Reorte

The levelling off of the rate of decline of cases was a worry but it seems to have started going down again (although Monday's always been a low number day) - perhaps the effect of vaccinations are starting to show up in the numbers, now that a noticeable proportion of the population's been vaccinated?

What's sensible IMO depends anyway, there's no way you can define a hard and fast rule. They've said in the past that getting in to the car to go a short distance is OK, yet since I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere where there are plenty of pleasant places to walk and cycle straight from my doorstep I'd feel that using the car at all could not be justified for me, but on the other hand if you have to drive a bit anyway then a bit of leeway wouldn't seem unreasonable.

Higher than now, lower than pre-pandemic is a definite possibility, but it's too early to know how things will really shake out.

There's a lot of variation from place to place. Where I used to live I knew my neighbours on either side, and that wasn't at that much more than a "Hello" and a bit of a chat level. Where I am now there's a pretty good community spirit in the row I live in (there's only one house that isn't, and they'll still say hello when we pass). I can understand being unwilling to ask for assistance, people generally like to be able to do things for themselves; it took a bit of persuading before my next door neighbour would let me cut her lawn for her, even though she struggled a bit with the mower, has a tiny patch of lawn, and I could cut it when doing mine even without having to unplug my mower. In the end there was an exchange of a rail oil lamp from the clutter at the back of her garage (must get some info from here on what it was for someday) for a lifetime of mowing, although I would've done it for nothing (and said so).

Right now we can't be sure at all. Whilst it's not really practical to wait until everything is 100% certain before planning everything it makes more sense to plan on the basis something can go ahead, with the end possibly being in sight, with tests that might help things go ahead that would otherwise be too uncertain. Come the time it may be that there's no point in the test, or it may be that the situation is still too uncertain for the event to be able to go ahead after all, and whilst I don't like being over-cautious this does seem like a situation where it's better to plan for something that may not be needed than not plan for it and it turns out it is.

Sure, but it's still a hell of a lot of data to return. After a bit of digging I found a value of 2 mb/s between the rover and the orbiters, and I think the equivalent back to Earth but I didn't find a definitive answer for that one, which is a pretty impressive rate considering the distance, even with the size of the receivers back on Earth. I'd also read that the raw data that went in to that video was 30 GB.

Wouldn't a younger population not so heavily affected by issues like obesity explain most of it?

Just drops the cost of the labour even more, particularly in a country that can roll back to "work if you want any food and shelter." Then it's effectively cost-free labour (since you've got to provide food and shelter anyway), cheaper than fancy machines unless there's a demand for that labour from other sectors. But I'm pretty darned biased against the whole idea of large-scale automation, so I'm probably just looking for reasons I hope it'll go wrong.

Have now. The original plan was to record the sound during the descent too, that's what didn't work.

That's the nature of debate these days, even at the highest level. Take one very over-simplified extreme, treat everyone with some other common ground (e.g. not being 100% aligned with that extreme) as equivalent and at the other extreme - simple pigeonholing, and because that other extreme is clearly scum they're all clearly scum and therefore there's no need to consider anything they say or even act with basic politeness towards any of them. No room for middle ground that doesn't have room for a one size fits all approach, no room for dealing with competing arguments that both have various degrees of merit, which may shift the balance from which with even a fairly small change of circumstance (trying to do that gets you labelled as "confused" by both sides, probably because they get confused by having to think instead of ticking off items on their checklist to make up their minds). I know I'm a bit like that myself about various issues!

I know some don't appreciate that but that's not quite my point. Each one of us are the others any measure is designed to protect. The problem with just the "protect others" line alone is that it makes it incredibly easy - far too easy - to simply dismiss any disagreement as selfish, no matter how remote the risk (note that I'm speaking generally there, not in relation to any specific current measures for the current situation). "Protecting others" without considering what all the "others" actually want. Isn't that something we usually reserve for children? Whilst I'm not religious I do go by "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you," and I'd add the additional bit "if you were in their shoes" (e.g. with Covid by considering what I would expect if I was in a high risk group). It's selfish to not consider whether your actions might harm someone, but it's also selfish to go too far telling others what their actions should be to stop harming you, "you" in this case being, well, from the perspective of every individual. To take the extremes, if someone wants to run the risk of juggling hand grenades - that's up to them as far as I'm concerned, but it would be very wrong to put others at that risk. But at the other extreme it's also wrong to use "protecting others" to justify a measure against the very far-fetched. Sensible reality lies somewhere in between (and there's no provable, objective point as to where). So masks on buses right now - fair enough. But not forevermore.

I should probably add that I wouldn't mind seeing the end of "I'll come in to work and soldier on, it's just a cold." Separately, we should also be aware of the potential risks of not giving our immune systems something to deal with every now and then.

When there's a sufficient risk to be concerned about, such as now, then I'd agree with you. I've given various reasons why I don't like the whole idea though. You may not agree with them - fair enough, we've all got different opinions, but they shouldn't be hard to understand even if you disagree. Remember we're all those others to everyone else, and "I don't feel the need for that level of protection from others" is a perfectly valid position too. We don't go to either extreme - "don't give a damn about anyone else" is obviously an unacceptable extreme, but the other one of "do everything imaginable to protect the most concerned" isn't much better - where does a reasonable line lie? The "it's about protecting others" response though makes it rather hard to see a reasonable line, it's too easily used to justify anything and try to shut down all further discussion. As for other countries, we're talking about what might become the norm here. When it comes to "no reason not to", I usually come from "need a good reason to." Local customs can be a good reason to, but the "no reason not to" again makes it far too easy to push anything. Do we want to be so fearful of others that such measures are the norm? IMO the risks of that greatly outweigh the (in normal circumstances) risks of catching a cold.

Still think it sounds somewhat dehumanising and isolating as well as well out of proportion to the level of risk in normal times. Not the sort of world I want to live in, not at all. We really shouldn't be viewing our fellow human beings as just a risk and / or a nuisance, something to avoid or protect ourselves from. It's only in specific circumstances, e.g. covid, or some parts of hospitals that I find the idea tolerable. Like I said earlier, all very dystopian. The (normal times) risk of serious illness via such means is miniscule and minor illness not serious enough to justify such a change to how we all view each other.

You don't need something to have something to hide to dislike being watched all the time, to find this distrusting, suspicious, "you're being watched, you're being recorded" world very unpleasant. I understand that some people aren't bothered by it but some of us are very much and find it deeply, deeply unpleasant. Law breakers just cover themselves up anyway, apart from the really stupid ones (although there seems to be a plentiful supply of those).

Good point - I've changed my mind, more masks!

Whilst they have to respond to the data, so nothing can be fixed in stone, they also need to have some sort of plan, even if it's likely to change (there's the saying "no plan survives contact with the enemy"). People don't like uncertainty though and are prone to treating everything others say, especially those in power, as being 100% definitive statements of fact or intention, and then attack them when they're not.

I'd rather have the occasional cold TBH. I'd also worry about what effect the lack of exposure to such routine non-serious illnesses might have on the immune system, whether it needs to have something to deal with every now and then. I agree about the dystopian future being imminent - as far as I'm concerned we're already on our way in to it, but for unrelated reasons everyone else usually disagrees with me about

Without a specific problem to deal with (e.g. what we have right now) I find the idea of masks forevermore a rather depressing idea, the sort of thing that would've once belonged to a dystopian vision of the future; under more normal circumstances the risk of spreading or catching something serious enough to justify such measures doesn't justify them. We shouldn't get used to the idea of routinely viewing our fellow human beings as things to be avoided and a threat to be contained; ever-decreasing ordinary human contact was something that was bothering me even pre-Covid. Justifiable during Covid but not something to be sought a moment longer than necessary IMO.

Impressive stuff, pity the audio failed (that's two missions now which had a mic but they didn't get anything from AFAIK, although they say they've got one working now). It looks impressive enough in its own right but it's interesting in other ways - that they've got the bandwidth (or good compression algorithms) to get high quality video back from that distance. Looking forward to seeing what the helicopter does, and what the rover finds when it gets to the delta.

I don't think that the stats are misleading. The first results I got back from doing a search is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307854 I've only read the abstract but it paints a picture of a risk that, whilst certainly not zero, isn't massively concerning either for those not in high risk groups. I certainly agree that the "I'm immortal until I have a near brush with death" attitude exists, just not that it's really applicable here (and, going off topic, why it's good to get hurt - not seriously - when very young - falling off the bike and so on - that develops the risk-averse instincts at an age where falling doesn't hit as hard).

The government took some chances with vaccines but I think it's also an example of making your own luck, and an illustration of why you sometimes it's better to take a bit of a chance than wait for more solid information. By spreading the bets over so many developing vaccines it was inevitable some would work, some wouldn't, some money would be wasted, but I don't think you could get a clearer case of a situation where best value for money shouldn't be the priority.

No-one's exempt from all sorts of other risks that might prove very serious if they're unlucky but the probability of them is low enough we don't worry about them. That's not the illusion of immortality in youth, it's just life. It is fair to say that the young, without any complicating conditions, are at a low enough risk from Covid - low enough, not zero, that they shouldn't be worried about it personally. Yes, there will be some severe cases, already have been, that's inevitable in a population of many millions, just as there are with diseases we've lived with all our lives and don't generally worry about. Accepting a low level of risk and not being concerned about it is not considering yourself immortal.

The "yourself" message might very well be counterproductive when the risk most is low - we're only really worried about the overall spread because it also reaches those who are at a much higher risk. At any rate I'd find it rather patronising and excessive personally speaking; I'm not in an at risk group so it's all in the level of risk that doesn't move me; I take care for others, not myself.

MSOA level I've had a big jump (I think, not exactly sure which I'm in, right on the boundary, so good idea not to look at that one ) Local authority-wise I'm in High Peak, which could be levelling off but it's looked like doing that several times on the way down.