4 ms·

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 mat

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.

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.