When will it be safe to go out?

[feder1]

From an older person,s viewpoint it might never be safe to go out but otherwise it is becoming evident to people that the daily briefing on deaths and cases data apparently going on a downward path is just not happening in their own area.

Only recently have I been monitoring the data for certain towns and counties and we have not yet reached a peak. Cases are increasing daily and will develop in turn into deaths.

So me being "alert" and using dollops of the mythical "common sense" tells me that I have to sit it out and keep monitoring the local area data for a really big reduction in cases before thinking of going out.

On a UK wide point of view, yeserday,s 7 day moving average of daily cases (2603) is similar to April 1st and April 2nd, which is only a few days before the "peak" on April 6th. Wasn,t that considered to be a dangerous time?

[Dod101]

Not sure what you mean by 'going out'. I am an older person but I guess I have been out every day during lockdown unless the weather has been really bad. But my 'going out' is for a solitary walk (I have just returned from that) of around the usual 10,000 steps according to my phone and I go to M & S and Tesco every couple of weeks. I live in a fairly rural spot but there are quite a few other walkers around. I will meet my family in my garden on Sunday for the first time since mid March. I regard these activities as the minimum I can put up with. I live alone. You cannot shut yourself away for ever. Life is full of risks.

Dod

[dealtn]

From an older person,s viewpoint it might never be safe to go out but otherwise it is becoming evident to people that the daily briefing on deaths and cases data apparently going on a downward path is just not happening in their own area.

Only recently have I been monitoring the data for certain towns and counties and we have not yet reached a peak. Cases are increasing daily and will develop in turn into deaths.

So me being "alert" and using dollops of the mythical "common sense" tells me that I have to sit it out and keep monitoring the local area data for a really big reduction in cases before thinking of going out.

On a UK wide point of view, yeserday,s 7 day moving average of daily cases (2603) is similar to April 1st and April 2nd, which is only a few days before the "peak" on April 6th. Wasn,t that considered to be a dangerous time?

You don't state where you are, but monitoring locally will give a better impression than national of individual "risk".

New cases are dependent on the number of tests. So 2,603 new cases when testing is >100,000 daily is a different number to when tests were 25,000 daily say.

[Mike4]

Just as flying is not inherently dangerous (it's the ground that's dangerous), "going out" in and of itself is not dangerous. Its other people who present the risk of infection.

So to minimise your risk, go out while there is no-one around. Early morning perhaps, or in the night. Keep your distance from anyone you encounter. If you can't keep a distance, minimise the time you are close to them. Especially avoid being close to people talking or shouting or breathing heavily because *if* they are infected, their breath is laden with virus particles.

Don't touch stuff other people touch (e.g. gates, door handles etc) and wash your hands when you get home. Wear a mask to remind your hands not to touch your face holes (eyes, nose, mouth) as these in addition to your lungs, are routes in for the virus should you be unlucky enough to have picked some up on your hands.

These are the basics, you'll probably be fine if you follow them but you cannot avoid all risk, only minimise it. Life is a terminal disease, someone once said.

Edit to add, oh it was John Cleese!

“Life is a terminal disease, and it is sexually transmitted.” Lol.

[tjh290633]

I see nothing wrong with "Going out", it's the company that you keep which is the problem. I take a daily walk along country footpaths to get my newspapers, and along the way there is always courteous social distancing between those walking the other way, or when you stop for a conversation. I have just done our weekly shop in Tesco, adequate spacing and no need to get over close to other shoppers.

If I were in a big city and having to use public transport, it would be a different matter. There facemasking would seem to be a socially desirable action. Out here in the sticks there is little if any evidence of the pandemic taking hold. It is and always has been safe to go out. It is getting together with other people that is the danger, so avoid it.

TJH

[fca2019]

Hi there, I think what we've learnt since we went into lockdown on 23 March I'd that it is much safer outside and less risk of contracting outdoors. Therefore a walk away from others is fine as is, in my opinion meeting one family member from another household in the back garden, whilst disranced.

I'm in my 40s and think I've had it, but am wary of joggers and people who doing respect social distancing. Also I'm returning to work on a phased return but will be ultra cautious in that environment.

[Gerry557]

It was never "safe" to go out pre covid just low risk. For some that risk was higher depending on what you do. Army jobs or parachuting past times etc.

I liked the term, the velociraptors are still roaming free but let's re-open Jurassic park!

Still the risk is more about you, age and health or who you might pass it onto, vulnerable people you live or work with.

Common sense says avoid close contact as much as possible. So bank holiday trips to the beach on a sunny day would be out for me but a walk at 6.30 on same beach might be OK.

Online shopping, working from home venturing out to quiet spots or exercising early late. Anything to avoid people and reduce risk as low as possible.

If you are young and healthy and have no vulnerable people you are, according to the stats likely to be fine even if you catch it

[wydffa]

see the other Covid thread, nobody under 50 has died in Denmark and it may be that the UK is over-reacting; unless a vulnerable person is being protected. Most of our figures are based on people sick enough to seek emergency treatment.
Everyone in my office has had it (7 of us), most had mild flu like illness but one (type 1 diabetic) had headache only and one did not know she had had it. There are seven of us all in our 50s and 60s and we had the antibody test last week. My wife, who has a lung disease, was no more ill than I was.
Seven adults/teenagers in 2 out of 3 of my neighbouring households assume they have had it (flu-like illness), 2 young children showed no symptoms. (90 year old on the other side shielding himself has had no symptoms).
It will be very interesting to see the results of widespread antibody tests.
Based on current evidence I would rather have the virus now and develop immunological protection, the bigger risk is if it or another corona virus returns in a more aggressive form.

[servodude]

see the other Covid thread, nobody under 50 has died in Denmark and it may be that the UK is over-reacting

or conversely that the Danes didn't under react?
- they've had 574 deaths attributed to COVID-19 and no net change in average deaths for the period
unless you're going to contrive some "viking overlegenhed" reason for this we've probably got to attribute it to "not letting the virus run through the population"; they took precautions early and in earnest, and thus you didn't find articles in Borsen claiming that the lockdown was killing as many people as the virus

the bigger risk is if it or another corona virus returns in a more aggressive form.

indeed, but it's not an orthogonal problem
- the prevalence of virus in the population is what increases the risk of future mutations
- reduce the volume of the virus now and you reduce the scope for it becoming worse

as to the question of being safe to go out?
the virus is predominantly found in the upper respiratory tract, so if you can minimise exposure to those of other people you should be OK
- avoid sneezing, coughing, spitting, shouting and those that are doing so
- consider a mask and don't touch things unnecessarily
- keep your hands clean

and enjoy the outdoors

- sd

[wydffa]

Fair point about Danes early lockdown.
As for "viking overlegenhed" or other regional protective property- some people have not ruled this out, see Guardian article on unidentified reason, possibly immunological, for Germans resisting Covid.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ark-matter

The other LF Covid thread links to a Singapore study finding that many people who have not had Covid-19 have immunological defences already - perhaps from earlier non-Covid respiratory tract infections.

Anyway my point is that it is not dangerous to go out if you are not in an at risk group/shielding somebody.

[wydffa]

Link below shows the mortality risk with COVID-19 superimposed on background annual risk. (The COVID-19 risks have been plotted at the 7th year of the decade, as that more accurately represents the specific age at which the decade-average pertains)

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*rfqd ... 1muvQQ.png

(taken from Winton Centre at Cambridge Uni https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-muc ... 39118e1196)


sorry don't know how to insert a chart/picture

[jackdaww]

i go out for essential shopping .

social distancing and hygene is vital.

i see no reason to avoid distance travel .

i wear a snood for convenience.

i hold my breath when anyone is close.

[wydffa]

https://i.imgur.com/7irGMjA.png

first attempt to post the image from the link from my last post

[Backache]

Based on current evidence I would rather have the virus now and develop immunological protection, the bigger risk is if it or another corona virus returns in a more aggressive form.

Don't really agree with this, the usual tendency is for viruses to become less virulent rather than more virulent though there are no guarantees. Plus with the amount of research and brain power going into it the likelihood that at least partially successful treatments will be developed with time is high.

In answer to the original question I very much agree with the broad thrust of the answers that going walking outside is healthy and pretty safe.Spending time in doors with other people far less so.

[sg31]

s[b][/b]
It will be very interesting to see the results of widespread antibody tests.
Based on current evidence I would rather have the virus now and develop immunological protection, the bigger risk is if it or another corona virus returns in a more aggressive form.

The government survey from last week shoewd 7% of the population had antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 in their blood. As far as I'm aware this was the more accurate Roche test. I think this is the best information currently available.

You might prefer to have the virus now rather than later but please be aware that there is no certainty this will give you immunity or if it does, for how long it will last.

[wydffa]

Some evidence in USA of protective immunity in people who have not been infected by SARS- CoV-2

"Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in
40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting crossreactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2."

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii ... %2930610-3

There is similar (preliminary) report from Singapore. I think this thread is now overlapping the" Coronavirus - modelling aspects only please"

[feder1]

It seems that since Monday the local buses have been running past my house so I have been taking a look at how many passengers have been visible. These are mostly double decker buses and they go past regularly.

In the last 6 days I believe that I have seen that almost all buses were completely empty apart from the driver and counted a total of just three people.

You might suggest that I could take a bus tour all over the town in complete safety since I would,nt have any fellow passengers!

[feder1]

I now know why the local buses still have only 1 or 2 passengers on them. I have completely misunderstood the situation.

Transport unions have said on Sky news that buses and trains are for key workers only and the general public must not assume wearing face masks from today will allow non key workers to use them.

The unions suggest that the police should enforce this.