- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
commuter Cycle to work to reduce coronavirus risk, says Government adviser
People should cycle to work and avoid public transport if possible to help stop the spread of Covid-19 in the coming months, a Government adviser has said.
Professor Peter Openshaw, a member of the Government’s new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group (Nervtag), urged members of the public to not wait for Government guidance and to act if they are worried about rising Covid cases.
Prof Openshaw told BBC Breakfast: “I think take matters into your own hands. Don’t wait necessarily for Government policy.
"I’m very, very reluctant now to go into crowded spaces because I know that roughly one in 60 people in a crowded space are going to have the virus.
“If you can, cycle to work, don’t go on public transport.
“I think do everything possible in your control to try to reduce transmission. Don’t wait for the Government to change policy.
“The sooner we all act, the sooner we can get this transmission rate down, and the greater the prospect of having a Christmas with our families.”
The professor, who was speaking in a personal capacity, said he feared another lockdown at Christmas if action wasn’t taken immediately, the i newspaper reports.
“We all really, really want a wonderful family Christmas where we can all get back together.
“If that’s what we want, we need to get these measures in place now in order to get transmission rates right down so that we can actually get together and see one another over Christmas,” he said.
His comments come amid increasing pressure on the Government to introduce more public health measures to tackle the spread of coronavirus.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid said this week that new cases could reach 100,000 a day but Downing Street insisted there was still spare capacity in the NHS and that Plan B would only be activated if it came under 'significant pressure'.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 5 sec ago
The outcome in this case being that more people will die because drivers know that endangering other road users will not be punished...
- Tom_77 49 min 39 sec ago
Did a Google image search on the picture at the top of the story, you can buy these from Amazon or eBay - shipped from China by the looks of it. It...
- mctrials23 51 min 22 sec ago
Are you sure about that? That sounds... unlikely. Thats 100km of height ie. 100,000m3 of atmosphere. Are you sure thats not just 1m3.
- Rendel Harris 55 min 59 sec ago
Listing "not tubeless" as a bad point for a non-tubeless tyre is a bit peculiar, it's not for people who want a tubeless tyre. It seems rather like...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 11 min ago
Agreed, and one would have thought that Girmay as the first black African to win a Tour stage and the first African of any colour to take a Tour...
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 14 min ago
Can we tone down the hearing loss bollocks please. It makes you sound like the daily mail of cycling.
- quiff 1 hour 31 min ago
Don't think we're going to see these in the peleton any time. In fact, showing how it can also be used to slice your frankfurter is probably more...
- quiff 1 hour 33 min ago
I would quibble "designed to exclude", though it may be an unintended effect - I would say the snobbery is also firmly tongue in cheek.
- quiff 1 hour 43 min ago
Maybe not any more, but it seems to be inspired by crap Halfords mountain bikes of the nineties.
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 49 min ago
Related topic of "School Streets": https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/more-bristol-schools-added-list-9798050
Add new comment
40 comments
I'm sorry, I think I've wandered into the wrong forum. Should I be using Muc-Off or Swarfega to wash my hands when I come in from my Covid "commute" to Zoom / Teams? And will wearing a full face helment protect me on the bus?
You need
https://www.vyzrtech.com/products/biovyzr
I suppose when you can't afford to buy a space-suit...
Not sure, but I do know that you have to sing 'Daisy Daisy' twice while you're doing it.
I've been experimenting with a couple of choruses of this.
Typing or uttering a sentence like that when the country is in complete meltdown is tragicomic. You probably think that the covid-related deaths are an invention of the media. Enjoy your wonderful christmas and thank your for the reassurance based on your extensive data.
Complete meltdown is a bit strong, unless you mean generally, rather than specifically due to covid. Covid cases currently 3rd in importance to my mind.
1) global warming
2) food production and supply issues
3) covid
4) economy
5) increasingly authoritarian legislation
You forgot the most important problem : overpopulation.
Too difficult to even mention let alone propose solutions.
Not really. Ensure that women have full access to reproductive health care and full bodily autonomy, and foster a cultural acceptance of equality.
Also ensure that women can be truly financially independent at all stage of life
Providing unfettered access to education at all stages of life contributes massively towards this.
Given the choice, most women don't want massive families (not my opinion, bourne out by numerous studies.)
In "the west" we are experiencing lowering fertility rates - This may be partly due to environmental factors, however there is also the point that many people are now opting for a child-free life.
UN figures suggest that as more of the world's population are being lifted from poverty, educated and gaining access to reproductive health, population growth is slowing to an estimated peak of around 11b in 2100. A 2020 Lancet study suggested around 9b in the mid-60s followed by decline.
So, population clearly has an impact on gross consumption, and it is very difficult if not impossible to control directly (unless your name is hugo drax...). That is not the same as it being an insurmountable problem.
But the only thing we can impact is birth rate, because no one is suggesting bumping people off, the problem is that in developing nations life expectancy is rapidly increasing, therefore even with birth rates at replacement levels (2 per woman, not some sort of one out one in permit system) global population increases as older age groups reach the same numbers that have always existed in younger age groups.
Therefore any action on overpopulation, targetting birth rates can only have a significant impact 40+ years from now.
Of course many developed countries will be reluctant to attamept to reduce birth rates as they are generally having less than one child per woman, and the worry about falling population and the problems that brings in the future.
I reckon it might well be the other way round.
Those countries with falling birth rates and shrinking working age population are likely to weather the upcoming job automation storm more easily than those countries with increasing populations of working age.
China and Japan are both in the former camp so will be investing heavily in automative (word?) technology meaning that progress is likely to be rapid.
but having a shrinking working age population is not compatiable with supporting a growing retired population.
Unless of course we revisit what the purpose of automation is. Is it to produce the same amount of stuff with less human effort, and so enabling more free time in the populace, or is it to produce more stuff with the same amount of human effort and thereby make more profits for the shareholders/landowners?
Because as far as I can tell the massive efficiency gains in manufacturing and data handling have not resulted in any reduction in working hours. So we are either wasting this potentially free time with "busy work" or just increased production and consumption.
It is if the working age population becomes more productive.
Automation delivers exactly that.
The productivity gains in manufacturing may not have reduced hours per worker but they have reduced overall hours worked per unit produced.
The number of workers has fallen as a result of automation while output has been maintained or improved.
In a country with a falling working age population that's exactly what you need.
If producing and consuming more stuff that we don't need, and using more resources and creating more polution to do so is considered an improvement.
Because everything we produce is unnecessary?
Food? Medicine? Housing?
It sounds like we're into the sphere of judging, so I'll propose KFC, Echinacea and Barratt Homes for room 101. Of course not having a command economy I'm unlikely to prevail over the market demand for these and the people who benefit from selling them.
Jesting aside (and ignoring "downcountry bikes" which are clearly an idea in search of raison d'etre) I think there is a point in that there is nowhere an ideally free market. States (and larger groups) have a raft of measures to try to control what, how much and how we produce. How that all works is well above my capacities; but they do so it's never inappropriate to question a state's priorities, their incentives, subsidies, rules etc.
Else why did we bother "taking back control"?
Hey - don't be dissing Down country!
I've got it - helmets!
helmets to reduce population? I think cars might be more effective.
Only if you put the raincover on, and even then...
I've been number-crunching the latest hospital Covid admissions and so far, there haven't been any instances of Covid patients wearing bike helmets which I find to be incontrovertible proof that bike helmets also provide outstanding protection against Covid.
How super, no matter what the facts and the situation in two months' time you're going to do exactly as you please. Exactly the sort of selfishness that allows the virus to spread and kill people - just because your household has dodged the bullet, it's still killed over 140,000 people in the UK.
P.S. Please look up the meaning of the word "prescient" - it doesn't mean what you think it does - and how to spell it.
No, people slated you for you admitting that you fat shamed individuals; and that you thought that that in any way helped address the obesity crisis that we do, indeed, face.
A couple of days ago you slated me for pointing out that the UK is an overweight, sickly nation. The reason there have been so many deaths is directly due to this obesity crisis, so you are literally having your cream cake and eating it. I haven't "dodged a bullet" because I look after myself. P.s. Prescient means exactly what I wrote (I.e "have the foresight to" in this context), although I did accidentally miss out a letter - so you're more correct that normal.[/quote]
"People should have the foresight to the rising number of infections", yeah that makes sense. What you are presumably trying to say is that people should take note of the rising number of infections, and that's not what prescient means.
If people who look after themselves are not affected by Covid, why was I, a former rugby player with a BMI of 23 who cycles hundreds of kilometres a week, laid flat on my back for a week by it? Why was my triathlete mate with a body fat of 9% even worse?
I think "cognisant" would be a more natural fit in your context - i.e. people should be aware of the current trend in infections, rather than that they should have some foreknowledge of future events.
So don't you understand what "directly" means either?
Obesity, along with other underlying health conditions, significantly alters the probability of needing hospital treatment and death when infected with covid. But it's not the direct cause of 140,000 deaths. No covid, no excess deaths of obese people beyond the regrettably high toll in normal times.
In fact, obesity doesn't cause death. It just makes a lot of actual causes of death more likely (heart disease etc).
The thing I don't understand is why I'm so often surprised when right wing people fall back on the "I'm alright Jack" foundation. I seldom agree with Rich_cb but at least he has a go at some logic.
Proof that even you can't be bothered to read your own drivel.
Perhaps we should all follow suit.
So the fact that you wrote the opposite of what you meant, and that it was untrue, ought to go uncorrected?
"Typing or uttering a sentence like that when the country is in complete meltdown is tragicomic. You probably think that the covid-related deaths are an invention of the media. "
Cobblers mate. What melt down? As much as there was a lock down. Bugger all. Yes some restrictions then and some unpleasant situations now but don't over egg the whole thing please.
Of course you are completely entitled to yopuir opinion but so are others. I for one see the main issue being that we have a health service struggling to cope with normal medical situations. For that reason alone many of us make precautionary decisions.
Pages