No, it's not.Originally Posted by ryanb741
Because this bit is untrue:
First case: https://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov/Ci...s.aspx?AID=483
More cases (three found in the screening process, three not): https://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov/Ci...s.aspx?AID=506
which means that this bit is not true:
Interpreting scientific data is a skill.
And it is particularly difficult to draw large-scale conclusions from very small studies at the best of times.
Last edited by MakeColdplayHistory; 2nd April 2020 at 08:07.
Nope. This is ON TOP of the 645 first responders tested earlier. So it is potentially a significant development.
From the website;
Combining the 645 first responders, healthcare providers, and their families who were tested earlier with these new results, less than 2% are positive or indeterminate and 98% are negative.
From a glass half full perspective, I presume I'm not the only one who is taking the opportunity to get fit again?
Im working at home for now, unless I get furloughed of course.
Truoble is (and I welcome opinions on this or even interpretations of the guidance) that I have around a mile to a mile and a half of street/built up suburbia before I can run or walk on country lanes and open countryside.
I now leave my car and run around the streets, which is placing myself and others at a greater risk but seems to be what the police and guidance want me to do?
I don't run far enough to waste nearly 3 miles of it just getting to the area I usually run in.
I was originally taking my car, driving a mile or so (max) parking in a layby/gateway (unused and commonly used by runners/dog walkers etc) and then running for 4-5 miles in a loop back to my car and then driving back home.
I hardly meet anyone, just the occasional other runner or cyclist and cars are few and far between.
I am far less of a risk to others and myself during this than if I left my car and ran around the estate/streets etc. and during this I don't run closer to anyone's house then around 10 meters or so.
So my question is, do I continue to run around the streets or is it reasonable (more importantly could I get fined?) for driving a mile or so to then run in a more remote, pleasant and safer environment?
I miss normal!
Jesus wept.
Ok makes sense but what we could also infer is that of 7000 people in the county there were 6 people showing symptoms and had PCR swab tests. So, out of 7000, 70-140 of them have had it and 6 knew it. You are correct a wider study is required in a more significant population too (such as a large city) but this is at least a start.
Edited to add Germany is currently undertaking a test of 100k people for antibodies. That will be useful data
Last edited by ryanb741; 2nd April 2020 at 08:29.
If you maintain distance from others on the streets it’s no more risky. People are dying horribly and all you’re worried about is how scenic your run is. Have you not watched the news and seen the guidance?
FGS.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52131940
Shenzhen becomes first Chinese city to ban eating cat and dogs.
About damn time but also the Chinese local government is beginning to take it seriously enough to start somewhere. Their central government has apparently banned the selling of wild animals for consumption. Next hopefully to ban the poaching of endangered animals.
Last edited by Paradiddle; 2nd April 2020 at 09:17.
Why shouldn't people be eating cats or dogs? Is the eating of pigs or rabbits any better? What makes an animal either a pet or food? Just asking.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I suppose it's more that the processing of cats, dogs and wild animals tend to be less regulated than conventional animals that people eat. I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if they kept eating them but have more health and safety regulations in place to check for diseases, as well as applying more humane treatments of them. However IMO banning them outright is a good move in the current situation. Thus posting in the promising news thread.
In terms of bats and wild animals I still think their consumption should be banned outright as they potentially carry more diseases. Bats themselves are major carriers of viruses and bacteria.
It's not the eating, because once cooked there should be no bacteria or virus left. And mosquitoes have killed far more people than the Spanish flu's most pessimistic figures (100M people)
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Including pigeon, rabbit and salmon? I have to say I have no particular desire to eat bat but wild animals can be very tasty.
It's not the species, it's the handling.
May be a more humane approach to eating them?
A lot of these animals or stays that are caught to sell also surly there is no need to cook them alive?
Don't you presume to patronise me mate, I asked a valid question motivated by wanting to do the right thing.
If given a choice between exercising away from other people and in nicer surroundings or not why would I not want to?
As long as I'm within acceptable guidelines.
There have been many confusing interpretations as to what constitutes acceptable exercise and driving etc and driving a mile to park up in your own local area is different to driving a lot further to park in a totally different area to which you live. Think about it, it's not too hard is it?
My wife, several family members and several friends all work in the local hospital, some on the front line so I'm well up there with what's going on.
I suppose it's too much to ask in this place for people to be civil and uncritical for too long.
Back off pal you know nothing about me.
Whilst you're on a self righteous roll, why don't you have a go at those asking about how to wisely invest post COVID-19 then?
Or those asking how it will impact on watch prices or availability?
Or is that OK in your world?
FFS man.
The government have asked people NOT to drive to an exercise place or to walk the dog, why do you wish to take no notice of this?
FFS man.
The guidance is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...an-and-cant-do
14. Can I drive to a national park or other green space to walk?
We advise you to stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily.
You can still go to the park for outdoor exercise once a day but only by yourself or within your household, not in groups.
We ask you to keep 2 metres apart from others outside your household at all times when outdoors.
You need to consider whether driving that mile is necessary or not. Personally I just would walk or run it. Well done on trying to improve your fitness.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Did you even read my post fully? FFS man.
Yes.
FFS man.
Thanks Mr Curta for actually reading my post properly and for taking it in context, unlike some.
I have been running from my own front door since those guidelines came in force, I was merely asking peoples take on what would or would not be classed as 'travelling' so to speak. The local police round here have advised it is to be interpreted as 'reasonable' travel so I wondered what we thought was 'reasonable'.
I suppose it's far more humanitarian and acceptable to some on here to only care about ones cash investments or watches isn't it?
- - - Updated - - -
Then you clearly have trouble understanding things.
FFS man.
Agree. Nothing wrong with asking. I’m a West London runner and usually would run 8-miles-or-so one way and tube it back home purely because I can run somewhere a lot more interesting and safer than circular routes around Ruislip where I’m nearly mowed down by vehicles at any opportunity. I’m now running local routes only, not driving or tubing anywhere. I think you’ve just got to suck it up, get some good music on and accept its better than having a lockdown where you are only allowed to run round your back garden.
Last edited by Christian; 2nd April 2020 at 13:41.
i understand anyone who drives to a different area for exercise is a complete dick, hell, even my cat understood the guidelines on it.
FFFS.
Thank you, I appreciate your balanced opinion.
Ironically, I am doing exactly what you suggest, even down to the music!
It has and will remain my intention to adhere to the guidelines as I believe they are totally necessary. It's simply the interpretation of them that many people can get confused with.
In reality however, I will impact far less on society and pose a far lower risk to myself and others by driving a mile and running 'off grid' so to speak than by running around the local streets, continually avoiding (lots of) people, kids and dog walkers and running right past their front doors, sweating and breathing heavily. However I also respect the guidelines. I just wanted opinions on interpretations.
You see, the Derbyshire police have been criticised for being silly when demonising walkers who drove (no contact or risk when driving) and then walked well away from other people and their homes. There has been a lot of local debate about this and many people are unsure if driving a mile, remaining in your locality and keeping away from people is acceptable or not? I know that driving many miles to a totally different area (therefore potentially spreading it outside your own area etc.) is not acceptable, nor would I even consider it to be so. This was the case with the drone footage walkers in Derbyshire and I know that was definitely unnecessary travel and well away from their local/living area.
As I said, I simply tought to invite friendly and balanced opinions and felt it far more reasonable and relevant than worrying if my Rolex will devalue or if my money and investments could capitalise on the situation once this is all over?
You really are stupid aren't you?
I clearly stated it was still well within my local post code area, just a bit up the road.
I give in, I can't make it any more clear so why don't you get back to the BP where you clearly belong.
FFFFSSSS.
Calm down guys....there’s weeks or even months to go before we’re in a better place
Im sure I read an article around end Jan early February on what the world called China’s “wet markets” . These wet markets sell multiple types of animal including exotica such as bear meat, that are home reared for food. The wet markets came into being because due to the shortage of arable crops rice etc and a growing population Chinese people were starving. This led to some small scale extension from poultry through to other animals. Whilst not officially condoned, it was never stopped as the consequence was starvation for a large group of society. They feed huge proportions of the community, Im sure I saw upto 50% in Hong Kong
Wet markets have been temporarily closed during previous epidemics eg Sars , but always return. It will be interesting to see the future of wet markets in 6/12/18 months time.
There will be folk on here who travel extensively in the far east who can probably support or disprove the above.
Last edited by higham5; 2nd April 2020 at 14:06.
I used to look forward to seeing what positive Covid developments the eagle eyed amongst you had come across. So the fact we've gone OT somewhat is annoying. May I suggest if it's not relevant, find another thread perhaps?
Sent from my VOG-L29 using TZ-UK mobile app
Is that your positive contribution to the thread?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
My post was meant to be positive i.e. getting fitter etc.
Apologies if my well meant question invited the bear pack in, it was not my intention.
I'm out as I don't want to detract from the positive vibe on here as we very much need it right now.
Look pal, you asked a question on the thread and I answered. If you don't like the answer thats fine.
The advice on exercising from home and not driving to exercise is straightforward. Think about that.
I'll comment if I want to.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
My cat is laughing here as she thinks the stupid one is the dickhead asking advice even after the governments guidelines are crystal clear.
FFFSSS
You're the dick who thinks he can read the mind of a cat that actually laughs FFS
Not so much an answer as a (probably) hypocritical judgement....pal.
So ner ner na ner ner......
The reason why the guidelines insist that you do not drive from home for exercise is the car park (s) at the local green spaces.
When in use these become a hotbed of traffic and humans, a real problem for effective distancing.
You may think that you running along pavements near people's doors is a potential spread risk, but you are one of very few people to use that area of pavement per day. The effective occupancy of that space is very low.
Any green space car park that remains in use has a lot higher density of different persons per hour or day. It may not be full but there are people coming and going all the time. The effective proximity between humans is much greater in these limited locations than it is in the normal streetscape.
That is why they continue to insist you exercise from home, and not at the end of a commute.
D
You're right so please enjoy your strangely perceived little victory sunshine, go on you can really go for it now as I won't respond, it's all yours, an open goal....ah such sweet victory eh?
Bye.
Edit: Not aimed at Sweets (a very useful and insightful response) but at the post before.
It's a shame I needed to post when the guidelines are so clear, still, can't teach stupid.
I also think part of the problem is that by more people driving, even if going to an isolated country lay-by rather than a park, it encourages others to drive to places like out-of-town shopping parks for non-essential stuff. This is why black-and-white rules are needed rather than guidelines and self-interpretation...a good proportion of the public don’t have common-sense.
Anyway...back to the good news...
No hypocrisy pal, I'm following the guidelines.Not so much an answer as a (probably) hypocritical judgement....pal.
So ner ner na ner ner......
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
What, yours?
Oh good, the covid promising news thread has reached its passive aggressive pal and sunshine peak.
I should hope so too. They should be lightly sautéed.
lack of toilet rolls perhaps? Or would that be itchy?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
A quick google showed this advice from the RAC: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/d...ers-questions/
Can I use my car to drive to a park for exercise?
You shouldn't use your car in this way. In line with Government advice, you should only leave your home for exercise. But we suggest using your garden for this (if you have one) or leaving your home on foot or by bike. As always, you should stay more than two metres away from others.
from the .gov site:
Every person in the UK must comply with these new measures, which came into effect on Monday 23 March. The relevant authorities, including the police, have been given the powers to enforce them – including through fines and dispersing gatherings.
I may as well SORN my car. Every cloud has a silver lining?
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 2nd April 2020 at 18:24.
If the guidelines were straightforward and crystal clear, they would be crystal clear. The restrictions in the legislation are on leaving the home; there is no mention of driving. Matt Hancock (Health Secretary) said on BBC News that there was no problem driving a short distance to exercise in a quieter areas and the Cabinet Office (who drafted the legislation) confirmed there was nothing in either the legislation or the gov.uk 'full guidance' that prevents someone driving to exercise.
The gov.uk document quoted above is an 'FAQ' section covering driving to 'national parks and other green spaces' and advises people not to drive. Some common sense needs to apply here - if we all jump in our cars and drive to Edale or Cheddar Gorge they will be hotbeds of virus transmission but if I drive a mile out of town into country lanes that I know to be empty, I will be reducing my chances of catching/passing Covid.
See also this from the Policing Brief issued by the National Police Chief's Council on Tuesday... "Use your judgement and common sense; for example, people will want to exercise locally and may need to travel to do so, we don’t want the public sanctioned for travelling a reasonable distance to exercise."
As it happens all my running so far in the 'lockdown' has been from home and 90% of my cycling is from home anyway but if I did choose to drive a short distance to run somewhere where social distancing could be better achieved, I would do so legally and with a clear conscience.
If/when the law changes to prevent me driving for exercise, I won't drive.
If/when the law changes to prevent me leaving the house for exercise, I won't leave the house.
Why is all this in the promising news thread anyway?
I tend to run mostly off road and will often (previously) have a short drive to local forest.
I've been sticking to the guidelines and whilst it is a bit more boring having a mile or so run to get there I don't mind it.
Its given me an excuse to up the distance if anything!!
One advantage of running on the pavement is you can easily avoid people, ok you might have to cross the road a few times or run in the road for a few metres but the are very few cars and people really do appreciate it.
One issue with running off road is sometimes the footpaths near me are fenced off and very narrow so if you do encounter someone its very difficult to navigate the situation.
No its not ideal but I'm hoping if everyone sticks to it we won't be in complete lock down and unable to go out.
I'll go proper full on postal at that point!
New Scientist, 1 April 2020
Coronavirus treatment: What drugs could work and when can we get them?
Eyes tight with worry above white surgical masks, more than 300 people slowly boarded the waiting 747 cargo planes at Tokyo’s Haneda airport. It was 17 February, and after weeks in quarantine aboard the Diamond Princess anchored off the coast of Japan, they were heading home to the US. Fourteen had tested positive for covid-19.
On arrival, one of the 14 was given an experimental antiviral drug called remdesivir, as part of a global clinical trial. By the time this article went to press, hundreds of covid-19 patients around the world had taken the drug as part of ongoing trials.
Remdesivir was first developed in the mid-2010s to fight Ebola. Although it was found to be ineffective against that virus, it showed promise in early trials against coronaviruses such as the one that causes SARS. That’s why many hope it will work against the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The demand is already so high that its manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, recently had to stop providing access for people outside of trials seeking the drug under compassionate-use schemes for untested medicines.
But we still don’t know if remdesivir, or any other drug, works against the new coronavirus. And while 80 per cent of people who catch covid-19 don’t require hospital treatment, those who do get admitted desperately need effective drugs, which may still be several months away.
The good news is, we know where to look, and which strategies are most likely to work. At least 60 different compounds are now being investigated, including existing drugs and therapies being designed from scratch, and in record time.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6ITyen6aw
Last edited by Mr Curta; 2nd April 2020 at 19:56.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
That would be the same redesivir from Gilead which is being discussed in this interview between Amy Goodman from Democracy Now and Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen:
AMY GOODMAN: Rob, I want to ask you about Gilead. Facing mounting pressure from elected officials and dozens of groups, including yours, Public Citizen, Gilead scientists backed down from holding onto the exclusive status the Trump administration granted it for a drug it’s developing to treat COVID-19. Joe Grogan, a member of Trump’s coronavirus task force, worked as a Gilead Sciences lobbyist from 2011 to 2017. The status would have allowed the corporation to profit exclusively off the drug for seven years and blocked manufacturers from developing generic versions that can be more accessible to patients and control the drug’s price. Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted, quote, “It is truly outrageous that after taxpayers put tens of millions of dollars into developing remdesivir, Trump’s FDA is exploiting a law reserved for rare diseases to privatize a drug to treat a pandemic virus. The Trump Administration must rescind this corporate giveaway to Gilead and make any treatment and vaccine free for everybody.” Again, that was presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ statement. But can you explain what this whole controversy is about, what the role of Trump’s — one of his top advisers, his domestic security adviser, Grogan, is now and was as a Gilead lobbyist?
ROBERT WEISSMAN: Yeah, this is extraordinary. So, Gilead has one of the possible treatments under study. So this is not a vaccine. The treatment very well may not work, but it’s one of the ones that has the best promise, among a not very good group. So, what Gilead did was it sought protection, what’s called orphan drug status, which is available for rare diseases, for drugs that treat populations of under 200,000. And they submitted their application for this rare disease status when there were fewer than 200,000 identified cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Obviously they knew the population was going to go far higher than that, but they got in under the wire. And the way the law is written, not taking into account a situation like this, if you apply when the population is under 200,000, you get this orphan drug designation, whether or not the population later on goes above 200,000. It was astounding. What you get for orphan drug designation is a seven-year exclusivity, a monopoly that’s separate from and in some ways more powerful than a patent monopoly. So we and others protested that. They quickly backed down, because there’s just no way they were going to be able to get away with that. They still have patents and other monopolies. So, if the drug turns out to be useful, they will have a monopoly, unless we impose more pressure on them or the government takes action to override the monopoly and ensure that other generic producers are able to get the drug on the market in the United States and around the world.
The last element of this, which is so important, and it applies to this product and most of the vaccine efforts that are underway, and Senator Sanders’ tweet points this out, this drug has benefited from a huge amount of government funding on the research and development side. The vaccines have been overwhelmingly researched [inaudible] and its development overwhelmingly provided by U.S. federal government. So, in the case of Gilead, who’s trying to receive this special grant of exclusivity from the U.S. government for a product that the U.S. government had actually paid for most of the R&D on. And we’re facing the same possibility with a vaccine, if we get one anytime soon.
The pharmaceutical industry, always standing by to make a killing - aided by the swamp that is the Trump administration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
