Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)
- Thread starter RandomRash
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 25,101
- Reaction score
- 2,920
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
I will admit I thought once we were vaccinated we could not catch the item, like when I got the yellow fever one, but it did have a time limit, the flue jab was first where we needed a new one every year, and could still catch it.
It does refer to the 18th but then says earlier editions may not be compliant but may not need upgrading.
So inspect to the 18th and liberal use of C3’s is in order
How can you get sued if you apply this logic?
No EFLI. I disagree.
Anybody can catch owt umpteen times once they had it but many things you less likely to get it 2,3 or 100 times. Is the way I understands it anyway. Often if they do get it again its not as bad as it might otherwise would have been.
Someone with more appropriate knowledge might know better than me though.
My understanding of the Flu jab for example is "say for instance as a theoretical example" - A room/area of 99 people are exposed to an infected person for an amount of time. 66 might actually catch the flu and 33 might not. Nobody had been vaccinated.
Same scenario but all of those 99 had been vaccinated. This time 33 might get the flu but 66 might not,
In each case nobody is immune from catching flu but nobody is guaranteed to get it.
In comparisons the vaccinated risk is about half compared to unvaccinated risk.
One year the numbers might approx tally and I think most would include it as a quite successful vaccine based on figures.
Anybody can catch owt umpteen times once they had it but many things you less likely to get it 2,3 or 100 times. Is the way I understands it anyway. Often if they do get it again its not as bad as it might otherwise would have been.
Someone with more appropriate knowledge might know better than me though.
My understanding of the Flu jab for example is "say for instance as a theoretical example" - A room/area of 99 people are exposed to an infected person for an amount of time. 66 might actually catch the flu and 33 might not. Nobody had been vaccinated.
Same scenario but all of those 99 had been vaccinated. This time 33 might get the flu but 66 might not,
In each case nobody is immune from catching flu but nobody is guaranteed to get it.
In comparisons the vaccinated risk is about half compared to unvaccinated risk.
One year the numbers might approx tally and I think most would include it as a quite successful vaccine based on figures.
Sponsored Links
If you inspect in accordance with ammendment 1 or 2 and include something that is in the non ammended version and accordingly you defect it and code it.
Example - if such a law was around say 50 years or more ago and you had incredible future insight and defected an installtion for no main bonding back then because you absolutely knew that it would be a defect in the future (nowadays)
Not in my book it isn't, regardless of what dictionary definitions you may throw at me. You seem to think that a vaccine will give total immunity to a disease (maybe even 'for ever'?) in everyone it is administered to. No matter how hard you try, I am confident that you won't find any vaccine for which that is true.
A 'good vaccine' will provide immunity from infection to a high proportion of recipients, at least for some period of time, and in those who develop the disease despite vaccination, the disease will often be milder and/or shorter and/or less-easily transmitted.
The technical documentation for any vaccine will contain statements such as in these few examples:
Typhoid
Yellow Fever
Hepatitis A
MMR
.... etc. etc.
Smallpox vaccination certainly did not give "100% immunity". What it did do was to give immunity, at least for a period of time, to a high proportion of recipients. As a result, the number of people infected at any point in time dramatically decreased, hence a dramatic decrease in those able to infect others, with progressively reducing number of 'infective' people able to transmit it in each 'generation' of transmission - until, eventually, there was no-one 'infected' left to infect anyone else.
There is no current documentation for any smallpox vaccine, since nowhere in the world is it available for routine clinical use. However, the CDC (one of the world's most authoritative sources on such matters) currently says:
They also say (relevant because some people in this thread have been talking about 'everlasting immunity') ...
Although no longer used routinely/'clinically', smallpox vaccines still exist, but to thee best of my knowledge are only given to people in the very small number of labs around the world which still have, and work with, live smallpox viruses.
Kind Regards, John
Yep that falls in line without my overall way of looking at it to a degree and without numbers or details, just more of an approx overall thinking of how vaccines might well be "quite" effective in many instances.
If someone incinerates me at a good distance they might be very sure, near 100%, that I am then unlikely to transmit/receive any viruses etc.
If someone incinerates me at a good distance they might be very sure, near 100%, that I am then unlikely to transmit/receive any viruses etc.
EFLI - some dictionaries actually list Electrocution as Electric shocks but I do not , Electrocution is death caused by electric shock/current
Earlier editions is open to interpretation but pre 16th, around 20 years ago would have been a sensible cut off but as we all know this was put in place by numpties who didn’t have a clue including the ex ceo of Certsure.
Shame our observations prior to it being made law were ignored
I remember discussing all this with a pal who’s a spark and we couldn’t believe what a hash had been made of something that should have been easy to write and define
What do you mean by "the 18th" - BS7671:2018 or Amd 2 thereof?
I seem to recall that you said that inspection should be to 'the current edition' (which is Amd2), didn't you - but if you identify things (even if only C3) which are non-conformant with Amd2, but which would have been compliant with BS7671:2018 (as required by the legislation), then you would be acting outside of the instructions of the legislation.
Unless qualified in some way, "earlier" means exactly what it says, with no scope for differing interpretations (no matter how daft that may be if taken to extremes).
Ok, so something which does not do that is what?
A very worthwhile vaccine
A 'not-so-good', but, quite possibly a nevertheless 'appreciably-better-than-nothing vaccine' (or, as with many, a 'much-bertter tha-nothing vaccine') - but still 'a vaccine'.
Certainly in terms of 'routine vaccines', you would never see one that only protected a small proportion of those receiving it (a 'bad vaccine') , because it would never be 'released' - there have, for example, been many anti-malaria vaccines which, in trials, have not proved effective enough to be 'released' for routine use.
Vaccines are no different from any medicines - none do 'exactly what it says on the tin' for everyone who receives them, but we still call them medicines - or. more specifically, anti-diabetic medicines, antihypertensive medicines, anti-cancer medicines, anti-depressants etc. etc. Just as nothing we call 'a medicine' (or one of those specific types of medicine) is a 'perfect medicine', so are none of the things we call vaccines 'perfect vaccines.
Kind Regards, John
Quoting the PRS legislation its the 18th edition - not AMD 1 or AMD 2 or worse the 19th edition.
So we are inspecting to a previous edition - which is clear.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
