c4countdown

I think we need one of these to discuss everything about our experiences and opinions etc.

Personally I think a lot of people and indeed whole countries are struggling to get the balance right. Closing restaurants, pubs etc. is an unfortunate but sensible move. It's difficult to properly practice "social distancing" in these environments, and closing them will help stop the spread. But full scale lockdowns are just asking for more problems. People need to get outside and exercise etc. for their health, both physical and mental, and it's really easy to keep two metres away from people. They always said from the start that the risk is when you're within two metres of someone for 15 minutes or more. And while 15 minutes isn't a "magic number", if I'm on a run and pass within "range" of someone for approximately a second, the risk is negligible. Fortunately I don't think the UK will actually enforce a full lockdown, but other countries have and I think a lot of it might be about being seen to do the right thing. Obviously we need to take this seriously, but that doesn't mean the more drastic your measures, the more sensible you are. We can't turn into lunatics over this.

And this brings me neatly onto Essex County Council who have decided to close all their country parks, and this includes the Flitch Way, which is a disused railway line where people walk/cycle/run etc. It's not a park by any normal definition, but it's counted as a country park, and it's been closed and that's the relevant thing here. It's also where I do about 90% of my running. And what good does closing it do? People will still go out to do their outside activities, but they will just have a smaller number of places to go, so surely that means more chance of meeting each other! It also means more people will use roads which are more dangerous, but because they're not the latest cool danger that doesn't matter. But I suppose when people do catch the coronavirus, Essex County Council will be able to say that it wasn't on their grounds so it wasn't their fault. Morons.

Yeah I don't really get that one.

I get that they closed the London parks because it would be difficult to keep a safe distance. But Snowdonia? I've never been but I can't imagine it was as packed as St. James' Park gets. I went to Hainault Forest Country Park on Saturday and it was very easy to keep a safe distance from everyone. I also went for a kickabout yesterday in the park and managed easily to avoid coming within 2 meters of anyone.

I think we’ll all be on lockdown by tomorrow night to be honest,

Day six of lockdown here, getting a lot of stuff done, but missing ball sports. The garden is mostly sorted for the Spring.

Can't run atm, but went for a short bike ride on Saturday which lifted my spirits massively. Preventing people from exercising for any length of time will have a major negative impact on physical and mental health. And families locked up together 24/7 are gonna murder each other for sure!

Keep spouting shit on social media and here to keep my spirits up.
Also I have been canvassing people who had Coronavirus symptoms in December or early January as I'm convinced I had it before it was officially out there.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:54 pm Keep spouting shit on social media and here to keep my spirits up.
Also I have been canvassing people who had Coronavirus symptoms in December or early January as I'm convinced I had it before it was officially out there.

Chances are you could have done. I know of two people at uni who had it in late December and mid-January respectively, for the latter after it showed up later on blood tests. (So I'm told)

There was something pretty nasty knocking around beforehand for sure, but this stems from that market in Wuhan - I can't remember the month it was held?

James S Roper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:10 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:54 pm Keep spouting shit on social media and here to keep my spirits up.
Also I have been canvassing people who had Coronavirus symptoms in December or early January as I'm convinced I had it before it was officially out there.

Chances are you could have done. I know of two people at uni who had it in late December and mid-January respectively, for the latter after it showed up later on blood tests. (So I'm told)

There was something pretty nasty knocking around beforehand for sure, but this stems from that market in Wuhan - I can't remember the month it was held?

It's an interesting idea, I had an unusual chest infection around the start of the year. Won't be getting tested for a while I presume though.

I had a weird chest infection around the end of February too, was given antibiotics and didn't think anything further of it, was told it couldn't possible be COVID as I hadn't come into contact with anyone with it. Fast forward to this weekend just gone, I've got an elevated temperature and my senses of taste and smell are completely gone. Currently self-isolating for a week and hoping that this is (somehow) unrelated. The whole of Lincolnshire is only supposed to have 20 cases of COVID- I reckon the actual number is a lot higher.

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:15 pm I had a weird chest infection around the end of February too, was given antibiotics and didn't think anything further of it, was told it couldn't possible be COVID as I hadn't come into contact with anyone with it. Fast forward to this weekend just gone, I've got an elevated temperature and my senses of taste and smell are completely gone. Currently self-isolating for a week and hoping that this is (somehow) unrelated. The whole of Lincolnshire is only supposed to have 20 cases of COVID- I reckon the actual number is a lot higher.

Stay safe

Problem is without lots of testing numbers are unknown .
Places like Russia can boast low levels of new cases because lest then 1% of their population are being tested.
If we tested everyone in the country the figures would be closer to Italy

I think some of the measures brought in yesterday are an overreaction. The problem is groups of people together, not people out alone or with their families. So there's no sensible reason to say you can only go out once to exercise. There's no problem with someone spending their entire day faffing around outside unless they start hanging around other people.

I know people will then say that people will just take the piss like they did last weekend and hang around in parks in large groups of people. But this is unconnected. Restricting solo movement will not stop people doing this. They've banned gatherings of more than two people anyway, and said that the police can enforce it. That should be enough. Or if it isn't, people who are intent on hanging out in large groups that aren't put off by the fact that it's now illegal aren't going to suddenly think twice because something else had been made illegal.

We have to do the right thing and the government has to do the right thing to stop the spread of this, but it's about coming up with sensible measures - it's not the more draconian the better.

I think if you are out and about just keep moving
You are so much more at risk travelling on a bus or train or alecen a taxi than if you are out cycling running or jogging/brisk walking

Carol Vorderman on BBC Coronavirus newscast last evening. Brief Countdown chat at the start.

Just been to Tesco's. It all seemed pretty dystopian.

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:15 pm I had a weird chest infection around the end of February too, was given antibiotics and didn't think anything further of it, was told it couldn't possible be COVID as I hadn't come into contact with anyone with it. Fast forward to this weekend just gone, I've got an elevated temperature and my senses of taste and smell are completely gone. Currently self-isolating for a week and hoping that this is (somehow) unrelated. The whole of Lincolnshire is only supposed to have 20 cases of COVID- I reckon the actual number is a lot higher.

How is your recovery going? They do say that loss of taste is a symptom. But I don't think the thing you had at the end of February would be related.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:26 pm

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:15 pm I had a weird chest infection around the end of February too, was given antibiotics and didn't think anything further of it, was told it couldn't possible be COVID as I hadn't come into contact with anyone with it. Fast forward to this weekend just gone, I've got an elevated temperature and my senses of taste and smell are completely gone. Currently self-isolating for a week and hoping that this is (somehow) unrelated. The whole of Lincolnshire is only supposed to have 20 cases of COVID- I reckon the actual number is a lot higher.

How is your recovery going? They do say that loss of taste is a symptom. But I don't think the thing you had at the end of February would be related.

Slowly, but thanks for asking. Still a bit shivery, still got a very tickly cough and less energy than a sloth on hardcore Valium. I'm looking forward to being able to enjoy food again as no sense of taste does a real number on your appetite.

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:15 pm I had a weird chest infection around the end of February too, was given antibiotics and didn't think anything further of it, was told it couldn't possible be COVID as I hadn't come into contact with anyone with it. Fast forward to this weekend just gone, I've got an elevated temperature and my senses of taste and smell are completely gone. Currently self-isolating for a week and hoping that this is (somehow) unrelated. The whole of Lincolnshire is only supposed to have 20 cases of COVID- I reckon the actual number is a lot higher.

Interestingly, we noticed a possible diminishment of sense of smell last night in our house (no, this isn't a set-up for a funny). Vick's Vaporub was the test substance, and it's barely noticeable to us now. Quite odd, although I'm wondering if the formula's changed? Seems unlikely.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:27 pm Interestingly, we noticed a possible diminishment of sense of smell last night in our house (no, this isn't a set-up for a funny). Vick's Vaporub was the test substance, and it's barely noticeable to us now. Quite odd, although I'm wondering if the formula's changed? Seems unlikely.

I'm imagining a game in Ian's house where you're blindfolded and have to guess various things from their smell - coffee, vicks, armpit of yesterday's t-shirt

Stay well Ian, and get well soon Ben!

I think there are a lot of people whose health might actually benefit from this. People who normally do no exercise and are now cooped up in their houses are told that they can go out to exercise once a day - once more than they normally do! And perhaps through boredom they're more likely to do it now!

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:03 am I think there are a lot of people whose health might actually benefit from this. People who normally do no exercise and are now cooped up in their houses are told that they can go out to exercise once a day - once more than they normally do! And perhaps through boredom they're more likely to do it now!

Very glad there doesn't seem to be a time limit on your daily exercise so I'm on my bike for a good three hours most days

I play football regularly but obviously we can't get a game going at the moment so I did a few HIT exercises, some squats, lunges etc to keep the body moving. Only about 8 minutes or so and yet the next day I could barely get down the stairs. I can play an hour of football twice a week no bother but a few squats puts me out of commission.

One of my neighbours is always gardening. I saw him out there today, and he briefly stepped into the lane before going back again. And I said "That's his one outing allowed. If he does that again, I'm calling the police."

Boris has it
This shit got real.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:47 pm Boris has it
This shit got real.

Prince Charles already has it. If by "real" we mean even posh twats are getting it.

My sympathy levels are waning.
I'm thinking Boris gets tested but the nurses don't

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:07 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:47 pm Boris has it
This shit got real.

Prince Charles already has it. If by "real" we mean even posh twats are getting it.

Disappointed with Prince Charles , he is self isolating , the perfect opportunity to do upload his cover version of ' I Just Can't Wait to be King '

Boris Johnson originally just wanted to carry on as normal so we'd get herd immunity when 60% of people had got this coronavirus. So I suppose he's just doing his bit.

Some people are phoning the police because they think their neighbours are going out to exercise twice. I think this sort of thing can bring the best and worst out in people. (In this case the worst obviously.)

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:49 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:03 am I think there are a lot of people whose health might actually benefit from this. People who normally do no exercise and are now cooped up in their houses are told that they can go out to exercise once a day - once more than they normally do! And perhaps through boredom they're more likely to do it now!

Very glad there doesn't seem to be a time limit on your daily exercise so I'm on my bike for a good three hours most days

Sorry - whose bike?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:30 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:49 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:03 am I think there are a lot of people whose health might actually benefit from this. People who normally do no exercise and are now cooped up in their houses are told that they can go out to exercise once a day - once more than they normally do! And perhaps through boredom they're more likely to do it now!

Very glad there doesn't seem to be a time limit on your daily exercise so I'm on my bike for a good three hours most days

Sorry - whose bike?

Too soon.
Funnily enough I was trawling through my dark period on here for research on behalf of Martin Peters and to say I was embarrassed was an understatement , my toes were curling more than those shoes the Turkish wear

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:10 am Carol Vorderman on BBC Coronavirus newscast last evening. Brief Countdown chat at the start.

Countdown to the apocalypse.

Good news today , the stats will be 5% less accurate due to the clocks going forward

In this BBC article, it says

In the letter, being sent to 30 million homes, the prime minister warned stricter restrictions could be put in place if necessary.

One worry is that they will further restrict exercise, by e.g. having a time limit rather than just "once a day" and also restricting how far you can go.

But really this is all nonsense. The risk of spreading the virus when outside two metres away from other people is negligible, whether you're outside for one minute or all the time. Even if you briefly pass people and get within the two-metre range it's still negligible. When this thing was new, they defined close contact with someone as being within two metres of someone for 15 minutes or more. There's basically zero risk from just passing someone unless they cough in your face. The 15 minutes thing seemed to disappear because they wanted it to be simple, but in terms of objective risk, simply being within a two-metre range of someone for a few seconds is basically nothing.

If this virus continues to spread, it won't be because people are going out exercising. It will be because of people who are in close contact with each other - either because they're flouting the rules or because of their essential work - or because people are touching contaminated surfaces and not washing their hands.

So let's not just add arbitrary extra restrictions that won't make any difference just so that the government can say they're doing something about it.

You're biased as fuck because you love exercising. Spare a thought for people who like being social and people who like touching stuff.

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:27 pm You're biased as fuck because you love exercising. Spare a thought for people who like being social and people who like touching stuff.

True.

Anyway, another example of this turning people into dickheads - people trying to stop shops from selling Easter eggs because they're not essential.

The police dyed a blue lagoon black to deter visitors. Talk about police state.

By the way, according to this BBC article:

Take exercise. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "People will only be allowed to leave their home for... one form of exercise a day".

That sounds like a clear legal order - and the science behind it may be very clear, particularly in cities.

But his government has not made that the law in England - and the position is the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, in Wales, which sets its own health regulations, exercising more than once a day is now against the law.

I might as well tell you now if you hadn't already guessed - I've been doing this anyway.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:17 pm

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:27 pm You're biased as fuck because you love exercising. Spare a thought for people who like being social and people who like touching stuff.

True.

Anyway, another example of this turning people into dickheads - people trying to stop shops from selling Easter eggs because they're not essential.

It's what Jesus would have wanted

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm The police dyed a blue lagoon black to deter visitors. Talk about police state.

By the way, according to this BBC article:

Take exercise. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "People will only be allowed to leave their home for... one form of exercise a day".

That sounds like a clear legal order - and the science behind it may be very clear, particularly in cities.

But his government has not made that the law in England - and the position is the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, in Wales, which sets its own health regulations, exercising more than once a day is now against the law.

I might as well tell you now if you hadn't already guessed - I've been doing this anyway.

I would make a citizen's arrest if I could catch you

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm The police dyed a blue lagoon black to deter visitors. Talk about police state.

Fake news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-22843481

David Williams wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:47 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm The police dyed a blue lagoon black to deter visitors. Talk about police state.

Fake news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-22843481

Well, that's an article from 2013 when they dyed it black for a completely different reason. It's probably just how they deal with things.

Too many people swimming in the lagoon - dye it black.
Too many people visit the lagoon when the country's in lockdown - dye it black.
Sergeant Bloggs gets out of bed the wrong side - "Dye that fucking lagoon black. That'll show 'em!"
Someone reports a burglary - "Well, as you know most burglaries go unsolved so I'm not sure we can really help you. Well, we can try dyeing the lagoon black to see if that turns up anything."

Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, we are very much living in a police state right now. (Woman fined for not telling police who she was or what she was up to at a train station.)

I'd very much hope she was actually fined for doing something against the law, which was aggravated by her refusal to give her name. If the police ask for your name and what you are doing, you are perfectly entitled to respond "Going about my lawful business, officer". (Do not try this at home, or indeed not at home.)

I know someone who works as a gardener, who was instructed by the police to return home because his work was not essential. The government is not saying only people doing “essential” work can go to work. Anyone who cannot work from home can still go to work. And those last two sentences are cut and pasted from official advice.

Is there any truth in 5G causing the Coronavirus ?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm By the way, according to this BBC article:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "People will only be allowed to leave their home for... one form of exercise a day".

That sounds like a clear legal order...

Well, no it doesn't. The intention seems to be that you can go out to exercise only once a day. But what it actually says is "one form of exercise a day", which suggests you can go out as many times as you like as long as you don't do e.g. running the first time and cycling the second, or whatever. It's a most bizarre way of phrasing it.

David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:57 am I'd very much hope she was actually fined for doing something against the law, which was aggravated by her refusal to give her name. If the police ask for your name and what you are doing, you are perfectly entitled to respond "Going about my lawful business, officer". (Do not try this at home, or indeed not at home.)

It says in the article that it was new legislation though. Are you sure you can still do the same things?

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:13 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:41 pm By the way, according to this BBC article:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "People will only be allowed to leave their home for... one form of exercise a day".

That sounds like a clear legal order...

Well, no it doesn't. The intention seems to be that you can go out to exercise only once a day. But what it actually says is "one form of exercise a day", which suggests you can go out as many times as you like as long as you don't do e.g. running the first time and cycling the second, or whatever. It's a most bizarre way of phrasing it.

That is a good point actually. Well since it doesn't appear to be the law anyway, I'm not going to worry too much about Boris Johnson's intentions.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:05 am Is there any truth in 5G causing the Coronavirus ?

I'm guessing not.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:29 am

David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:57 am I'd very much hope she was actually fined for doing something against the law, which was aggravated by her refusal to give her name. If the police ask for your name and what you are doing, you are perfectly entitled to respond "Going about my lawful business, officer". (Do not try this at home, or indeed not at home.)

It says in the article that it was new legislation though. Are you sure you can still do the same things?

I think I've read that but I can't be sure. I suppose it's similar to if you are seen carrying a bag with SWAG written on it. That's suspicious, to it's up to you to explain how you came by it. Being out is suspicious, so you have to explain why if they insist. But the offence was whatever she was doing, not simply failing to explain herself.

I've also seen that although the PM said only one form of exercise a day that is only actually law in Wales.

I should say that at present I'm more inclined to the view that we should be doing what we know is right, rather than looking for loopholes.

The report in today's Times is headlined "Woman fined £660 for a crime that 'doesn't exist'".

David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:57 am I've also seen that although the PM said only one form of exercise a day that is only actually law in Wales.

I should say that at present I'm more inclined to the view that we should be doing what we know is right, rather than looking for loopholes.

What the government say and what we consider to be right aren't necessarily the same thing though. I don't think it's right to be restricted to going out once to exercise, or even to go out several times but with only one form of exercise!

David Williams wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:47 am The report in today's Times is headlined "Woman fined £660 for a crime that 'doesn't exist'".

I'm glad because as I think I've said on this forum, there is definitely too much groupthink about this.

For alternative viewpoints, there is this interview with Lord Sumption and also some random runner talking about the subject while on his run. I recommend them both. The second one is quite long but you can have it on in the background without having to watch the scenery go by.

This is a good interview on the use of police powers and lack of consistency between "guidance" and law:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/b ... 1481010283

And a much shorter summary of the interviewee's points can be found here: https://davidallengreen.com/2020/03/the ... ided-tour/

I've read the blog post now. Not listened to the interview though!

Another thing that annoys me is the "Stay at Home" message that's permanently on the screen on Channel 4. Government propaganda on Channel 4.

Just been furloughed so at least stay at home resonates now.
Still gonna exercise though

So , just for fun , what's the next big sporting occasion that will take place.
I'm hoping ( only because it is June ) that it's The Derby.
But more likely the The Open

And more importantly, on what date will parkruns come back?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:46 pm And more importantly, on what date will parkruns come back?

Maybe do some Parkour instead

Matt Hancock has now said that they could ban exercising outside the home if people don't obey the rules.

Personally I think this would be crazy. Apparently lots of people were gathering in parks at the weekend, not obeying the rules. I'm not sure how big the problem was, but some of the pictures I've seen (not necessarily a representative sample, but if anything they would be likely to bias it towards making people look bad), while people have been sunbathing at parks etc., most of them have been quite spaced out and probably obeying the two-metre thing.

But anyway because it doesn't come under the allowed reasons for leaving the house it's still not allowed and therefore bad. So because people have been disobeying one rule, the logical thing to do is to ban something else entirely - right?

No. I don't think it follows. The logic seems to be that people are going to disobey the rules by e.g. 10%. These current rules don't work so make them harsher and if people still disobey them by 10% we'll get the original desired behaviour. This sounds like nonsense to me. OK, you might call it a straw man argument because they haven't actually said that would be the reason, but why else would they ban x to get people not to do y?

Part of the problem here is that there's no real scrutiny of these rules. It doesn't matter if you agree with any of the stuff I'm posting here - the job of journalists is to scrutinise the government and demand that they justify their laws. Then if they successfully do so, the new laws come out looking better, and people will be more accepting of them. It's not about disagreeing with the government - it's about holding them to account.

Anyway, back to the gatherings. This seems to mainly be in London where there are probably more people per amount of "green space" than anywhere else. This is a problem that we can't just simply solve by magicking up more parks etc., but would the solution really be to ban all outdoor activity across the country?

You need the people of the country on your side. This lockdown has a time limit, because people will gradually get more and more pissed off and mutinous. So to keep people on side for as long as you need, you need to really look at which of the rules serve a purpose, and what "collateral damage" you're causing by not being more logical with the rules. You can keep this going much longer if you're more reasonable in what you allow. People going out to exercise/sunbathe etc. is not what's spreading this. A very small proportion of the people doing this might start hanging out in groups, but the police have powers to stop this now, and that small number of people won't really stop the lockdown from working. Almost everyone is doing the 2-metre thing. That's primarily what we need. This will slow the spread.

Obviously they need to look like they're taking a hard line on this, and that could include threatening to stop people from going out to exercise at all. But the minute they actually ban it, they're a bunch of fucking idiots, and they will probably make the problem worse.

It is an excuse to ban all outdoor activities apart from to and from work buying groceries or picking up medication.
The the police can stop people and send them home or fine them.

There are certain situations that are not mentioned on essential list

For example parents of children that have joint custody.
How can you resolve this during lockdown ?

Suppose you have a bottle of poison with five lethal doses in it, and another bottle of 100 pills, five of which are poisonous.

If one person consumes the whole bottle they die. If two people share the whole bottle, both of them die. Up to five people it's essentially the same. But if 100 people share the poison none of them die. As opposed to 100 people having a pill each, five of whom will die.

Which is closer to how viruses work?

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:43 am Suppo wese you have a bottle of poison with five lethal doses in it, and another bottle of 100 pills, five of which are poisonous.

If one person consumes the whole bottle they die. If two people share the whole bottle, both of them die. Up to five people it's essentially the same. But if 100 people share the poison none of them die. As opposed to 100 people having a pill each, five of whom will die.

Which is closer to how viruses work?

Surely that analogy implies there is a quantifiable amount of virus

I think it's valid.

Suppose it was established that having a meal in a restaurant with an infected person gave you a 50% chance of being infected. Sheer chance, different immune systems, whatever. How many people would you expect to be infected if that person spent the same amount of time at a speed-dating event, sitting across a table from 20 different people? It could be as many as ten, if it takes only minimal contact. It could be none, if there's threshold that has to be exceeded.

When it comes to relaxing lockdown it matters a lot. On one scenario restaurants remain shut. One infected waiter is likely to infect half the customers. On the other it's perfectly safe to open restaurants to groups comprising members of the same household, so long as the tables are 2 metres apart (which is virtually impossible, but you get my point).