4 ms·

Are we watching the same video? I have zero sympathy for the jogger. The police isn't doing anything wrong, she's clearly resisting so they have no choice but t

Are we watching the same video? I have zero sympathy for the jogger. The police isn't doing anything wrong, she's clearly resisting so they have no choice but to use strength to put her in the car. I don't see any mistreatment from the police. And where's the supposed "abuse" from the onlookers? All I saw was the person filming telling her to shut up and stop resisting the police. All very reasonable things to say, regardless of whether the law is wrong or not. Speaking about the law, "zero tolerance laws" have a very negative meaning because of the stupid laws they have in the USA. If there's a moment where you should apply a zero tolerance law, it's when there's a freaking pandemic and people disobey the rules. One jogger isn't bad, how about 10 or 100?

standardUser 7y ago
The policy of not allowing outdoor exercise is to blame. The risk of transmission from running is minuscule if people keep proper physical distance. Doesn't matter if it's 10 or 100 or 1,000 people jogging. All that matters is if effective precautions are being taken to prevent transmission of the virus. Instead of harassing people who are keeping proper physical distance, police should focus on activities that are actually likely to lead to transmission of the virus. People running in a group? Make them stop. People running with ample distance between themselves and others? Wave and say hi.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Proper physical distance is quite far for joggers: https://www.fox13news.com/news/simulation-research-shows-covid-19-can-spread-farther-by-those-exercising-outdoors https://www.fox13news.com/news/simulation-research-shows-cov...
  - standardUser 7y ago
    The traditional WHO recommendation for avoiding droplet transmission is 3.5 feet (1 meter). In Australia, it's currently 5ft (1.5 meters). In many places, 6ft or 6.5ft (2 meters). The rate of transmission already drops dramatically if you maintain just a 1 meter distance from infected individuals. Two meters is even better, but we have always known that droplet transmission can go far beyond even 2 meters. One source I read claimed it's possible up to 20 meters. But the difference between "possible" and "likely" is key. If we try to avoid every activity where there is a remote possibility of transmission, we will all have to sit in isolated cages. But avoiding "likely" transmission is easy. Keep a good distance, wash your hands, etc. It does not sound like this simulation has proven (or even suggested) that transmission at 65 feet is likely while running, only that it is possible.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      The point is that the droplets persist in the air for a little bit, and the faster you're moving, the greater the likelihood that you're moving through a space that still has suspended droplets in the air. It's like how the faster you drive, the longer your stopping distance. Your safety distance increases the faster you're moving. Six feet is for when you (and everyone else) are stationary.
      - DennisP 7y ago
        On top of that, a moving source causes a slipstream that makes the droplets spread further.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        Yup, and when running you're breathing deeper and more forcefully, so you're expelling more viral particles farther. Plus, I'm not seeing as many runners wearing masks (no doubt because of the high oxygen requirements of the running itself), so that too has an effect.
      - sjy 7y ago
        Running doesn’t (substantially, probably) increase the rate at which you shed the virus, though – so the droplets are spread over a larger area, at a lower concentration. You need to keep a greater distance to guarantee zero exposure, but that doesn’t mean that higher speeds equal greater risks. The car analogy is inappropriate.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - noobermin 7y ago
    This article has made the rounds but has yet to be peer reviewed. Tbh, journalists need to chill until better authorities like the WHO step in and recommend something.
- geebee 7y ago
  Part of the problem is determining the threshold and keeping the crowd size below it. If nobody else is at the basketball court then sure, it’s safe. But the basketball court is empty because a lot of people who would love to play are staying away and respecting the closure. Why shouldn’t they get to be the one person at it? Some sort of queuing or permitting system could work in theory but it’d be difficult to enforce.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Unfortunately, the policy here in the bay area has been to entirely shut down some trails, while leaving others open, concentrating people into the few permitted locations. The resources are clearly available to block off the trailhead parking, so they are also available to reduce the the same locations to 50% capacity instead.
amxla 7y ago
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." [Göring]
unethical_ban 7y ago
100 joggers far apart from each other, on miles and miles of trails, and perhaps with scarves or handkerchiefs, isn't bad.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  They don't run at the same speed in the same direction. You will have people passing each other, and who knows how long it will stay afloat in the air over the trail. Two runners 100ft apart same direction same speed (6mph) is only 11 seconds before the runner in the rear passes through the exhaled breath of the runner in front.
sergiotapia 7y ago
PROTECT YOURSELF - why do you want the government to force people into this madness.
nradov 7y ago
The point is that the rule against jogging is stupid and counterproductive. Improving cardiovascular health has a protective effect against infections in general.
- macintux 7y ago
  You can exercise indoors. It may not be as fun, but jogging isn't necessary for physical well-being.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    The goal is practical and meaningful risk reduction, not elimination of all risk. As such, the threshold for being able to do an activity is not whether it is necessary to sustain life.
asveikau 7y ago
I heard them call her gilipollas, idiota, payasa in response to her calling for help. [Feel free to Google those terms if anyone reading doesn't speak Spanish.] This is unnecessarily mean-spirited and doesn't fit this "we're all in this together" spirit I am so glad to see in other places. The video clip doesn't show what happened before but I am sure a hefty fine would have done the trick.

standardUser 7y ago

The policy of not allowing outdoor exercise is to blame. The risk of transmission from running is minuscule if people keep proper physical distance. Doesn't matter if it's 10 or 100 or 1,000 people jogging. All that matters is if effective precautions are being taken to prevent transmission of the virus. Instead of harassing people who are keeping proper physical distance, police should focus on activities that are actually likely to lead to transmission of the virus. People running in a group? Make them stop. People running with ample distance between themselves and others? Wave and say hi.

DennisP 7y ago
Proper physical distance is quite far for joggers: https://www.fox13news.com/news/simulation-research-shows-covid-19-can-spread-farther-by-those-exercising-outdoors https://www.fox13news.com/news/simulation-research-shows-cov...
- standardUser 7y ago
  The traditional WHO recommendation for avoiding droplet transmission is 3.5 feet (1 meter). In Australia, it's currently 5ft (1.5 meters). In many places, 6ft or 6.5ft (2 meters). The rate of transmission already drops dramatically if you maintain just a 1 meter distance from infected individuals. Two meters is even better, but we have always known that droplet transmission can go far beyond even 2 meters. One source I read claimed it's possible up to 20 meters. But the difference between "possible" and "likely" is key. If we try to avoid every activity where there is a remote possibility of transmission, we will all have to sit in isolated cages. But avoiding "likely" transmission is easy. Keep a good distance, wash your hands, etc. It does not sound like this simulation has proven (or even suggested) that transmission at 65 feet is likely while running, only that it is possible.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    The point is that the droplets persist in the air for a little bit, and the faster you're moving, the greater the likelihood that you're moving through a space that still has suspended droplets in the air. It's like how the faster you drive, the longer your stopping distance. Your safety distance increases the faster you're moving. Six feet is for when you (and everyone else) are stationary.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      On top of that, a moving source causes a slipstream that makes the droplets spread further.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        Yup, and when running you're breathing deeper and more forcefully, so you're expelling more viral particles farther. Plus, I'm not seeing as many runners wearing masks (no doubt because of the high oxygen requirements of the running itself), so that too has an effect.
    - sjy 7y ago
      Running doesn’t (substantially, probably) increase the rate at which you shed the virus, though – so the droplets are spread over a larger area, at a lower concentration. You need to keep a greater distance to guarantee zero exposure, but that doesn’t mean that higher speeds equal greater risks. The car analogy is inappropriate.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- noobermin 7y ago
  This article has made the rounds but has yet to be peer reviewed. Tbh, journalists need to chill until better authorities like the WHO step in and recommend something.
geebee 7y ago
Part of the problem is determining the threshold and keeping the crowd size below it. If nobody else is at the basketball court then sure, it’s safe. But the basketball court is empty because a lot of people who would love to play are staying away and respecting the closure. Why shouldn’t they get to be the one person at it? Some sort of queuing or permitting system could work in theory but it’d be difficult to enforce.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the policy here in the bay area has been to entirely shut down some trails, while leaving others open, concentrating people into the few permitted locations. The resources are clearly available to block off the trailhead parking, so they are also available to reduce the the same locations to 50% capacity instead.

amxla 7y ago

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." [Göring]

unethical_ban 7y ago

100 joggers far apart from each other, on miles and miles of trails, and perhaps with scarves or handkerchiefs, isn't bad.

RandomBacon 7y ago
They don't run at the same speed in the same direction. You will have people passing each other, and who knows how long it will stay afloat in the air over the trail. Two runners 100ft apart same direction same speed (6mph) is only 11 seconds before the runner in the rear passes through the exhaled breath of the runner in front.

sergiotapia 7y ago

PROTECT YOURSELF - why do you want the government to force people into this madness.

nradov 7y ago

The point is that the rule against jogging is stupid and counterproductive. Improving cardiovascular health has a protective effect against infections in general.

macintux 7y ago
You can exercise indoors. It may not be as fun, but jogging isn't necessary for physical well-being.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  The goal is practical and meaningful risk reduction, not elimination of all risk. As such, the threshold for being able to do an activity is not whether it is necessary to sustain life.

asveikau 7y ago

I heard them call her gilipollas, idiota, payasa in response to her calling for help. [Feel free to Google those terms if anyone reading doesn't speak Spanish.] This is unnecessarily mean-spirited and doesn't fit this "we're all in this together" spirit I am so glad to see in other places. The video clip doesn't show what happened before but I am sure a hefty fine would have done the trick.