Off_Field wrote:
See for instance London Mayor S. Kahn who said “There is no risk in using the Tube or buses or other forms of public transport or going to a concert.”
He even went one better. From what I’ve read, the tube frequency was reduced (!!) because there were fewer riders – thus ensuring that crowding persisted. That guy should really be charged with manslaughter (at least).
PS: for those who don’t know: the Mayor of London doesn’t have much direct power, but he does control public transport.
Rwy20 wrote:
The equivalent social distance for walking and running in the slipstream is defined as the distance that should be kept between the leading and trailing walker/runner to avoid substantial exposure to slipstream droplets, similar to the case where two people are standing still at 1.5 m distance. In the absence of head wind, tail wind and cross-wind, for walking fast at 4 km/h this distance is about 5 m and for running at 14.4 km/h this distance is about 10 m.
Wow, looks like we’ve finally found an aviation angle in Covid-19! Crosswind! Headwind !
172driver wrote:
Crosswind! Headwind !
Which need further studies:
The study is subjected to a number of limitations that will give rise for further work. Further work will consider the effect of head wind, tail wind and cross-wind. Cross-wind will cause the slipstream to be not straight but obliquely positioned behind the runners, and while it is expected that also in this case the droplets will mainly remain entrained in the slipstream, this should be confirmed by future simulations. External wind will also increase the turbulence intensity and might cause stronger mixing of the droplets in the slipstream, and potentially also allow a small fraction droplets to escape the slipstream. Further work can also consider walkers and runners at different velocities overtaking each other and runners crossing each other. Finally, additional droplet spectra can be considered containing smaller but also larger droplets, as produced by coughing and sneezing. In the present study, it was decided to focus on droplets characteristics representative of exhaling and coughing, rather than sneezing. The larger fraction of large droplets produced by sneezing will more rapidly fall down to the ground yielding a lower exposure risk.
So we should all try to be constantly coughing and sneezing while running I understand.
Rwy20 wrote:
1.7 million people tested, or 1.7 million tests carried out? Because I presume many of those who are being tested, will get tested more than once.
The source article at Spiegel Online only says “people tested”. The wording does not clearly rule out that some were tested multiple times though.
dublinpilot wrote:And those were probably tests of people who were symptomatic.
The criteria on who gets tested were changed multiple times. Initially, mainly people who travelled from “risk areas” or known contacts were tested, now that basically everywhere is a “risk area”, mainly symptomatic people or those who had contact to confirmed cases are tested.
MedEwok wrote:
The source article at Spiegel Online only says “people tested”. The wording does not clearly rule out that some were tested multiple times though.
Sueddeutsche.de reports it as “1.7 million tests have been carried out so far”. Which means the number is not very meaningful for any epidemiological purposes, also taking into account the limitations mentioned by you.
Sounds like Boris had a close escape.
I was quite upset when I learned that Russia Today had for a time been giving us more reliable information about his condition than Downing Street. Later reports of his intubation were greatly exaggerated.
I think RT is accurate in the same way that a clock which has stopped is spot on twice a day 
OTOH I would expect some censorship to be taking place because any govt has to operate a plan for when its head gets incapacitated or dies and they don’t want the news to come out before they are ready.
I’ve just got some 36 watt UK ozone lamps Very hard to get now. Totally sold out on Ebay etc. I got them via a chinese PCB manufacturer.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
“These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. "
hmng wrote:
infection is much more widespread
Which might correlate with this baseless, outrageous, unfounded, non-scientific, unproven claim by a TV host of a nowadays not so widely loved news network:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/during-cnn-global-town-hall-on-covid-19-pandemic-chris-cuomo-baselessly-suggests-the-virus-couldve-been-spreading-in-u-s-since-october/
