Reorte

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.

Thanks, I didn't think I'd imagined it, but it was bizarrely hard to find mention of it online. A contender for the thread, or not one that should really count? IIRC they were outright given the boiler (making one out of scrap would be a bad idea, to put it mildly) and the engine (no chance of building one out of scrap, or finding one). Won too IIRC, whereas my bets were on the diesel.

Not if their actions are based on a rapid drop that's actually tailed off before restrictions are eased. It's possible that I'm being too pessimistic, since a logarithmic decline will do that anyway and we may simply be seeing that, with a bit of noise on top that makes it look higher, but I'd like some effort going in to addressing whether that's all it is, and if it's not just that, then why have they stopped.

Anyone else get a bit annoyed by how much the reports often seem to lag? Yes, the most reliable data is a few weeks old, but we've had "cases might just be declining" well into the period where they were pretty certainly dropping rapidly - the lagging data eventually confirmed that, and now that the decline seems to be stalling on the latest figures all the talk is about dropping rapidly.

A silly reply this but I can definitely remember a Scrapheap Challenge episode where they built one (think it was one of the specials, since it was three teams, doing steam vs diesel vs electric, although the electric suffered from having to be battery powered). That might qualify, IIRC all three teams were given a bogie off, erm, something as the basis of their build. I've not managed to find any sign of it from a bit of Googling, but I'm sure I'm not imagining it (it wasn't the rocket train or muscle-powered train one).

Not so much mixed messages but the sitution not being 100% straightforward. I'd be pretty suspicious if every report and story was 100% unambiguously positive or negative, that never happens in reality.

Definitely, it always seemed a bit of an odd one to miss in the original version, since it's such a short branch.

That's just down to the angle I took the picture from. Here's another one trying to roughly match your first picture:

Ah, but they've lost track of lots of things that have been sent to Mars! (looking good for Perseverance though, getting quite excited by this one!)

It's the 1970s (I think), so rather reduced, just the single line. It's available on Steam as "Woodhead Electric Railway in Blue."

Doesn't NASA release everything from these missions (scientific data-wise, although not every single routine status message and so on)? Of course I expect them to fish through what to put in press releases before they've assembled everything for release, but I doubt there are tonnes of pictures they're selectively being "allowed" to release from. How much bandwidth is available for getting data back all the way from Mars in the first place?

Going a bit off-topic but the scientific community is generally the first to admit that it knows nothing for certain, and spends a lot of effort in trying to figure out just how uncertain it is. Meanwhile those in power have to deal with how to work with those uncertainties - do you go with a high degree of confidence about a three week result, or a rather lesser one (but still not completely random, because of general understanding of how vaccines work, and presumably input from those who know these specific ones) of a longer period that might produce better results? By all accounts they've made the right decision, but it wasn't a zero risk one (and in these sorts of circumstances sometimes you have to do that).

I may be wrong here but my belief is that it was given as three weeks because that's what it had been tested at. Therefore they could say for sure what three weeks would do but not twelve, even if twelve was likely to be as or more effective.

The Apollo landers also look considerably more stable, although it'll depend where the centre of mass actually is on the boosters by the time they're close to landing (presumably close to the bottom, with low remaining fuel and the motor being the heaviest part, which will make it a little easier than it looks like it could be).

There's a later (BR Blue era) version of that route which includes Glossop. Downside to that one is reports of buggy scenarios, and I've had it crash on me.

Interesting. Local to me the rates have only been declining slowly, but I don't think there's that sort of testing going on. I could be wrong. The general figures will still map the overall trends, and hospital and death figures won't be affected by the level of testing anywhere near as much, so they're arguably the ones to watch for the time when things get a bit more back to normal, although obviously they lag cases. On the very local level often small numbers can make very significant changes to the rate per 100,000, so I've often wondered whether they're heavily influenced by very localised outbreaks amongst very specific groups (managed to get in to a few families living together, or an office, or some idiots having a party rather than indicating a higher generalised distribution in those areas compared to surrounding ones).