Corona Virus & cycling impact (see mode note post 1322)

Weepsie

That myclub bunch soumd like a right load of self obsessed tossers in my opinion. Either we're all in this together or we're not. No exceptions. They should cop on and shut up to be honest

North of 32

In the state where I live, in Germany, there is no comparable restriction on outdoor exercise. Since the clocks went forward and the weather has improved, I have never seen so few cars and so many people out walking, hiking, running, rollerblading and cycling - all social distancing wherever possible and including those in the 70+ category.

In this state you may meet with 1 person from outside of your household. The groups I see appear to be couples, families or more uncommonly, a pair of friends. I have not seen a group of cyclists who appeared to be from different households and club rides were cancelled indefinitely on March 15th. The feedback from the city council and police - both of whom I came across several times today patrolling what are usually popular meet-up spots, is positive. They are satisfied that the vast majority of people are observing social distancing and I have come across no arguments in the media that people should refrain from exercising beyond a certain boundary.

I have no idea if regulations here are better or worse, and I don't mean to be contrary with my post. I am just offering a perspective from elsewhere. If I lived in Ireland I would obey the 2km boundary because in times like these the exact efficacy of a rule is not as important as having as many people as possible follow it.

Biker79

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Genius - no need to take actual action on mental health, just 'reflect on' it.

So it if wasn't in good shape to begin with, then it's just F.U. - you don't really matter?

You sir....are for the birds. The exercise allocation is enough to keep healthy for 6 weeks.

Though I'm not surprised some people fall to pieces at the first whiff of a crisis.

at1withmyself

I'm out. I don't care if I'm banned but you are so far up your own hole you can't see the larger picture, are you really that ignorant to what's going on around you . You'd find an argument in anything.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for your advice. I know exactly where to put it.


BTW, which shop(s) are you shopping in these days? Is there no closer shop to you? Could you not do all your shopping for the month in one go so that you can S T A Y T H E F U C H O M E?





I do need an expert to explain why a 40km cycle in laps inside a populated area is apparently safer than a 20km out, 20 km back cycle on quiet country roads.

Lumen

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most cyclists don't have turbos, btw. Club cyclists might well have, but that's a small percentage of the overall number. So this restriction is likely to be harmful to public health overall.

For the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that you have mental health issues and no turbo, or are you making these arguments out of empathy for other people?

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I do need an expert to explain why a 40km cycle in laps inside a populated area is apparently safer than a 20km out, 20 km back cycle on quiet country roads.

I'm saying this partly as a mod. You're being picky for the sake of it, and not for the first time.

We are all, and I mean all of us being asked to sacrifice personal freedoms for the greater good.

That people seem to want to take some sort of exception to this, so they can carry with what amount to hobbies for most, should not be entertained.

This is an entirely unprecedented thing in any of our lifetimes. TB in the 1950s is the closest thing in this country in the last century pretty much (wartime etc excepted). It's not just here either, it's worldwide.

IF you make an exception for 1 group, then another wants one, and so on and so on. It's not that's any safer, it's that we need to apply the same rules for every single person.

People who can't get around this simple fact are morons, and nothing more.

Charlie69

EAFC_rdfl wrote: »

Are they based in the midlands??

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Co Offaly methinks.

Yes...

Weepsie

And I will ad this, NHS and HSE advocate 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 of intensive exercise a week for adults. They have done so for years. These are generally accepted numbers.

The guidelines account for this and more. We are pretty much all able to carry out what we need to do, within these guidelines

eeeee

Mod Note: No advocating breaking the law.
The laws on exercising during this pandemic can be found here: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/cf9b0d-new-public-health-measures-effective-now-to-prevent-further-spread-o/

From the link:
The only reasons you can leave your home
Stay at home in all circumstances, except in the following situations:

- to travel to and from work where the work is considered an essential service.
- working in an essential shop, bank or post office.
- to buy food, medicines and other health products for yourself, your family or someone who is vulnerable or 'cocooning'
to attend medical appointments
- for vital family reasons including caring for children, elderly or vulnerable people but excluding social family visits
- to exercise within 2 kilometres of your house. You cannot exercise with people from outside your household

Any further posts advocating breaking of the law will be deleted.

letape

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Genius - no need to take actual action on mental health, just 'reflect on' it.

So it if wasn't in good shape to begin with, then it's just F.U. - you don't really matter?

You’re the genius. You don’t get the message, that’s been repeated over and over.

S T A Y T H E F U C K H O M E

at1withmyself

eeeee wrote: »

Mod Note: No advocating breaking the law.
The laws on exercising during this pandemic can be found here: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/cf9b0d-new-public-health-measures-effective-now-to-prevent-further-spread-o/

Any further posts advocating breaking of the law will be deleted.

Its sad that something like the current situation really brings out the 'best' in some people.

Edit - sorry meant to quote previous post and not yours!

Arguing about your short term physical fitness in times like these is pure BS it's such a short term thing in the grand scheme. Unless you are eating all the pies a walk/run/cycle around the local area will see you right.

Your mental health on the other hand can deteriorate much more quickly !!! I'm sure I mentioned my struggles with depression here before and I'm fine but can see so many triggers for people who might be struggling.

Also I think I mentioned at the start of this thread about checking in on people from your club for whom the club spins might be their only social outlet, send them a whatsapp or give them a call.

Wishbone Ash

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If the station the bicycles are taken to is outside the 2km restricted zone, how will they collect their bikes?...

Very simple - they collect them after the restrictions have been lifted.

Rackstar

There’s something seriously wrong, with some people’s thought process.

Businesses all over the country closed, travel restrictions in place, but some people think they should be allowed go wherever they want on their bike?

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: There are a few posts over the last few pages that are targetting the poster rather than the post, it is midnight on a Saturday. I am not carding anyone now but if I get up tomorrow to find it has continued, after this post, it is a straight red for the duration of the lockdown. I have better thngs to be doing than reading posts that do not contribute to the debate or are simply thinly veiled points against a poster rather than their points.

Wishbone Ash

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Reports on irishcycle.com about health care worker cycling to work being verbally abused by a motorist.

Not verbal abuse as such, but I was stopped at a red light very close to my house one night last week around 9pm on my way home from work. A middle aged couple out walking were crossing. The male pointed his rolled up umbrella at me, turned to his wife/partner and said "See these lads on bikes - they're adding to this problem".

I had just worked a 13 hour shift without a break. I was so taken aback that I could make no response.

Enduro

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most cyclists don't have turbos, btw. Club cyclists might well have, but that's a small percentage of the overall number. So this restriction is likely to be harmful to public health overall.

I reckon that overall the restrictions (worldwide) will cause far more deaths in the long term than the Covid itself.

Cyclists of all people should realise that putting expert but highly focused specialists in highly influential roles in designing population level rules can give rise to totally counter-productive results. The obvious example for cyclists being the amount of trauma surgeons who actively campaign for mandatory helmet laws. Population level results are ignored, resulting in a net increase in deaths at population level. But they might see a few less head injuries, so all is good to them.

Similarly the somewhat well known non-medical example of the cause of the largest number of deaths as a consequence of 9/11. (It wasn't the direct casualties from the aircraft and buildings, but the massive spike in road deaths as a result of shutting down internal flights in the U.S.).

So it is more than possible that over the long term, at population level, the "cure" will cause far more damage than the disease. I'm not saying that I know that it will. I'm just saying that the possibility very much exists and would be far from unprecedented. Unintended consequences of well meaning measures.

And for reference, apart from shopping trips, all my cycling is on a turbo trainer.

Lumen

Enduro wrote: »

I reckon that overall the restrictions (worldwide) will cause far more deaths in the long term than the Covid itself.

That's a false comparison. The comparison should be between the effect of the restrictions and the effect of no restrictions, or relaxed restrictions.

We might know the answer to that in hindsight, but for now what we do know is that our nearest neighbour has so far inflicted around 5,000 avoidable deaths by dithering for a couple of weeks.

PickYourName

Enduro wrote: »

I reckon that overall the restrictions (worldwide) will cause far more deaths in the long term than the Covid itself.

And your expertise is? Maybe you should offer to act as a member of the group of experts advising the government.....:rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

Enduro wrote: »

...Similarly the somewhat well known non-medical example of the cause of the largest number of deaths as a consequence of 9/11. (It wasn't the direct casualties from the aircraft and buildings, but the massive spike in road deaths as a result of shutting down internal flights in the U.S.)....

All the more reason why they should have brought in a 2km restriction to prevent people from driving long distances.

Enduro

PickYourName wrote: »

And your expertise is? Maybe you should offer to act as a member of the group of experts advising the government.....:rolleyes:

I'm not qualified. Never said I was.

Enduro

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

All the more reason why they should have brought in a 2km restriction to prevent people from driving long distances.

One of the undoubted gains of the restrictions has been the significant drop in road deaths. Today was the first one I can think of since the restrictions were brought in. Similarly over the long term lives will be saved by the drop in pollution levels, and from closing pubs. Unintended consequences, but useful ones.

But then there will be lives lost as a result of the economic collapse as well. They just won't show up so obviously as being a consequence.

Wishbone Ash

Enduro wrote: »

... We know that they tested positive at some point to be counted amongst the statistics,...

The people that tested positive are not the problem. It's those who are positive but haven't been tested because they appear to be asymptomatic that are a concern. Two of my work colleagues tested positive. They had no symptoms at all but would have been posing a danger to those around them.

Daroxtar

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The people that tested positive are not the problem. It's those who are positive but haven't been tested because they appear to be asymptomatic that are a concern. Two of my work colleagues tested positive. They had no symptoms at all but would have been posing a danger to those around them.

I think the infection rate is much higher than we are aware of and it'll take a huge amount of testing, including antibody testing to see who has had it, to get a better picture of when we can get back on track. Different thread for that discussion though

AndrewJRenko

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, let me be absolutely clear that I'm not advocating for anyone to break the current legal guidelines. I don't think I have advocated for this. If I have, please point it out, and I'll be glad to retract or rephrase or clarify of whatever.

Biker79 wrote: »

You sir....are for the birds. The exercise allocation is enough to keep healthy for 6 weeks.

Though I'm not surprised some people fall to pieces at the first whiff of a crisis.

Ignoring the personal attack, I'll just point out that there is no 'exercise allocation'. The restriction is the 2km radius - there is no restriction on time.

Enter name here wrote: »

I get a slot from M&S weekly had it for years not much changed there. Was it the closet shop no idea. And if the more vulnerable people in my community shop at M&S and need a slot I'd happily share.

I didn't know that M&S did deliveries tbh. Is this in Ireland?


My point isn't really anything to do with shopping. It is to do with other people judging on whether you've achieved the required level of purity in your compliance with the regulations.

Lumen wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that you have mental health issues and no turbo, or are you making these arguments out of empathy for other people?

For the avoidance of doubt, what difference does that make?

Weepsie wrote: »

I'm saying this partly as a mod. You're being picky for the sake of it, and not for the first time.

We are all, and I mean all of us being asked to sacrifice personal freedoms for the greater good.

That people seem to want to take some sort of exception to this, so they can carry with what amount to hobbies for most, should not be entertained.

This is an entirely unprecedented thing in any of our lifetimes. TB in the 1950s is the closest thing in this country in the last century pretty much (wartime etc excepted). It's not just here either, it's worldwide.

IF you make an exception for 1 group, then another wants one, and so on and so on. It's not that's any safer, it's that we need to apply the same rules for every single person.

This isn't a religious movement. We're not 'being asked to make sacrifices for the greater good'. We're being asked to make sacrifices to stop infection spreading.


The only question I'm asking is to clarify how the 2km radius limit for cycling helps reduce infection.

Weepsie wrote: »

And I will ad this, NHS and HSE advocate 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 of intensive exercise a week for adults. They have done so for years. These are generally accepted numbers.

The guidelines account for this and more. We are pretty much all able to carry out what we need to do, within these guidelines

Yep, they're decent numbers, and yes, it is possible to all this and more within a 2km radius.


The question remains as to how the 2km radius limit helps, and whether it will overall hinder public health by deterring people from exercising at all.

letape wrote: »

You’re the genius. You don’t get the message, that’s been repeated over and over.

S T A Y T H E F U C K H O M E

Actually, that's not the message. The regulations allow for people to exercise within the 2km limit.
The question remains as to how the 2km radius limit helps, and whether it will overall hinder public health by deterring people from exercising at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

Arguing about your short term physical fitness in times like these is pure BS it's such a short term thing in the grand scheme. Unless you are eating all the pies a walk/run/cycle around the local area will see you right.

Your mental health on the other hand can deteriorate much more quickly !!! I'm sure I mentioned my struggles with depression here before and I'm fine but can see so many triggers for people who might be struggling.

Also I think I mentioned at the start of this thread about checking in on people from your club for whom the club spins might be their only social outlet, send them a whatsapp or give them a call.

And maybe I am eating all the pies (or all the bread and cheese in my case)? Either way, the regulations allow for exercise, within the 2km limit. This isn't a short term issue. We're now into five weeks, with a very good chance of further weeks being added. We'd be lucky to get away with 3 months of restrictions. Some experts are talking about many months, and possibly even into next year until a vaccine is widely available to get on top of this.



Checking in with mates is definitely a great idea, but it seems like a fairly small part of an overall solution.

PickYourName wrote: »

Who said it was safer?

You have completely missed the point, which is to stick to the rules.

The only way we can defeat this is by collective action. The only way you can have collective action is to have a common set of rules that everyone follows.

Safer in the broadest sense of the word - safer for overall public health.


And no, the only way we can defeat this isn't by having a common set of rules. This isn't a religious compliance exercise.


This is about stopping infection spreading, while keeping general public health at levels that will allow people to fight infection when it does hit them.

Lumen wrote: »

That's a false comparison. The comparison should be between the effect of the restrictions and the effect of no restrictions, or relaxed restrictions.

No-one here is talking about having 'no restrictions'. And to be clear, when you say 'relaxed restrictions', the specific issue I'm raising is the difference between cycling within a 2km radius and the hypothetical scenario of cycling beyond a 2km radius.


I'm struggling to see any difference in spread of infection resulting from cycling beyond a 2km radius.

TheChizler

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm struggling to see any difference in spread of infection resulting from cycling beyond a 2km radius.

I think you're looking at this backwards. I don't think they're making the argument is that cycling within 2km reduces infection. The primary rule is stay at home, which I don't think we need to prove reduces infection (do we?).

Of course there are going to be exceptions to this rule, most people will need to leave their homes at some point. Each exception rule needs to allow enough freedom for the reason for the exception to be completed and ideally no more. Each is evaluated in its own right without reference to the others.

They've decided that people need the freedom to exercise outside their homes, and that 2km radius is enough freedom to reasonably allow this. That's all this is IMO. Some exception giving more freedom for a different reason is irrelevant to the other ones.

You can't reasonably put a similar limit on shopping, can you guarantee that you can pick up all essential items within X radius of a particular point in the country?

Lumen

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, what difference does that make?

Fine, don't answer the question.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm struggling to see any difference in spread of infection resulting from cycling beyond a 2km radius.

The purpose of the 2km restriction is actually to make outdoor exercise less appealing, to and therefore to reduce contacts in the aggregate. It's a buzzkill policy, by design.

cletus

Certain posters here seem convinced that the 2km limit is a cycling specific thing. The people who put these restrictions in place did not sit down and think "how do we limit the movement of cyclists during this outbreak" any more than they specifically had ultra-marathon runners, multi day hikers or any other specific long distance amateur athletes in mind.

The restrictions on movement is not an affront to cyclists. Nobody really thinks that cycling 20km out a country road and back is going to increase the infection rates in the country, but this wasn't stipulated because, apart from the specific group of people who like to do this (i.e. cyclists), it's not something that is not important to the vast majority of people.

Essentially, the requirement is to stay at home and away from everyone else. The government presumably didn't want to enforce a complete house lockdown, as it's easier to do something like this if you have buy in from the population. So what they've said is, we understand people will feel the need to get out of the house for a little fresh air and exercise, but please don't go further than 2km from your house, and keep it brief. For many, many people, this means bringing the dog and/or the kids out for a walk, or just going for a walk themselves.

It's not designed to cater for people who are training for sporting events.

Lastly, the exercise as a prophylactic argument is spurious, imo. Yes, being fitter (not overweight, good level of c.v. fitness, eating well etc) is likely to mean that should you get sick it will probably be mild (not a medical view).

However, if you don't already have that level of overall fitness, you're highly unlikely to have gained it in the past two weeks while social distancing. People who's immune system is lower due to, for example obesity (and the range of health issues that presents) are not going to rectify the situation to the point where they are suddenly fit and healthy during this period of isolation.

Likewise, you may feel that if you're not putting in the miles on the bike you're losing you fitness, but that's likely sport specific, and the reality is that everyone can maintain a good level across the health related components of fitness while not straying out of the restrictions.

It might just mean that some cyclists have to swap the bike for a pair of runners

magicbastarder

The argument that 'this lockdown will possibly/probably cause more deaths than it will save, through some unexpected effect' is possibly true, but a totally unusable one from a public health policy perspective.
Can you imagine some policy twonk at a meeting in the department of health suggesting that we not take these measures because there may be some unknown or unforeseeable factor at play? He'd be dropped in the sea from a helicopter.

Charlie69

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, let me be absolutely clear that I'm not advocating for anyone to break the current legal guidelines. I don't think I have advocated for this. If I have, please point it out, and I'll be glad to retract or rephrase or clarify of whatever.

Ignoring the personal attack, I'll just point out that there is no 'exercise allocation'. The restriction is the 2km radius - there is no restriction on time.





But there is a restriction on time... you're allowed brief exercise ,do you think cycling for 5 hours within 2km is okay?