Coronavirus Thread

[dsr-burnley]

Australia is generally regarded as a continental land mass rather than an island.  When the question "what is the largest island in the world" is put, Greenland is often regarded as the correct answer.  You can argue for Australia, or equallyyou can argue for the Euro-Asia-Africa land mass.  But Euro-Asia-Africa is generally regarded as a continent not an island, and North-Central-South America is generally regarded as a continent not an island so that doesn't qualify either, and Australia is generally regarded as a continent not an island too.  

 

I suspect the point Schapps was making is that Australia is significantly different from the UK.  

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Australia is generally regarded as a continental land mass rather than an island.  When the question "what is the largest island in the world" is put, Greenland is often regarded as the correct answer.  You can argue for Australia, or equallyyou can argue for the Euro-Asia-Africa land mass.  But Euro-Asia-Africa is generally regarded as a continent not an island, and North-Central-South America is generally regarded as a continent not an island so that doesn't qualify either, and Australia is generally regarded as a continent not an island too.  

 

I suspect the point Schapps was making is that Australia is significantly different from the UK.  

I suspect he's making that point too, but it seems he didn't elaborate on exactly how the UK is different in this context, which for me is arguably a bigger gaffe.

Edited 4 February 2021 by leicsmac

[Buce]

 

Is Australia an Island or a Continent?

 

There are several different ways of thinking about how many continents there are, with models ranging from 4 to 7 continents. However, in most English speaking countries, as well as other nations around the world, the 7-continent model is taught. Using this model, the continents of the world in order of size (descending) are: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

One of the biggest differences between Australia and Greenland, other than their obvious climate differences, is population. Australia has over 22 million inhabitants, making it the 55th most populous nation in the world. Greenland, on the other hand, has just over 57 thousand inhabitants, making it the 205th most populous nation in the world. However, if population determined continental status, Antarctica would not be considered a continent, either.

Australia and Greenland have quite a few features in common. People living in both countries largely live along the coast due to nearly uninhabitable land covering each of the countries—in Greenland, the natural barrier is an ice cap, while in Australia it’s a desert. Australia is an island in the South Pacific, roughly 7.75 million square kilometers (about 3 million square miles) and the sixth largest country in the world. Greenland is an island that sits between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean. It is just over 2.16 million square kilometers (834K square miles), making it the twelfth largest country in the world. Greenland is the largest island after Australia—so why isn’t it considered a continent, too?

It turns out that there are no official conditions that each continent has to meet in order to be considered a continent, which explains why there are so many different models of thinking when it comes to how many continents there are. However, there are several largely accepted factors that classify different regions of the world as continents. These factors include tectonic independence from other continents, unique flora and fauna, cultural uniqueness, and local belief in continental status.

Looking at Australia and Greenland, Australia meets several of these conditions. Australia rests on its own tectonic plate called the Australian Plate. It certainly has its own unique flora and fauna, with native animals like kangaroos, wombats, and Tasmanian Devils unlike any others in the world. Australia’s historic aboriginal culture is also somewhat unique. Currently, the country is more “Western” in ideology than most other countries in the South Pacific region, making it a unique culture in its area. Lastly, the locals consider themselves to live on both an island and a continent, fulfilling the last of the criteria.

Greenland, on the other hand, sits on the North American tectonic plate. It is not geologically separate from Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Although Greenland has fifteen unique species of plants, its fauna, such as reindeer, polar bears, and arctic foxes, can also be found elsewhere, such as in Canada. While Greenland does have its own culture, it is considered part of the larger North American arctic culture. Finally, Greenlanders do not, for the most part, believe that they live on a continent. They consider themselves islanders.

These definitions are shaky, however. Looking at a map of tectonic plates, you can see that Europe sits on the Eurasian Tectonic Plate along with most of Asia. Only cultural difference and a feeling of separateness define it as a separate continent. Similarly, India has its own tectonic plate as well—but in this case, a sense of similar culture and flora and fauna makes India part of Asia rather than its own continent.

It seems that to be a continent, an area must fulfill most of the unofficial criteria above if it doesn’t fulfill it all. In this case, Australia succeeds where Greenland does not, and a line is drawn between what makes the smallest continent and the largest island.

 

https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-greenland-is-an-island-and-australia-is-a-continent/

[bovril]

45 minutes ago, StanSP said:

??? 

continent bro

[WigstonWanderer]

41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Australia is generally regarded as a continental land mass rather than an island.  When the question "what is the largest island in the world" is put, Greenland is often regarded as the correct answer.  You can argue for Australia, or equallyyou can argue for the Euro-Asia-Africa land mass.  But Euro-Asia-Africa is generally regarded as a continent not an island, and North-Central-South America is generally regarded as a continent not an island so that doesn't qualify either, and Australia is generally regarded as a continent not an island too.  

 

I suspect the point Schapps was making is that Australia is significantly different from the UK.  

This is semantics. For all practical purposes Australia is an island. In particular, for the purposes of COVID quarantine, it is an island.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This is semantics. For all practical purposes Australia is an island. In particular, for the purposes of COVID quarantine, it is an island.

God knows what shapps is on about, yes technically Australia is a continent but it’s still an island. Why does it being a continent add any weight to his claims anyway?

[Costock_Fox]

Isn’t Australia a vegetable? So confusing 

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Isn’t Australia a vegetable? So confusing 

Yes, it's a cabbage.

[Kopfkino]

Wonder how the weather over the weekend and into early next week will affect vaccinations. The models today beginning to show significant snowfall (snow forecasts can be quite unreliable even this close out) for parts of the country, sticking around for longer/reloading for longer than the other week.

[Kopfkino]

29 minutes ago, Strokes said:

God knows what shapps is on about, yes technically Australia is a continent but it’s still an island. Why does it being a continent add any weight to his claims anyway?

I think the point is that Australia isn’t a small island nation that has integrated itself so substantially with its near neighbours.l who have also been significantly affected. For example, Australia doesn’t have 10000 lorries pass through a single port every day. It’s total food imports account for 15% of consumption, 45% for the UK of which 26% comes from the EU.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me, heaven forbid someone might be a little loose in their wording. The grand point that the UK is not Australia, China, Sweden, New Zealand or anywhere that’s been fashionable for lazy comparisons.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

I thought the continent was Australasia or Oceania. Australia itself is surely an island - a fvcking big one, but an island nonetheless

 

Edit. Mainland Australia. Australia itself has many small islands surrounding it

Edited 4 February 2021 by Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

[Costock_Fox]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes, it's a cabbage.

A cabbage is a salad.

[Leicester_Loyal]

'The PM is facing an angry backlash after ministers and SAGE experts suggested all over-50s should get vaccines before any 'significant' easing.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9223041/Tory-anger-mounts-goalpost-shifting-lockdown.html

 

No ****ing chance, get the kids back in school and get the gyms open next month. We can't live like this for another 3 months surely? I know I certainly won't be.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I think the point is that Australia isn’t a small island nation that has integrated itself so substantially with its near neighbours.l who have also been significantly affected. For example, Australia doesn’t have 10000 lorries pass through a single port every day. It’s total food imports account for 15% of consumption, 45% for the UK of which 26% comes from the EU.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me, heaven forbid someone might be a little loose in their wording. The grand point that the UK is not Australia, China, Sweden, New Zealand or anywhere that’s been fashionable for lazy comparisons.

It's a fair point - the feeling that a government minister should perhaps be better at clear communication notwithstanding.

 

Are there any reasonable comparisons, I wonder, or is that entire field when it comes to Covid a fools errand?

[UniFox21]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

'The PM is facing an angry backlash after ministers and SAGE experts suggested all over-50s should get vaccines before any 'significant' easing.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9223041/Tory-anger-mounts-goalpost-shifting-lockdown.html

 

No ****ing chance, get the kids back in school and get the gyms open next month. We can't live like this for another 3 months surely? I know I certainly won't be.

Such a stupid article. 

"Scientists keep moving the goalposts" is a stupid line, scientists change the target to a degree to match the everchanging covid landscape. Simply reopening everything straight away has the chance to undermine everything we've done in the past months of lockdown, which is mentioned in the article of things being gradually reopened. 

 

Ian Duncan Smith is a right bellend too, "Of course for the scientists it doesn't make any difference really because they get paid anyway." last time I checked all the MP's have been paid even though we've been basically the worst to deal with this outbreak across Europe. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Such a stupid article. 

"Scientists keep moving the goalposts" is a stupid line, scientists change the target to a degree to match the everchanging covid landscape. Simply reopening everything straight away has the chance to undermine everything we've done in the past months of lockdown, which is mentioned in the article of things being gradually reopened. 

 

Ian Duncan Smith is a right bellend too, "Of course for the scientists it doesn't make any difference really because they get paid anyway." last time I checked all the MP's have been paid even though we've been basically the worst to deal with this outbreak across Europe. 

They have legitimate points though, we were told it was deaths, then cases, then protecting the NHS. We need a roadmap from Boris with conditions for unlocking and the (rough) dates that will come. At least with the 20 cases per 100k population model of abroad countries we had an idea of when countries were going to be shut down.

 

I'd say what he's saying is the truth for most of the public sector, it's a lot easier to be ok about the situation if you're still getting your income, millions unfortunately do not have that luxury.

 

I don't think anyone expects us to unlock straight away, but we shouldn't be waiting until like May for 'significant easing'

[ealingfox]

Scientists cant move the goalposts. Officers advise, Members decide. The advice may change but that doesn't mean decisions have to.

Edited 4 February 2021 by ealingfox

[CosbehFox]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Scientists cant move the goalposts. Officers advise, Members decide. The advice may change but that doesn't mean decisions have to.

It's also unfair to use that term on scientists. They are informed by the information/data. That info and data is live, it can change quickly

[UniFox21]

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They have legitimate points though, we were told it was deaths, then cases, then protecting the NHS. We need a roadmap from Boris with conditions for unlocking and the (rough) dates that will come. At least with the 20 cases per 100k population model of abroad countries we had an idea of when countries were going to be shut down.

 

I'd say what he's saying is the truth for most of the public sector, it's a lot easier to be ok about the situation if you're still getting your income, millions unfortunately do not have that luxury.

 

I don't think anyone expects us to unlock straight away, but we shouldn't be waiting until like May for 'significant easing'

But then if we release a roadmap and we encounter serious issues or changes, we'll see the usual crap written by journalists and more of the country ignoring rules. I agree that we need a "plan" of such released of how they intend to remove lockdown restrictions, but it'll need to be done carefully. Even suggesting targets is a dangerous one. What we know now may be completely different in a months time, any fixed target is a potential slip up.

 

Honestly, any date is the worst idea possible. They'll be released as "potential" depending on the progress, yet the entire country will see it as "we'll be free on day X". 

 

I think a fair few expect us to just return to normal straight away from what I've seen various posters and journalists write. And "significant" is a poor word to use, your definition may be completely different to mine for instance. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

It's also unfair to use that term on scientists. They are informed by the information/data. That info and data is live, it can change quickly

Unfortunately you see this attitude from politicians towards scientists an awful lot.

 

When you yourself are driven by base purposes (like money) all of the time, you tend to assume that everyone else is, too. It's the whole reason for the "scientists twist data to get funding" spiel, which on the odd occasion it's true (like with cigarette and fossil fuel "research") tends to get shot down by peer review in due course anyway.

[Leicester_Loyal]

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Scientists cant move the goalposts. Officers advise, Members decide. The advice may change but that doesn't mean decisions have to.

Yeah ultimately the decision will be down to the Government thankfully.

 

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

But then if we release a roadmap and we encounter serious issues or changes, we'll see the usual crap written by journalists and more of the country ignoring rules. I agree that we need a "plan" of such released of how they intend to remove lockdown restrictions, but it'll need to be done carefully. Even suggesting targets is a dangerous one. What we know now may be completely different in a months time, any fixed target is a potential slip up.

 

Honestly, any date is the worst idea possible. They'll be released as "potential" depending on the progress, yet the entire country will see it as "we'll be free on day X". 

 

I think a fair few expect us to just return to normal straight away from what I've seen various posters and journalists write. And "significant" is a poor word to use, your definition may be completely different to mine for instance. 

The roadmap is meant to be released on the 22nd of February, whether or not they decide to change that date remains to be seen. I imagine most of us are fearful the can will get kicked down the road again, after many failed promises previously.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, I don't expect specific dates, but I expect a rough guideline on what's unlocking first, then what's next. Millions of us have had enough and compliance will only get worse as the days get longer and the weather gets warmer.

 

Fair enough, get rid of the word significant, I'll state that come April, there's no way gyms or hairdressers should still be shut, that's the absolutely minimum I expect. I do believe schools will go back in March, don't think they'll want to keep the kids off any longer now, their education must be in the pits after all this.

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

I don't think anyone expects us to unlock straight away, but we shouldn't be waiting until like May for 'significant easing'

 

Depends what "significant easing" means, I suppose.

 

But unless adverse events intervene (e.g. vaccine-resistant variant, major vaccine supply problems), it sounds as if a fair bit of opening will have happened by May - perhaps akin to last summer?

Though some restrictions will doubtless remain, both nationally and internationally.

 

There's already an approximate short-term roadmap, isn't there?

- 15th Feb: Get first 4 priority groups (15m) vaccinated

- 22nd Feb: Decide whether schools will open on 8th March & to what extent plus whether other relaxations are possible

- 8th March: Reopen schools, if data remains on positive trajectory, but possibly only primary & maybe key exam cohorts? Perhaps some other minor relaxations?

- "Spring" (deliberately vague): Get priority groups 5-9 (17m) vaccinated....

 

There's been media talk of "spring" meaning end of March or April, which seems reasonable if numbers for vaccination are only slightly larger than the 15th Feb cohort. Though another 2 weeks might be needed for vaccine effectiveness, so in theory the 99% most vulnerable to severe illness might be vaccinated by mid/late April.

 

So, reasonable to expect gradual relaxation between early March & mid/late April?

Though probably still some distancing & masks encouraged after that (perhaps akin to last summer in pubs)?

International travel likely to be restricted for longer, perhaps depending on location, due to risk of variants & any continuing delays in vaccine roll-out?

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Depends what "significant easing" means, I suppose.

 

But unless adverse events intervene (e.g. vaccine-resistant variant, major vaccine supply problems), it sounds as if a fair bit of opening will have happened by May - perhaps akin to last summer?

Though some restrictions will doubtless remain, both nationally and internationally.

 

There's already an approximate short-term roadmap, isn't there?

- 15th Feb: Get first 4 priority groups (15m) vaccinated

- 22nd Feb: Decide whether schools will open on 8th March & to what extent plus whether other relaxations are possible

- 8th March: Reopen schools, if data remains on positive trajectory, but possibly only primary & maybe key exam cohorts? Perhaps some other minor relaxations?

- "Spring" (deliberately vague): Get priority groups 5-9 (17m) vaccinated....

 

There's been media talk of "spring" meaning end of March or April, which seems reasonable if numbers for vaccination are only slightly larger than the 15th Feb cohort. Though another 2 weeks might be needed for vaccine effectiveness, so in theory the 99% most vulnerable to severe illness might be vaccinated by mid/late April.

 

So, reasonable to expect gradual relaxation between early March & mid/late April?

Though probably still some distancing & masks encouraged after that (perhaps akin to last summer in pubs)?

International travel likely to be restricted for longer, perhaps depending on location, due to risk of variants & any continuing delays in vaccine roll-out?

 

 

Yeah they're slowly releasing more information, but on 22nd February Boris was meant to set out a roadmap on restriction easing etc.

 

All of that is fine with me, I just hope come April we're not sat here in the same situation, even though we'll have 20m+ people vaccinated by then (some with full immunity).

[Stivo]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Depends what "significant easing" means, I suppose.

 

But unless adverse events intervene (e.g. vaccine-resistant variant, major vaccine supply problems), it sounds as if a fair bit of opening will have happened by May - perhaps akin to last summer?

Though some restrictions will doubtless remain, both nationally and internationally.

 

There's already an approximate short-term roadmap, isn't there?

- 15th Feb: Get first 4 priority groups (15m) vaccinated

- 22nd Feb: Decide whether schools will open on 8th March & to what extent plus whether other relaxations are possible

- 8th March: Reopen schools, if data remains on positive trajectory, but possibly only primary & maybe key exam cohorts? Perhaps some other minor relaxations?

- "Spring" (deliberately vague): Get priority groups 5-9 (17m) vaccinated....

 

There's been media talk of "spring" meaning end of March or April, which seems reasonable if numbers for vaccination are only slightly larger than the 15th Feb cohort. Though another 2 weeks might be needed for vaccine effectiveness, so in theory the 99% most vulnerable to severe illness might be vaccinated by mid/late April.

 

So, reasonable to expect gradual relaxation between early March & mid/late April?

Though probably still some distancing & masks encouraged after that (perhaps akin to last summer in pubs)?

International travel likely to be restricted for longer, perhaps depending on location, due to risk of variants & any continuing delays in vaccine roll-out?

 

 

I wonder if they could speed it up a little by telling people in the final two tiers to stay at home or something.  So eg schools go back sooner but without teachers > 50?

[Stivo]

When is someone going to mention it was 472K yesterday?