while been withing a couple of meters of them and only having a .8 second window of them and that also been enough exposure to pass on the virus and them also inhaling is absolutely an insane position to hold as calling dangerous. If the virus was that proficient and that contagious, the reproduction rate would be colossal and would be the most contagious thing known to man by an order of huge magnitudes, instead it was 3 pre-lockdown while something like measles has been known to a reproduction rate of 16-20 people infected by one person.


    This was the post I was replying to
    robinph wrote: »
    The runner would need to be living in the same house as the walker.

    Otherwise any transmission isn't happening unless they both stop and cough into each others mouths.

    Which is clearly just wrong and dangerous advice.

    There is a reason people are pissed of with (some) runners and it is because they are breathing heavy and passing close to people, the risk is low but not non existent, outdoor construction sites have been closed despite the majority of work occurring at more than a meters distance even though thats causing a severe economic hit to people. This is a new disease and the data is all over the place,.
    SuspectZero wrote: »
    Instead, we have 9,000 cases out of 4.5 million people. So my advice to you is quit the fearmongering and use some common sense jesus.

    We have 9000 positive tests for someone who's apparently well versed in this you know you can't use that number in the context you are :rolleyes:

    I am erring on the side of caution here but considering we are nuking the economy including closing outdoor construction sites and outdoor cultural areas and other areas have implemented stricter lockdowns this is a rational thing to do considering all I am asking is runners actually keep f-cking social distancing and recognize the fact that as runners move quicker and pass out people in the flow of foot path traffic that a bad runner is worse than a bad walker as those are easily avoided.


  • Options
    #964
    Treviso
    Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Treviso


    Article in the Irish times, this time on the side of joggers

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fitness/joggers-vs-walkers-as-a-runner-i-m-aware-of-everything-around-me-why-aren-t-walkers-1.4224053

    I do agree with some bits, but again it's a totally one sided piece.

    (something to give the thread a bit of life again :D )


  • Options
    #965
    Unthought Known
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Unthought Known


    Why is a "bad runner" worse than a "bad walker" if that bad walker is also passing a flow of footpath traffic? That's a serious question. If that "bad walker" is talking and taking longer to pass people why does he/she pose less risk than the bad runner?

    Everyone knows the rules on social distancing and most people, walkers/runners/whoever, are doing their best to follow them. There is no evidence that runners pose a greater risk of transmitting the virus (is it really a disease? Again, serious question). Posting links that don't actually validate your argument is pointless.


  • Options
    #966
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Unthought Known wrote: »
    is it really a disease? Again, serious question

    Wut?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    stockshares
    Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    To lighten the mood
    https://twitter.com/IAMISjp/status/1248697625991397376?s=19


  • Options
    #968
    Unthought Known
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Unthought Known


    Stark wrote: »
    Wut?

    We're talking about risk of transmission right? Isn't that transmission of the virus rather than the disease it causes?


  • Options
    #969
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    stockshares wrote: »
    To lighten the mood
    https://twitter.com/IAMISjp/status/1248697625991397376?s=19

    Funny now, give it three weeks and thanks to you and your types we will have the same **** here.
    Karma will deal with you anyway. If you preach enough about it, it will be on your doorstep before long.


  • Options
    #970
    Treviso
    Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Treviso


    rovers_runner wrote: »
    Funny now, give it three weeks and thanks to you and your types we will have the same **** here.
    Karma will deal with you anyway. If you preach enough about it, it will be on your doorstep before long.

    I thought it was quite funny!


  • Options
    #971
    stockshares
    Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    rovers_runner wrote: »
    Funny now, give it three weeks and thanks to you and your types we will have the same **** here.
    Karma will deal with you anyway. If you preach enough about it, it will be on your doorstep before long.

    Charming, your a class act


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    monkey9
    Registered Users Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    We're entitled to exercise within a 2km radius so whether that is walking or running is nobody else's business. Some amount of moaning on here.


  • Options
    #973
    AnMoralltach
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭AnMoralltach


    stockshares wrote: »
    To lighten the mood
    https://twitter.com/IAMISjp/status/1248697625991397376?s=19

    When it’s marathon training and you wake up feeling good and your LSR turns in to a Fartlek...


  • Options
    #974
    IvoryTower
    Registered Users Posts: 3,825 ✭✭✭IvoryTower


    Theres nobody about the last few mornings, maybe bank holiday vibes, but hopefully people are over their initial exercise buzz and have reverted to the couch


  • Options
    #975
    Lazare
    Registered Users Posts: 4,412 ✭✭✭Lazare


    stockshares wrote: »
    To lighten the mood
    https://twitter.com/IAMISjp/status/1248697625991397376?s=19

    I enjoyed that.

    Don't know why exactly but I just spent an hour catching up on this car crash of a thread and one thing I've noticed is your tone lighten somewhat over the last few pages.

    Serious question, have our points and arguments convinced you that we're not the threat you first thought we were?


  • Options
    #976
    stockshares
    Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    Lazare wrote: »
    I enjoyed that.

    Don't know why exactly but I just spent an hour catching up on this car crash of a thread and one thing I've noticed is your tone lighten somewhat over the last few pages.

    Serious question, have our points and arguments convinced you that we're not the threat you first thought we were?

    No, the risk is still there. I'm not anti runner though, it's just I think longer runs risk contact with more people. I'd love to get out myself but only exercising at home for now and short walks. They reckon a large % of populations are asymtomatic so we don't even know if we are spreading it.

    Just seen this in Twitter.
    https://twitter.com/MaeveWalsh16/status/1249654611570561024?s=19


  • Options
    #977
    Lazare
    Registered Users Posts: 4,412 ✭✭✭Lazare


    Ah, ok, pity.


  • Options
    #978
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    stockshares wrote: »
    No, the risk is still there. I'm not anti runner though, it's just I think longer runs risk contact with more people.

    The risk from longer runs is that your chances of tripping over and injuring yourself increases the longer you are out, and also with the distance from home.

    The closer you remain to home the lower the chances of needing outside assistance because you can hobble home, and the less likely you are to have made it to an gnarly trail route where you stick a foot in a rabbit hole. If you need outside assistance to fix you, or to get you back home, then the chances of infection from whoever then needs to help you is the major risk and that it is taking them away from whatever else they were doing.

    Yes, it is more likely that you'll pass more people if out for a long duration run. But the risk of infection in either direction from just running past someone is basically zero if you have run 1km from home or 20km from home. The much greater risk for the 20km runner is twisting an ankle whilst 20km from home, which is where the never more than 2km bit comes in. If you trip over a kerb half a mile from home after 1km of running or 20km of running then you can still get back and find a pack of frozen peas to stick on it and collapse on the sofa feeling like an idiot.

    If you do that 20km from home then you need outside assistance to get back. Likewise with if you get a puncture on your bike, you can get back with a mechanical issue half a mile from home, you can't if you are 20km from home.


  • Options
    #979
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    stockshares wrote: »
    No, the risk is still there. I'm not anti runner though, it's just I think longer runs risk contact with more people. I'd love to get out myself but only exercising at home for now and short walks. They reckon a large % of populations are asymtomatic so we don't even know if we are spreading it.

    Just seen this in Twitter.
    https://twitter.com/MaeveWalsh16/status/1249654611570561024?s=19

    That is not czech government advice.


  • Options
    #980
    jamule
    Registered Users Posts: 933 ✭✭✭jamule


    DM_7 wrote: »
    That is not czech government advice.

    but someone on twitter says it is, so it must be true


  • Options
    #981
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    IvoryTower wrote: »
    Theres nobody about the last few mornings, maybe bank holiday vibes, but hopefully people are over their initial exercise buzz and have reverted to the couch

    Fatties be fat.

    lazy-fat-ass_fb_2175339.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    There were a lot of Gardaí out yesterday stopping people from driving places to go for walks. Was able to go for a run in the local park and hardly met anyone. I went out this morning again when it was still cold, windy and relatively unpleasant for a run and the park was so busy I had to go elsewhere. This afternoon, the Gardaí were called out again as all the footpaths around the park were blocked up with people parking on them. After the Gardaí had cleared all non-locals away, took a walk down into the park for a look and it was deserted again despite the weather having turned glorious by this time.


  • Options
    #983
    daydorunrun
    Registered Users Posts: 784 ✭✭✭daydorunrun


    Anybody no what the story is with running from work on lunch break? The 2k rule applies to home, can you run from work still or is it frowned upon?

    “You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.” Homer.



  • Options
    #984
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    daydorunrun wrote: »
    Anybody no what the story is with running from work on lunch break? The 2k rule applies to home, can you run from work still or is it frowned upon?
    I think you answered your own question there :pac:


  • Options
    #985
    IvoryTower
    Registered Users Posts: 3,825 ✭✭✭IvoryTower


    I would stay within 2k of work, seems reasonable to me


  • Options
    #986
    antimatterx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭antimatterx


    I was screamed at by a woman that I should be keeping 2 meters away from her???

    Did I miss something, or do only runners have to comply with the regulations? :D

    It's a two-way street, it's not all on one party.


  • Options
    #987
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,159 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    stockshares wrote: »
    No, the risk is still there. I'm not anti runner though, it's just I think longer runs risk contact with more people. I'd love to get out myself but only exercising at home for now and short walks. They reckon a large % of populations are asymtomatic so we don't even know if we are spreading it.

    Just seen this in Twitter.
    https://twitter.com/MaeveWalsh16/status/1249654611570561024?s=19


    I ran 16km yesterday morning. I ran from the top of Mobhi road to harts corner and doubled back on myself as part of my run. I ran it on the main road.

    It's not difficult to avoid people.

    Right now I think dog owners and walkers are more of an issue


  • Options
    #988
    rovers_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    Dog walkers in general have gone to pot in the last week.
    Vast majority are quiet dogs and you'd sense it from a distance but it's as if they've collectively decided, **** it can't be arsed. Plus the amount of dog sh*t has increased a lot.


    Anyone else mulling over the inevitable cancellation of all 2020 marathons now after todays conference?
    It looks like all events over a hundred people are off the table for 2020.

    Virtual marathons on a given date and time?
    26.2 and a minimum elevation to stop flat track heros?
    Will be a nice way to monitor fitness and ensure milage stays honest.


  • Options
    #989
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Zero regrets about deferring Manchester to next year rather than getting notions about October! Time to just regain/maintain fitness rather than being ambitious imo.


  • Options
    #990
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    rovers_runner wrote: »
    Dog walkers in general have gone to pot in the last week.
    Vast majority are quiet dogs and you'd sense it from a distance but it's as if they've collectively decided, **** it can't be arsed. Plus the amount of dog sh*t has increased a lot.


    Anyone else mulling over the inevitable cancellation of all 2020 marathons now after todays conference?
    It looks like all events over a hundred people are off the table for 2020.

    Virtual marathons on a given date and time?
    26.2 and a minimum elevation to stop flat track heros?
    Will be a nice way to monitor fitness and ensure milage stays honest.

    Excuse my ignorance as I've been deliberately minimising the amount of news I watch, but what conference are you referring to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    daydorunrun
    Registered Users Posts: 784 ✭✭✭daydorunrun


    daydorunrun wrote: »
    Anybody no what the story is with running from work on lunch break? The 2k rule applies to home, can you run from work still or is it frowned upon?
    TheChizler wrote: »
    I think you answered your own question there :pac:


    Yeah possibly! Then again there seems to be a lot of people here who don't need
    an excuse to frown at people running theses days.

    “You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.” Homer.



Advertisement