Coronavirus Pandemic

[KlaxonCow]

But, in Winter (for the Northern Hemisphere), there's less sunlight for less time.

I'm pretty sure it's that way in the southern hemisphere, too

It is. I actually thought about that as I wrote it.

I added the "for the Northern Hemisphere" to recognise that this shit doesn't really apply to the Tropics (well, daylight hours does "wobble" a little for them too, but good luck actually noticing the difference - I've been out to Malaysia, and the sunrise / sunset is near enough a perfect 6am-6pm thing. Almost exactly half half. Every single day, all year round).

So I wanted to recognise that location does matter. But you're right, as it applies to the Northern and Southern Hemispheres equally (and, indeed, the season names are altered accordingly - so it's "Summer" in Australia and New Zealand right now, and thus the statement "in Winter, there's less sunlight for less time" also applies to them too, but what they call "Winter" is the opposite side of the year to us Northern Hemisphere-ians).

The caveat was in there for the folks who live near the Equator. Although, sure, you could say I needn't have bothered, because we don't call their seasons "Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter" but just have "dry season" and "wet season" instead.

But, ah, you get the point. As I was writing it, I was thinking "how do I correctly caveat this?". I opted for the "partial truth" approach - what I said was correct BUT, no, it's not the complete picture. The truth - but not the whole truth. It was a point in passing, and I didn't want to waste time and words on a little "side note" that didn't matter too much to the overall point.

(I do find it hilarious, though, that whenever I do try to make these concessions to brevity and conciseness - as I've been directed to do more often - then I get slapped down for inaccuracy. Genuinely, there is a degree to which it's you guys who make the "long posts" long, as whenever I try to not have a big "side note" in there about how the seasons work, for 5 paragraphs, in order to ensure that what I'm saying is read as intended and fully qualified, then I get told off for being inaccurate. And, truth is, a lot of the extra stuff I put in is totally me pre-empting what I know is going to be levelled as a criticism, if I don't deal with it right there.)

[Harlequin]

(I do find it hilarious, though, that whenever I do try to make these concessions to brevity and conciseness - as I've been directed to do more often - then I get slapped down for inaccuracy. Genuinely, there is a degree to which it's you guys who make the "long posts" long, as whenever I try to not have a big "side note" in there about how the seasons work, for 5 paragraphs, in order to ensure that what I'm saying is read as intended and fully qualified, then I get told off for being inaccurate. And, truth is, a lot of the extra stuff I put in is totally me pre-empting what I know is going to be levelled as a criticism, if I don't deal with it right there.)

I am wondering why you think this should be the case for your posts but not for the posts of other forum members.

[PFVA]

Our TV News just announced that 16 children have died in the UK with a more aggressive form of scarlatine (or scarlet fever). Apparently is also in France, Sweden, etc.

We have scarlatine here every so often but it's not that form yet, at least it's what they say.

They are advising that sick people should wear masks, and in certain circumstances people should be responsible and wear them.

[KlaxonCow]

I am wondering why you think this should be the case for your posts but not for the posts of other forum members.

Maybe it is the case for the posts of other forum members, I don't know. Those aren't down to me.

[snaff]

Questions begin to be asked about the novel treatments.

[Harlequin]

I am wondering why you think this should be the case for your posts but not for the posts of other forum members.

Maybe it is the case for the posts of other forum members, I don't know. Those aren't down to me.

I mean that most of the rest of us seem to find a generally acceptable balance between length and clarity.

[gilesgoat]

I am wondering why you think this should be the case for your posts but not for the posts of other forum members.

Maybe it is the case for the posts of other forum members, I don't know. Those aren't down to me.

.. but to be precise on planet Mars the winter is different and on Venus and ...

[KlaxonCow]

I mean that most of the rest of us seem to find a generally acceptable balance between length and clarity.

Then maybe I'm just mentally broken or something. I apologise.

[Harlequin]

I am wondering why you think this should be the case for your posts but not for the posts of other forum members.

Maybe it is the case for the posts of other forum members, I don't know. Those aren't down to me.

.. but to be precise on planet Mars the winter is different and on Venus and ...

Have you been arguing with ChatGPT about mass and weight?

I mean that most of the rest of us seem to find a generally acceptable balance between length and clarity.

Then maybe I'm just mentally broken or something. I apologise.

As are so many of us here. In your case, I wonder about ADHD but that is nothing to apologise for. I want to understand, though, and maybe help a bit with your communication if possible.

[zip accident]

To quickly address Kellogg's rightful criticism, I was simplifying to make the point. Arguably, yes, simplifying to a fault - so I take your rebuke with good grace.

One of the many reasons why I insist on "long posts" is actually because to simplify beyond Aristotle's "necessary complexity" either leads to actual error, or - to correct that error - becomes re-inflated once more with all the exceptions and exemptions that put the missing "necessary complexity" back in. Einstein had a quote for this: "Make things as simple as possible... but no simpler".

For other reasons, the last day or so I've been thinking about focus and depth of field, and I'm wondering (hopefully in a non-accusatory sort of way, though take it as you find it), whether Klaxon Cow's issue is one of too small an apperture giving too much depth of field. I don't typically like photo's with a lot of "bokeh", but I can see that the other end of the spectrum (to totally abuse a metaphore) could be a mistake as well, though I do generally like the few examples I've seen of the works of Ansel Adams.

[KlaxonCow]

Okay, I'm trying to understand that metaphor.

Sharp focus on the subject, but surrounding background information is all blurry?

Hmm, I would have said the opposite, really. You know, attempting "infinite focus" and keeping absolutely everything in the picture sharp - when I probably should, like most people, have a sharp focus on the subject and just allow the "background information" to go blurry. To not pre-empt responses, but actually just allow them to happen - and then I can address what's been said at the time it's said, not try to second guess what folks will focus on beforehand. I could be pre-empting that which never, in fact, is ever questioned and, therefore, adding words that weren't necessary.

I would feel the problem is the reverse. That I have such a "generalist" perspective on things - trying to keep the entire picture in focus - that I lack sharp focus on the subject. Indeed, with everything in focus, nothing is in focus and, sometimes, it's even a damn good question what the subject of the photo might even be (sometimes, even I don't really know, and I'm just "riffing" as I go along).

I feel that the issue is summed up by a quote I quite like: "Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think... there are no little things" (Bruce Barton).

I want the entire picture in focus because, to me, everything in the photo matters. Everything is the subject. There is no "background", as there are no little things.

[zip accident]

Okay, I'm trying to understand that metaphor.

Sharp focus on the subject, but surrounding background information is all blurry?

Nope, you'd sort of expect so, but the smaller the apperture, the longer the range over which things are in focus, also the longer the exposure time needs to be for a given light intensity on the subject.

Hmm, I would have said the opposite, really. You know, attempting "infinite focus" and keeping absolutely everything in the picture sharp - when I probably should, like most people, have a sharp focus on the subject and just allow the "background information" to go blurry. To not pre-empt responses, but actually just allow them to happen - and then I can address what's been said at the time it's said, not try to second guess what folks will focus on beforehand. I could be pre-empting that which never, in fact, is ever questioned and, therefore, adding words that weren't necessary.

I would feel the problem is the reverse. That I have such a "generalist" perspective on things - trying to keep the entire picture in focus - that I lack sharp focus on the subject. Indeed, with everything in focus, nothing is in focus and, sometimes, it's even a damn good question what the subject of the photo might even be (sometimes, even I don't really know, and I'm just "riffing" as I go along).

I feel that the issue is summed up by a quote I quite like: "Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think... there are no little things" (Bruce Barton).

I want the entire picture in focus because, to me, everything in the photo matters. Everything is the subject. There is no "background", as there are no little things.

A wider apperture gives a shorter depth of field (range of distances over which things are in focus), also shorter exposure times. i think we're agreeing more or less on what is going on, it's just the narrowing of apperture that's non-obvious, which is entirely fair if you haven't studied the theory of photography.

[NorthWay]

So we had covid numbers rising slowly for the last months, but that seems like it might have backed off again.
What we do have is full hospitals thanks to covid, several seasonal illnesses spreading rapidly, especially among kids, and masses of injuries from slipping and falling. The hospital staff naturally get their germs delivered directly every day so there is a large number of them on sick leave too.

[KlaxonCow]

That's a large part of why the NHS is in crisis right now.

As I say, I know someone who was in hospital for December. They went in for something else, but tested positive for Covid.

They had at least two Covid outbreaks and one 'flu outbreak on the ward, that I saw during that time. Visiting was restricted to one person - me - and only for a good reason, and only for a short time, and I had to wear PPE throughout. There was the nurses' strikes, there was an ambulance strike, and then, yes, the already under-staffed wards had a lot of staff off, because they would catch whatever Covid / 'flu / cold was going around the wards.

And it's all an atrocious false economy, in that they could have dealt with my friend in a week or two, but it ended up being just over a month in hospital, as things kept being delayed. Waiting for the current illness going round the wards to go away. Waiting for there to be enough staff to do the procedure. It was a month of "we can do it Wednesday" then Wednesday would roll around, and it'd be postponed again.

The problem is this blocks beds. Of which they have too few, thanks to Tory austerity. And, of course, it's not cost-less to the taxpayer to keep someone in hospital.

The whole system is blocked like this. Can't get anyone in the front door, as we can't get people out the back door to make room. Thanks to austerity, social care is basically non-existent now, so there's nowhere to send a lot of these people - or even where there is, it's a lot of work to find somewhere and get them there. It all gums up the pipework.

In a sense, it's a subtle and insidious thing, as they announce money for the NHS, which sounds great. But they've de-funded the peripheral services - like social care, like ambulances, etc. - so it kind of doesn't matter, as the "input" and "output" to the system is broken and everything piles up at the entrances and exits. It's like everyone focuses on the middle and forgets the holistic picture that the NHS is a cog in a larger social machine.

[merman]

The NHS was in crisis BEFORE the pandemic.
The Government’s bad handling of coronavirus made it worse.

38,000 deaths linked to COVID last year.
55,000 excess deaths compared to average, in other words more than a thousand people dying a week that shouldn’t - many of them because of the problems in health and social care.
750,000 extra people now “economically inactive” (unable to work full time) because of long COVID.