Jump to content


Approved Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lutz

  1. 1 hour ago, ericfield said:

    It would be interesting to know how Germany ‘handled’ the elderly and vulnerable from the outset. Was there a mindset if not edict to protect them as a priority?  I understand that 80% of those tested positive in Germany are under 60.   


    My wife and I are over 70, as are many of our neighbours, and we are all going about out daily business much the same as before the virus except that we take care not to get too close to others including other members of the family, wash our hands even more often than usual and we wear masks when we go into supermarkets. There has not been any directive for us to do any more.


    15 minutes ago, logiclee said:


    The UK has a road network that requires a lot of daily management. Daily congestion and RTA's.


    The non-essential travel is not only to cut down the risk of virus transfer but to reduce the burden on the Emergency Services, Breakdown Services and local authorities. 


    I don't know  what the picture is like in the UK at the moment but here in Germany there are a lot more people taking their daily exercise by riding a bicycle. Everybody knows that the risk of injury in an accident is far greater on a bicycle than in a car. In fact, only this afternoon, while driving home, I saw a cyclist doing a somersault over the handlebars and hurting himself quite badly.

  2. 34 minutes ago, SamD said:


    ..of interest:


    Differing death rates

    First, there is confusion about what people mean by “death rate”. This confusion can make countries’ numbers look vastly different, even if their populations are dying at the same rate.

    There are, in fact, two kinds of fatality rate. The first is the proportion of people who die who have tested positive for the disease. This is called the “case fatality rate”. The second kind is the proportion of people who die after having the infection overall; as many of these will never be picked up, this figure has to be an estimate. This is the “infection fatality rate”.

    In other words, the case fatality rate describes how many people doctors can be sure are killed by the infection, versus how many people the virus kills overall, says Carl Heneghan, an epidemiologist and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford; he is also a GP in recovery from a suspected Covid-19 infection.


    To see what a difference this makes, consider 100 people who have been infected with Covid-19. Ten of them have it so severely that they go into hospital, where they test positive for Covid-19. The other 90 are not tested at all. One of the hospital patients then dies from the virus. The other 99 people survive.

    That would give a case fatality rate of one in 10, or 10%. But the infection fatality rate would be just one in 100, or 1%.

    The lack of widespread, systematic testing in most countries is the main source of discrepancies in death rates internationally

    So if some countries only test patients ill enough to go to hospital – and don’t test the less-ill (or even asymptomatic) Covid-19 patients who don’t get to hospital (which is what the UK is currently doing) – the death rate can appear higher than in countries where testing is widespread (such as Germany or South Korea).


    I appreciate that, but I was comparing case fatality rates and these should be comparable:


    The following example shows figures released by the Johns Hopkins University as of today.




    A possible explanation for the high case fatality rate in the UK is that people are dying before they have had a chance to be tested, but it still doesn't explain why there are so many more deaths per head of the population.

  3. 19 minutes ago, 2seaside said:

    It may also be that the population of some countries will follow recommended advice better than the population of other countries (I am thinking about the social-distancing advice here).



    That would explain differences in confirmed cases relative to the total population, but not in the mortality rate relative to the number of confirmed cases.

  4. 10 minutes ago, WispMan said:

    You are taking this minimal risk but it is society that suffers the consequences if that risk becomes real. I don't think you understand the situation here in the UK. 


    Why would you think that the population in the UK is at greater risk of infection than in Germany? Theoretically, with all the measures that have been imposed in the UK the risk should be even less.

    One is taking risks, albeit minimal ones, every day, even when there is no threat of infection.

    • Like 1

  5. 7 minutes ago, Stevan said:


    No such thing as no risk, what you mean, whether you understand it or not, is "only an acceptable level of risk"!



    I fully agree, but in view of the fact that the mortality rate here in Germany is less than 1 in 1000 of all confirmed cases and I'm not dealing with a confirmed case, I think that risk is so minimal that I can live with it.

  6. 53 minutes ago, Durbanite said:

    Good post GS but you forgot that we have many in this country that cannot read and if they could read, they do not understand the message therefore it does not apply to them. 

    BTW in South Africa they are giving people a real hard time and treating them as if they were hardened criminals, arresting people and putting them in jail for contravening the lock down.  Also numerous road blocks manned by the army.  This is being reported in the press and more and more people are staying at home.


    I'm glad that they're taking a more pragmatic approach here in Germany, where unless you are found to be congregating in a group of more than two people you can do more or less whatever you like. This afternoon we shall be driving to the sister-in-law who lives about 30 miles away. We are all over 70 so my wife and I will be sitting on the sister-in-law's garden terrace, she will remain indoors and we will have a nice chat through the French window. Later we'll go for a walk with her across the fields, keeping the required distance. I think we're taking all sensible precautions and I can't see any risk of contagion under such conditions.

    • Like 2

  7. 1 hour ago, Legal Eagle said:

    You can think up as many hypothetical situations as you wish but for what purpose?

    IF you were in the UK making this journey and IF you were stopped and IF your explanation was not accepted by the Police you may be fined. IF you contest the fine the Court would decide whether your short journey for personal hygiene purposes was essential or not.

    IF you were in the Philippines you might simply be shot for being outside your house.


    No, I was just wondering whether things were clear cut in the UK, leaving no possible loophole for interpretation where a court would have to decide.


    48 minutes ago, Paul1957 said:

    Worse than the fine, every time you go out you risk coming in to contact with the virus and the potential consequences of that. This alone should be enough to make people only go out when there is no other choice.


    I just cannot understand how the risk is any greater sitting in the car on your own is any greater than sitting or working in the garden with the neighbour in his and less than a stone's throw away.

  8. 5 hours ago, kelper said:

    I think you could drive there once a week.  On other days you would have to flannel wash.  You should get the bathroom back in service ASAP.  Take some photos of the unusable bathroom with you in case you are stopped.  When did you start work on your bathroom?


    Judging by contradicting replies to my question my predicament seems to be grey area. Fortunately it doesn't apply to me because the restrictions here in Germany are less stringent. Apart from the need to maintain social distancing, not allowing gatherings of more than 2 people who are not part of the family, and shops, restaurants, etc. having to be closed, all other measures are only recommendations left to sensible personal judgment. As a result I can commute between house and flat as often as I like so long as I maintain social distancing.


    Just as a note on the side, Germany has about two and a half times the number of confirmed cases compared with the UK but only a third of the mortalities. One does wonder why this is.

  9. 2 minutes ago, Allan Guest said:

    On that basis I would say that the journey to do the work  would be OK but maybe  you could walk o the flat to take the shower?!


    Quite apart from the fact that 7 miles is a bit far to walk there and back, I figure that I am a lot less likely to come into close contact with any other person by driving there than walking. Besides, the time that I am exposed to the outside world is a lot less, too.

    • Like 1

  10. Just out of interest (it doesn't affect me because here in Germany because we don't have the same restrictions as in the UK) I would like to know what my position would be if I lived in the UK.


    I have a house and a flat, which are about 7 miles apart. I am currently redecorating the bathroom so it is not usable at the moment. In order to be able to take a shower I have to drive to the flat. On the other hand my bed is in the house and all the cooking etc. is done there. Would the trip to the flat be considered an essential journey in the UK?

  11. You do need to check whether the structure of the wall in the area where you wish to mount the bracket is strong enough to take the weight of the bracket and TV, especially if you want to travel with the TV attached to the bracket. I had serious doubts about mine. That's why I have the TV wall bracket mounted on a separate substantial steel bracket which, in turn is bolted through a relatively solid shelf, as in the picture below, and not to the wall itself.



    • Thanks 1

  12. We in the West shouldn't be so pretentious. We buy live shellfish such as lobster, mussels, prawns, etc. to cook live and elsewhere in Europe I've seen some pretty unsavoury bits of animal being offered as delicacies in restaurants. I think the big difference is more in the hygiene standards and measures that normally apply in our part of the world than what we actually eat. What's the big difference, for example, between eels and snakes? The Australians really love their witchetty grub soup and horse meat is big in many parts of Europe.


    • Like 3

  13. 12 hours ago, onewheelonmywagon said:

    The "surgical" masks worn by many people are pretty useless. You need a respirator mask that conforms to one of the international standards FFP2/FFP3 in Europe and N95/N99 in USA.

    You need to wash your hands thoroughly before putting the mask on, and before taking it off - otherwise the mask could get contaminated.

    Also, you need to be clean shaven - facial hair will reduce the seal of the mask to the face.

    Valved masks are more comfortable for the wearer because they don't get so hot, but the one way valve lets breath out so is OK for the wearer but not so safe for nearby individuals.

    3M are recognised as an international manufacturer of quality masks.

    Here's a couple of links that might be educational


    Mask Comparison

    How to fit a 3M Aura mask


    That's if you want to protect yourself. If you want to protect others, the surgical mask is perfectly sufficient.

  14. 32 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:


    So the masks I wear whilst sanding, or spray painting my models are useless if they don't prevent entry of dust or paint!


    No, the standard mask works perfectly in the opposite direction against larger particles such as dust or paint, but the material is too coarse to filter out the virus of nanometre size. It will stop the droplets that you cough or sneeze, though because they are so much larger, like the dust or paint.


  15. 19 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:


    There must be a lot of people going round wearing a mask under a serious misconception if it only works one way!


    The basic mask that you usually see the general public wearing only works effectively one way, yes, but if everybody wears one, it does provide good overall protection.

  16. 1 hour ago, Durbanite said:

    Apparently the approved medical mask as to be of a N95 standard and they are impossible to get.


    The object of wearing a mask in public is to protect others in case you have been knowingly or unknowingly infected, not to protect yourself, and for that purpose the standard mask is perfectly adequate.


    1 hour ago, CommanderDave said:


    If your going to prefect against the virus by wearing a mask then you need protection to the eyes as it can enter the body that way .




    As I said above, for general use, i.e. not medical, the mask is not to protect yourself but others. As you don't blow water droplets through your eyes, there's no need to cover them up.

  17. 7 minutes ago, Bolingbroke said:


    Why do you think dealers care?  Besides, if a dealer had a car that no customer had even wanted to take on a test drive for months, It would have been packed off to an auction.


    More generally, why does the caravan need to be driven around?  Why not pull it forward for a part turn of the wheel, or jack each wheel just off the ground to turn it.


    My point was why turn the wheels at all? Whether the flat is there for a week or six months doesn't make any difference. It's not going to get so bad after a standing for many weeks that it won't get ironed out after the first few miles of its next outing.

  18. The governments of other countries have chartered planes for the express purpose of repatriating their nationals in the event of them being stranded overseas so why shouldn't the UK do so too? Lufthansa alone has brought back 160,000 Germans.

    • I agree completely 1

  19. 4 hours ago, DeeTee said:

    Lutz  may live in Germany but may not be a German national.


    I don't know where nationality comes into play. Whatever country you are in you have to abide by the laws of that country and here in Germany, unless you placed under home quarantine following a virus test, there are no restrictions where you can go and for how long you can leave your home just as long as you maintain social distancing and there are no more than two of you or other members of the household. In fact, if you can get out into the countryside, extended walks are even recommended. Now that seems logical to me.

    • I agree completely 1

  20. 5 minutes ago, Grandpa Steve said:


    What about tying up emergency services potentially exposing them or you to the virus, hiking across hills where there is no one in sight probably means no access roads so will need mountain rescue or a rescue helicopter call out.


    How difficult is it to understand the message "Stay at home" and make no unnecessary journeys!




    What's a mountain rescue or helicopter got to do with it? If I feel reasonably fit when I get up in the morning I'm not going to get so ill so quickly that I can't return home if need be. I'm not away that long.

    There's about as much of a chance of having to call emergency services while at home as there is when I'm out on a hike.

    I simply fail to see the logic of the argument.

    • Sad 2
    • I agree completely 2
  • Create New...