Blackcurrant

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blackcurrant Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The problem is the infill, which extends beyond > > the party wall and across the boundary but only > by > > a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was > a > > sensible thing to do from the builder's point > of > > view (it would have been daft to leave a huge > > maintenance gap), but doing it without consent > was > > a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues > > should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related. > > > > The real problem here is ending up in a legal > > dispute over something fairly minor with a > > neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on > > quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors > > potentially aggravating things. I hope they > sort > > it out. > > The new extension should have been built away from > the boundary line leaving sufficient space for > construction/maintenance/ventilation. First > extension wins and can build up to the party wall > line, second extension needs to build sufficiently > back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall > and remodelling of existing extension to attach to > new party wall ... not gonna happen > > Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with > glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding > moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to > infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as > damage will only be noticed when penetrates > through to interior! It's standard practice to attach dormers, with or without a new raised masonry party wall. In this case consent was given to build on the party wall, but the existing dormer was slightly short of it, leading to the problem gap. Infill doesn't have to be structural. It could be soundproofing or insulation. But the top needs to be properly weatherproofed or rain will trickle in. A good roofer might have fixed this issue before it ended up in the hands of lawyers. Lots of sleepless nights on both sides I suspect.

The problem is the infill, which extends beyond the party wall and across the boundary but only by a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a sensible thing to do from the builder's point of view (it would have been daft to leave a huge maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related. The real problem here is ending up in a legal dispute over something fairly minor with a neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort it out.

On Andrew Marr today, the Oxford university vaccine scientist who has developed a vaccine for testing said her previous vaccine against the MERS coronavirus gave a much stronger and longer lasting response than the infection itself. So if you've had covid, you're now partially resistant but it's still worth getting the vaccine when it becomes available. Herd immunity unlikely to work without the vaccine.

Artclub Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I keep reading scientists saying that they don't > know if you are immune after having Covid19. > Now, I'm just wondering, if you don't have some > immunity after it, how will a vaccine work? > Hopefully someone with proper knowledge can > explain it to me. > I've had it and it was brutal. The uncertainty is over the degree of immunity, not whether it exists at all. If you've had covid or a vaccine, you'll have some resistance and would be more likely to have mild symptoms if infected in the future. It's possible we'll have effective antiviral drugs before a vaccine. They would also make the disease less deadly.

George Orwell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feel free to call me a cynic but . . in my view > the ONLY reason the government is not advising the > wearing of masks by the public is that as a > country we don't have enough. Yes I think the government and WHO both advised the public against wearing masks for exactly that reason. Both need to update the guidelines. If governments see masks as a way of helping to end lockdown, it's inevitable there will be a policy change and universal use quite soon. In Lombardy in Italy people face fines or prison if they go out in public without masks. Expect similar here in due course.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please don't draw conclusions from those countries > where masks are compulsory. Take Austria for > example, much lower population density, smaller > population, more rural, loads more testing, follow > the rules?. All will have an impact, as well as > communication campaign and the speed measures were > put in force. Do you remember when it was thought > that Latin/Norther Europeans may be more > susceptible? I've just had a look at the stats > and it is difficult to drawn conclusions beyond > Austria and Germany have done things better, but > Switzerland where you would expect to be similar > is several times worse. Sweeping generalisations > of course. How about a paper published in Nature? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 I don't understand the antipathy towards masks. What's the downside? They cost almost nothing and do no harm, yet there's plenty of evidence they reduce R0 for coronavirus.

just_browsing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to chip in as know it's gone a little > off-question, but prompted by previous post as I'm > not as convinced by the linked article and the > specific point on South Korea. It is not as if the > only difference between South Korea and Italy is > mask-wearing. South Korea did really impressive > and comprehensive testing and tracing, as did some > of the other Asian countries whose trajectory has > been similar. Correlation doesn't mean causation > basically. Look at Germany, the European country > which has, along with Iceland, done the most > testing and tracing as far as I can see, and where > the number of deaths is significantly lower than > Italy, Spain, France and UK. > > Personally, I'm just waiting for official WHO/UK > advice to change, if it does, and sorry again as I > know this is about purchasing masks, on which > there might be a distinction between "proper" PPE > ones that those on the frontline need and could > still be in short supply vs more basic (but > potentially, subject to evidence, still useful > especially in terms of not spreading one's own > germs) which, as others have said, seem to be > available or makeable. > > Essentially, completely agree people should be > able to get and wear masks if they want them, in a > way that doesn't deprive those on the frontline, > while of course needing to be careful of the risks > identified by others - their potential as germ > accumulators and false security lullers. look at European countries where mask wearing is compulsory (Czechia: total 163 deaths) or compulsory in shops (Austria: total 393 deaths). For comparison, total official deaths in UK stands at 12,107, making the UK one of the most badly hit countries in the world. Part of the blame for that lies with the government's herd immunity strategy, which caused them to delay any serious social distancing. But in the fullness of time I think we'll discover absence of masks played a significant role too.

https://www.fast.ai/2020/04/13/masks-summary/ The graph in this link - if correct - suggests that simply making mask wearing compulsory would have halted the pandemic and made lockdown unnecessary. Masks are more effective at protecting others than protecting the wearer and appear to explain the very different trajectory in places like S. korea. No downside, minimal cost, nothing to lose by trying it.

It's still socially unacceptable for British people to wear masks, even though the evidence for benefit is overwhelming. The mask fiasco reminds me of the "keep calm and carry on" attitude most people had back in february, when anyone taking any kind of defensive action was told "there's no point panicking". https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/04/why-wear-a-mask-may-be-our-best-weapon-to-stop-coronavirus?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WhatsApp "A Food and Drug Administration analysis of the flu estimates that if 50% of the population uses a mask, virus transmission is reduced by half. If 80% of the population uses a mask, the virus is ?essentially eliminated?."

If you can get to a Screwfix, they sell FFP2 masks, which are very good. They have ringfenced the better FFP3 masks for NHS. Collection only as they don't deliver them. A homemade mask that stops you touching your mouth and nose is a good idea too.

6-7pm much better

Even the worst masks stop people touching their mouth and nose, which cuts the chance of infection. FFP3 masks filter out nearly every particle (if fitted properly) and allow healthcare workers to work in relative safety in covid wards. But they are needed by doctors and nurses, so the public shouldn't buy them. Brits have a cultural aversion to masks that isn't really rational. It might be partly fear of embarrassment at being seen in one when nobody else is wearing them.

Clusters form wherever it seeds, which involves a large element of random chance. Hence Iran and Italy exploding randomly after China. I don't think you can read much into it. The pace of increase is similar in most places once community spread is established.

What's your source? There are only 71 deaths in the whole of the UK according to worldometer.

And equipping them with beds or mattresses.