jflan wrote:
thanks for taking a look at the article. i agree too bad it doesn't come from a more recognized source, but as a physician i do agree with her logic and conclusions. the risks posed to athletes in a typical multisport race are minimal. is it even worth it to further minimize the minuscule? i realize that USAT feel they need to "do something" in light of the situation, but masks on bike and run are absolutely ridiculous. how about scuba masks on the swim with in line viral filters? from the article: "The principle is viral exposure over an extended period of time. In all these cases, people were exposed to the virus in the air for a prolonged period (hours). Even if they were 50 feet away (choir or call center), even a low dose of the virus in the air reaching them, over a sustained period, was enough to cause infection and in some cases, death.
Social distancing rules are really to protect you with brief exposures or outdoor exposures. In these situations there is not enough time to achieve the infectious viral load when you are standing 6 feet apart or where wind and the infinite outdoor space for viral dilution reduces viral load. The effects of sunlight, heat, and humidity on viral survival, all serve to minimize the risk to everyone when outside."
like i said, the plastic porto-potty handle is probably your biggest risk at race.
But the article also has this final paragraph, in bold:
"As we are allowed to move around our communities more freely and be in contact with more people in more places more regularly, the risks to ourselves and our family are significant. Even if you are gung-ho for reopening and resuming business as usual, do your part and wear a mask to reduce what you release into the environment. It will help everyone, including your own business."
How do you interpret that paragraph? Wear a mask pre and post race, but not in the race?
Last edited by:
Mark Lemmon: May 8, 20 19:30