Reorte

The Green lobby's already got a look-in, which is where the re-examining is coming from. Personally I find that sad to say, they're too extreme. Hearts in the right place but to them it's "coal==bad, end of." No consideration of overall amount, practical alternatives, impact of having to import coal (alternatives for making steel on an industrial scale are not yet ready) and so on. We've reached the point where apart from the remaining amount used in power generation, coal consumption in the UK is insignificant so trying to stamp out the rest is entirely ideological (unless they just hate coal for its own sake - can't really see that personally, but I feel that way about a lot of what they like so fair's fair I suppose). Coal's an easy target though, even at small levels. Much easier to attack that, knowing they'll get support from those bought in to the simple message, rather than moving on to other, larger contributions, like population levels and concrete and cement production. They'd have a point if this coal was all going to go into a new power station, but it isn't.

A little behind in some places - my parents are over 70 but only getting their first dose on Friday, but that's not far off. They could've had one a little earlier but it would've involved a 100 mile each way trip (in their shoes I might've done it just for a change of scene).

Yes, I know there's a lot of snow in places but it's really not that hard to remove it from your car. Certainly more should be brushed off than this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-55950942

Reminds me of the view out of my bedroom window this morning, frozen Peak Forest Canal with a bit of snow on it.

I agree with you on that, that should be a good reason for not being able to do jury duty. Yes, it places the burden of it more on other people than normal, which is something to generally be avoided, but these times are a reasonable justification for that.

We can't really put trials on hold until it's all over. There's both risk and necessity to consider (no different from anything else really), it's not just a case of "same level of risk, same response is appropriate." So the same reason as supermarkets are open but bingo halls aren't.

Can't say I'm the most enthusiastic about the current H&S environment (but then again I'm not working in close proximity to fast-moving heavy machines, which might change my views a bit if I was) but having to walk down a tunnel and possibly dive into the 6' very much sounds too far to the opposite extreme to me! Having toilets flushed on me doesn't really appeal either (having to have retention tanks and retrofitting them always sounded like a definite positive change), perhaps I'm softer than I thought.

That's a tricky question because it depends on exactly what danger you're worried about. I've never been all that bothered about the risk personally, so I'd have been happy to go to one all along from that perspective, it's the risk of then spreading it further that would be more likely to put me off.

So we benefit from supplying some of it (including for domestic use) but aren't changing the overall global net amount used, "forced" is all very well but you've still got to get there, which isn't guaranteed even if plausible and you still need to get to that point, and the whole net zero thing quite frankly smacks of that seeking 100% problem mentioned earlier. Whilst the "green" lobby's motivations are worthwhile I honestly fear the world they want to create as much as the one they say they're trying to prevent.

Now they're saying it's going to be "re-examined"

Closest I got to that was the Grasse to Cannes branch (not long reopened at the time).

Not sure what you're getting at there - I did say it's worth checking the labs. It's the assumption that they must be to blame, or at least likely to be involved, despite such things having happened naturally on countless occasions throughout history and beyond that I'm criticising. Always worth checking anything like a lab in the area where it started but that's not the same as thinking it couldn't have happened without human intervention. This tendency to find someone or something to blame has always existed, whether it's shadowy governments or gods or whatever uncontrollable higher power is most likely to be chosen at the time - someone must be responsible for things going wrong rather than accept that the world is a fundamentally unpredictable place.

Mutations that enable viruses to cross species do happen. The puzzle for me is why some seem to need to have an explanation like a lab as part of the story. Doesn't mean that it isn't possible, but a new disease appearing and having quite an impact is hardly a new experience for the human race, and it's been happening long before labs existed to study viruses. Why not the assumption that it's just another natural pandemic, of the sort that's always happened from time to time, unless there's good evidence to the contrary? Sure, it makes sense to check out any possible human involvement, but that's not the same as taking a strong position that was the cause.

The problem in some quarters (and this isn't just confined to environmental issues) is people who take an "anything short of 100% change is useless" attitude. Coal is very much one of these (the imminent domestic coal ban is testimony to that, when the amount used these days is negligible - I've still seen people defend it by pointing at the pre-smokeless zone smogs), but we see it everywhere these days. Everything painted in simple black and white terms, and then those criteria are applied blindly. All going for 100% usually means is that you've made the job orders of magnitude more difficult for no real additional gain.

My approach to modelling is "do some whenever I'm in the mood", which can mean long periods without doing anything. My current excuse is that I'm planning on getting the cellar useable and using that, and in order to fit I'll have to start again (I started with no regard to actually having space to do what I want!) I think the lack of shows is affecting it, I'm usually inspired into the mood for doing something when I get home from a show.

Mentally not bad to be honest. I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere pleasant so that I can get out for a very pleasant walk or bike ride (very much a fair weather cyclist on the odd times I go though, so not at the moment!) without stretching the rules, and work is about as normal as can be. No home schooling to have to somehow fit in either. I appreciate I'm in a pretty fortunate situation here. There's also still the usual stuff that always gets me very down, so combined with Covid having much less personal impact it's not really standing out. I might feel differently about it if I was normally cheerful, optimistic, and happy with the world, or was stuck in a city centre flat (I've a lot of sympathy for people in situations like that).

Talking of mining engineers there's the classic English translation of De Re Metallica (Elizabethan-era book on mining, detailing most of the knowledge of the day, full of numbered illustrations - a historically immensely valuable work - how many other industries of that time do we have anywhere near that level of detail for?) by mining engineer, Herbert Hoover. I think he might've had another job at some point too.

Which is why it's good to practice doing the opposite. And there's a time and place for leaping to conclusions too - raging torrent in front of you that you might be able to jump across, charging bear behind you - I'll leap to the conclusion that it might well be charging at me! When and where it's necessary and when and where it isn't is another skill to be learned through practice.

That's very true, so I'd saythe more we practice doing that the better we'll become at it, and if we limit our attempts to only entertainment or those examples where we're personally involved we won't have had much practice.

I have no problem with people speculating and questioning anything and everything, just as long as it doesn't interfere with the offical investigation. The more you do that the more you learn. What's the alternative, anything under discussion in the news is off limits? Know your place, don't question your betters? Human beings are supposedly intelligent and curious creatures, it's in our nature to speculate. That's what got us out of caves. It's a fundamental part of us, and the more we do it the better we get at it; those who'll never say anything and meekly accept are coming from the same place as those who latch on to a crackpot theory, they're just picking different sources to accept without question. And the latter might be rather less prone to it if they'd been brought up to think and understand more, which can only be done by encouraging questioning and pondering. Asking for proof (or at least convincing reasons to give the idea the time of day) is good, that's exactly the right way to go about it. I'm all for encouraging thinking and rational deduction over trying to stifle it because Someone Else Knows Better.

I'd rather have people coming up with irritating insane theories than have a general "shut up and leave the thinking to those in charge and then accept whatever they say."

Is there any basis for the lab theory other than casting around trying to think up of possible causes? You don't need a lab to start a pandemic, human history is littered with them, from long before we had the slightest idea what caused them, let alone labs that can tinker around with things on the scale of a virus.

Over-simplifying it a bit but "blame" carries an implication of "it's all your fault", and possibly punish the person then carry on as usual (which might be appropriate sometimes, but isn't always). People make mistakes sometimes, that's being human, but putting the blame on them (instead of just merely identifying that as one of the chain of causes) can look too much like searching for scapegoats. Blame is appropriate in response to a deliberate effort to break things, or when it's not deliberate but someone's standards are a long way below what they should be. Preventing similar issues is something I've gotten a little sceptical about, although again it's dependent upon the circumstances. What happens when you've got millions of very unlikely things that could go wrong? And that's life really, can't do anything without that being the case. Each one isn't too likely but there's a not minute chance at least one or two will show up eventually. Sometimes people seem to think we've got more control than we really have. Note that this certainly isn't an argument for not making any effort at all!

Possibly I would. But it's not something that it's possible to generalise on, it's a case-by-case basis. I neither want to have to dance with death nor be patronised. Just working in an office I'm somewhat away from the riskier jobs anyway, and without experience of them I can't say for certain what my view would be. That said any employer inclined to not bother is probably going to be one that's very much too close to the opposite extreme and thus one I wouldn't want to be anywhere near. edit to add: This usually turns out to be a touchy subject...

It's not perfect and I often find myself thinking I'd prefer to live in a somewhat less rigid world - there are occasions where I'd honestly prefer the risk, and not just because I want to act like an idiot. On the other hand there's no arguing against a lot of the good it's done either and various practices which I'm glad are now history, and hope they stay there (and there are still occasions where we see things and wonder how on earth that could still be OK). I think it's more interesting to discuss the overall environment and attitude rather than the law itself, and how it is what it is. For example as has already been mentioned we sometimes hear of nonsense justified under health and safety that the law doesn't actually require. The easy response is to handwave it away - not what the law says, but that overlooks the environment and attitudes it's created, even where that isn't the intent. And it's no surprise that asking people to be more attentive to physical risk is going to also result in a reluctance to face legal risk, and hence possibly go too far.