*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Jonkx said:

So, re: CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas, should you notify CRT if you're not visiting your boat as it's moored in Tier 3 area (and you live in another area e.g. Tier 2) or not? 

 

Yes, definitely.  The people who just ignore CRT or scream at them are the ones who have most problems with them.

 

Ring them and ask to speak to the Licence Enforcement Officer for where the boat is - you might need to wait for a call back - and explain the situation to them, not whoever first answers the phone.

[Jonkx]

Thanks 

[George and Dragon]

On 01/12/2020 at 21:18, Rickent said:

I am pro vaccine, I have had all my vaccines as have all my children,  but there is no way I will be taking a vaccine that has been rushed through in seven months, the side effects cannot be known as they can take years to manifest, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are MRNA vaccines and as of now , no vaccine of this type has ever been licensed for use on humans, so if that makes me an anti vaxxer in your eyes then so be it, oh and masks have been proven to do nothing apart from give the wearer a false sense of safety.

Immediate side effects are known and not giving cause for concern. Longer term? They can't possibly know but the longer term side effects of covid aren't very pleasant so you decide for yourself.

The reason mRNA vaccines haven't been licensed is because they are a new technology, no-one knows enough about them to say with any certainty that they are safe; however, there is a global pandemic in progress and the consequences of letting that continue unabated are quite severe.

As for masks; do you have any evidence that they don't work or is that something else you found out from WhatsApp?

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

As for masks; do you have any evidence that they don't work or is that something else you found out from WhatsApp?

It is clearly something they saw on social media.   A mishmash of sound bites was put forward as evidence.   I asked for some decent scientific references but none have been forthcoming as yet.

[noone]

On 30/11/2020 at 19:07, Leggers do it lying down said:

F.Y.I.

For those on Canal & River Trust (CRT) waterways, we have been informed
that CRT will be expecting a gradual return to 14-day movement after 2nd
December, which means that they expect all boats to have moved from
where they are now by 16th December 2020. CRT's Customer Support
Manager: Licence Support (ie enforcement manager) Matthew Aymes said in
an email today:

"From the 2nd, everyone's mooring clock will 'reset' so the majority
will have 14 days until they need to move on. We're again asking anyone
with specific needs or issues to contact their LSO [Licence Support
Officer, ie enforcement officer] and we'll be as sensitive as we can to
issues whilst trying to ensure the sharing of access and adherence to
government guidance.

For boaters within or currently bordering Tier 3 areas, in line with
Government advice to avoid travelling into or out of these areas, we are
advising boaters to boat within their area and we will take this into
account when reviewing movement patterns.

Hopefully this steady approach, which will allow people to move
immediately if they want to on the 2nd, will mean that no facilities are
over-subscribed as movement begins. Of course, we'll be asking boaters
to use common sense and be considerate but hopefully we will have a
similarly successful return to cruising as last time".
 

UPDATE

Post lock down CRT enforcement, boats have up to 16th Dec to move from lock down mooring but avoid travel in or out of Tier 3 areas.
 EA to resume enforcing mooring time limits except in Tier 3. More info on www.bargee-traveller.org.uk

[Rickent]

17 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

Immediate side effects are known and not giving cause for concern. Longer term? They can't possibly know but the longer term side effects of covid aren't very pleasant so you decide for yourself.

The reason mRNA vaccines haven't been licensed is because they are a new technology, no-one knows enough about them to say with any certainty that they are safe; however, there is a global pandemic in progress and the consequences of letting that continue unabated are quite severe.

As for masks; do you have any evidence that they don't work or is that something else you found out from WhatsApp?

you were doing quite well until the last comment, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.

[George and Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Rickent said:

you were doing quite well until the last comment, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.

I'll ask again: evidence?

[Jerra]

35 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I'll ask again: evidence?

I would like to see evidence as well.   I asked somebody earlier and got a mishmash of sound bites totally out of context.   No reference at all to any scientific evidence.

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm not sure you can have evidence for something not working. But it doesn't matter whether there's any evidence or not as long as there's the slightest possibility that masks MIGHT have an effect. And if a lot of people are going to get worried, even more than they are already, it's a small and generous thing to do to wear one, whatever one's own opinion, surely? 

[George and Dragon]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm not sure you can have evidence for something not working. But it doesn't matter whether there's any evidence or not as long as there's the slightest possibility that masks MIGHT have an effect. And if a lot of people are going to get worried, even more than they are already, it's a small and generous thing to do to wear one, whatever one's own opinion, surely? 

It would be difficult impossible to devise a proper double blind experiment to show the effect of masks wearing since both the subjects and the experimenters would know who was in which group. I'm sure there must be an alternative experimental method that could be applied.

But, yes, I take your point that wearing a mask is generous whether or not it makes any difference.

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

It would be difficult impossible to devise a proper double blind experiment to show the effect of masks wearing since both the subjects and the experimenters would know who was in which group. I'm sure there must be an alternative experimental method that could be applied.

But, yes, I take your point that wearing a mask is generous whether or not it makes any difference.

But you could

 

(a) use masks of varying porosity to see if that makes a difference and then reasonably infer that wearing the better ones is a measurable improvement on the worst, even if you do not know, perhaps without extrapolation, what no mask implies

(b) do a similar experiment with devices that protect the wearer as well as the 'other' person and measure the difference.

 

Sometimes, scientific method does have to rely on careful induction rather than simple deduction.

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

But you could

 

(a) use masks of varying porosity to see if that makes a difference and then reasonably infer that wearing the better ones is a measurable improvement on the worst, even if you do not know, perhaps without extrapolation, what no mask implies

(b) do a similar experiment with devices that protect the wearer as well as the 'other' person and measure the difference.

 

Sometimes, scientific method does have to rely on careful induction rather than simple deduction.

That one was done on a TV programme I watched sadly I can't remember which, but it showed:

 

1.  Any mask is better than no mask from the point of view of droplet spread.

2.  Surprise surprise two layers of cloth are better than one.

3.  Yet more surprising (not) medical masks were the best.

[Mike Todd]

But what I was responding to was the critique of not being able to do double blind tests and I was trying to show how (scientifically rather than entertainingly) a meaningful test could be done that approached the gold standard. I did say 'porosity' rather than the number of layers as that might be easier to disguise.

 

All that said, I am not sure how a double blind test is needed as this not about behaviour observation but physical measurement. (Except perhaps, speculating wildly, knowing what type of mask might influence how someone breathed but I doubt it would make a lot of difference). The issue with medical trials is the importance of the placebo effect - I suspect a droplet measuring device does not have much relationship with a placebo.

 

Rather more significant is to find a way of testing how well people wear a mask in practice as this is likely to be a larger factor than porosity. When I see someone wearing a mask that does not, for example, cover the nose, I wonder what they think they are doing, even if it probably more than halves the ejection of infections. In such a study it would again be important to find some way of taking a measurement when the wearers thought no-one was checking on them.

[Jerra]

4 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

But what I was responding to was the critique of not being able to do double blind tests and I was trying to show how (scientifically rather than entertainingly) a meaningful test could be done that approached the gold standard. I did say 'porosity' rather than the number of layers as that might be easier to disguise.

 

All that said, I am not sure how a double blind test is needed as this not about behaviour observation but physical measurement. (Except perhaps, speculating wildly, knowing what type of mask might influence how someone breathed but I doubt it would make a lot of difference). The issue with medical trials is the importance of the placebo effect - I suspect a droplet measuring device does not have much relationship with a placebo.

 

Rather more significant is to find a way of testing how well people wear a mask in practice as this is likely to be a larger factor than porosity. When I see someone wearing a mask that does not, for example, cover the nose, I wonder what they think they are doing, even if it probably more than halves the ejection of infections. In such a study it would again be important to find some way of taking a measurement when the wearers thought no-one was checking on them.

If that reply was to me perhaps you picked me up wrongly.    It was a demonstration rather than entertainment and carried out by one of the country's (possibly world's) top experts in the science of droplets and materials used with them.