steve73

2 hours ago, mickyr55 said:

I remember reading somewhere recently that all flights should be no more than half full due to the social distancing regulations, makes sense to me.

My daughter returned from Hong Kong (where she's been working for the past 4 years) to the UK a few days ago.  Said there were only about 20 passengers in economy/premium E, and all well spaced out on lie-flat 3/4 middle seats, so no problems maintaining plenty of separation.

The data as presented suggests that ALL confirmed cases of CV here are hospitalised.  Clearly they are NOT reporting numbers who have tested positive, but show just mild symptoms and are self isolating at home.

... or are they forcing anyone who has tested positive into hospital... which is the last place I would want to be if only showing mild symptoms.  This could explain why so few are (requesting) being tested.

I'd suggest there are many more unknowingly infected, with no or just mild symptoms, that could be spreading the virus MUCH further afield.

20 hours ago, rvaviator said:

I thought for a moment you said that Soi dogs will now be considered as food ...

I saw an article on Bloomberg this morning that two dogs in Hong Kong have tested positive for CV - one of which died.  Could be good to rid T/L of the soi dog problem one and for all, unless of course humans can get re-infected from them...  I'll try to find the link again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/second-dog-in-hong-kong-tests-positive-for-covid-19-virus

11 minutes ago, cryo said:

Official estimates rang from (0.1% age 1-20) (1% age 20-40) (1.8% 40-50) (2.5% 50-60) (3.5% 60-70) (13.6% 70-upover). Average mortality rate across all a age groups is approx. 1% of suspected infected cases (calculated infection rate not actual tested) These are China's figures up to date and are changing daily.

If it's as infectious (and persistent) as many are claiming it will be almost impossible to avoid exposure at some point, unless you're a hermit - and that's before it mutates.

So I'd expect almost everyone on the planet to get exposed at some point. (Germany suggesting 60-70%)

How many of those will then show any symptoms?

How many will themselves, showing symptoms or otherwise (the so-called "super-spreaders") be carrying the virus sufficient to infect others?

How many with symptoms will get seriously ill? (with or without other respiratory problems)

How many of those will die (prematurely) as a direct result?

Unless some of these percentages are very low there will be a very high death toll. 

The basic wraparound cloth mask offers little protection to the wearer.  The main reason is to prevent the wearer from infecting others (such as during surgery).

There are better masks becoming available, or respirator/canister types that better protect the wearer.

I have registered my sons UK mobile number, and he then messages me the code - only downside is that it limits my access to when he's available... but it's not really a problem, and is a suitable work-around. 

1 minute ago, petermik said:

Do concrete roads lead to greater tyre wear?

I would suggest yes, since there is usually much more "road noise".... but then pot-holed tarmac is probably much worse for your tyres.

My understanding is that concrete is liable to frost damage, whereas Tarmac can soften excessively in heat.

Hence why most new major roads in T/L that expect heavy traffic are using concrete...  Minor roads continue to use Tarmac due to cost, and often get damaged easily from heavy loads.

10 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

Except one of the contributory factors is age.  You can't reverse aging. 

 

<snip..>

 

Your points well made, and some useful links - thanks.

But in the face of impending chaos, it's up to everyone to look out for themselves (where possible), and not hide behind what the various world governments are trying to impose on us...  I think there is a lot worse to come, including the global economic effects - and that will in itself cause yet more health problems. 

2 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Last I checked the number was about 3.4% fatality rate of those who had been confirmed to have it. While I think it's safe to assume that most of the people who have it don't realize they do, I think the actual mortality rate is probably closer to 1%. Since a decent number of patients require hospitalization and if you let it spin out of control the fatality rate could be higher. In the end I don't think this is something where 3 million people would die globally if everyone were exposed. More likely your talking 40+ million. 

The basic math is that if 60% of people got the virus and 1% of those died you are talking about 46.2 million deaths. So there is some reason to be concerned and to try to slow the spread of the virus until a vaccine can be created. 

I understand it could take at least a year to find, test, and then ramp-up production of a suitable vaccine, and the rate at which this virus is spreading, it could have exposed almost everyone globally in that time.

I agree that collectively "we" should be trying to slow the spread, but each individual can do much to protect themselves - partly from exposure, but also to boost their own immune response. 

The expression "Rome burns while Nero fiddles" can be applied globally. 

Some of the reports I'm reading seem to suggest around 1-2% of those tested (in western countries) are positive, with a 1-2% fatality rate of those who are diagnosed as carrying the virus (and almost all of those with "contributory" health problems).

Assuming that those tested are not without reason, then the overall fatality rate could be as high as 0.01-0.04% at most.  ...or c. 0.7 to 3 million people globally if everyone is exposed.

Since it's starting to look as if it will be impossible to avoid "exposure", then we should perhaps all be prepared to encounter this virus, ensure a good diet & healthy lifestyle to maximise our own immune responses, and get it over with.   

The problem I foresee is where there are connecting flights... eg. ME airlines, where the passengers could have come from many European countries, some high risk, others less so.  But an infected passenger from one of the high risk countries could easily pass it on to others from a low risk origin.

So will everyone need to be quarantined if there are passengers from any high-risk country even if the final leg is from a low risk origin...?  

Even easier DIY mask here....  Not sure how effective it would be though.

Your problem is when the mains pressure is to low, so you need to set the pressure switch up in this situation..  Shut off the mains water at the meter to simulate this.

Typical switches are factory set to start & stop at around 2.8 - 3 bar...  this should provide sufficient pressure to raise the water to a height of around 30m, but if your tap is higher than this the static head of water may be too high to allow the pump to start... (I'm in a 4 story town house, and my pump wont start if I open the tap on my roof... I need to open a lower one to get it to start) 

But your plumber could have adjusted it when he fitted it. 

It's not totally clear from the photo which is "+" and which is "-"...  Try adjusting it both ways to make the pump start when you open a tap - best to shut off the direct mains water supply so you are sure this is not providing the pressure to stop it from starting.

When you close the PVC valve you are probably just introducing a small pressure fluctuation sufficient to "kick" the switch to "on", and overcoming any "stickyness".  You can test this by tapping the switch lightly (with an insulated tool)...   If it is sticking too much that it won't switch off when there are no taps open, yet won't switch on when a tap is opened, then you can try spraying it with a little light oil (eg WD40), but if that fails then it's time for a new switch (about 250-300 bt).   

Yes - that is the pressure adjustment.  Make sure you use an insulated screwdriver as it is also live..!!! (you can unplug it but it's much more difficult to get the "sweet spot").

Turn it towards the + for a higher start/stop pressure.... but not so high that it won't switch off when the pump is running but no taps are open, (you need to be sure the pump is not simply recycling back to the tank if your NRV is leaking though).

Depending how old the pump is the switch sometimes sticks, so it can be difficult to get it set just right.

Remember you are aiming to get the pump to run whenever a tap is opened, and rely on direct mains feed only when the pump fails.

I had to send them a secure message to accept my Thai number, but when I tried using it to log into to my internet account it failed.

Fortunately I was still able to log in using "memorable data" (option no longer available), but it wouldn't let me change my registered number to my son's UK mobile without the card reader, and since my ATM card had recently expired I could not even do that. 

So another secure message request explaining the situation and they manually updated my registered number to my son's.

At lest now I can log on and make payments (although only to existing payees) provided my son is awake and can send me the OTP via FB messenger.  Not really that much of a problem as I make only occasional payments to my Transferwise "borderless" account, and can then convert to THB and send to my Thai bank as necessary.

I just need to be able to fund my TW-BL Acct direct from my various investment income sources, and then I can bypass NWBS totally. 

This does seem to be a fairly non-standard arrangement...  Normally the mains supply keeps the tank refilled, and the pump starts whenever a tap is opened....  The 'bypass" from mains to pump outlet is provided for direct supply only if the pump ever fails.

With the house piping arranged to take its supply from either the mains (which is rarely a particularly high pressure) or the pump, then even with a healthy mains pressure it would usually be less than the pump "start" pressure switch setting.  i.e. the pump would always tend to start when the house taps were opened, and the mains supply would never take over unless the pump had failed... 

Your arrangement suggests that in order to prevent the pump running when there is at least some mains pressure, the pump pressure switch settings have been reduced to the point at which the pressure never falls enough to start the pump (there will always be some residual pressure from the static head from the pump to the open tap).

By closing and opening the valve (which appears to be on the pump outlet), a small pressure fluctuation is sufficient to cause the start switch to activate and the pump to kick in. (You could test this by "tapping" the pressure switch lightly, as this is often enough to cause it to start when it is very close.)

My suggestion would be to (re-)adjust  the pressure switch setting so that it starts at a higher pressure.  In this way the pump will always run when the taps are opened, and the mains will only refill the tank.

In the event that the pump fails to start, then the mains will take over (providing its pressure is high enough).  I.e. return the system to the more usual arrangement.

The only minor downside is that the pump will operate every time a tap is opened, but the additional electricity cost will be minimal, and you won't have to go outside to "kick-start" the pump in the middle of the night every time.  Also you will have a much higher pressure every time to all of your taps.  There should be a NRV on the mains supply where it joins the pump outlet or the pump will simply recycle the water back to the tank, and if this has been missed out (highly likely if you used a cowboy plumber) this could explain why the pressure settings have been reduced... (or also if the NRV passes slightly, eg with a bit of grit or even a little bit of PTFE tape)   If you find that the pump does keep cycling when all the taps are off then a passing NRV is the most likely cause).

Good luck.

I understand that the used of an "agent" overcomes the compulsory Insurance requirement, in much the same way it nullifies the financial ones....