What is it with oven bulbs?

[JohnW2]

even so, the conspiracy theorists had a field day by suggesting proper testing was not do as it was historically and added to their graphine, microchip/G5 theories . They "Proved" then it was a con or to harm folk, yer can`t win with some folks. Anyway it all helps to get proper considered logic out of the window and politics/religion/hocus pocus out into mainstream .

Quite so. No-one denies that the Covid vaccines were brought to market having undergone far less testing that one would usually want and expect - given that it normally takes around a decade to get a medicine from its 'discovery' to coming into clinical use.

However, it was a case of 'needs must' in the face of a totally unprecedented situation, and I find it hard to see how any sane person can have anything but praise for everyone who was involved into getting the vaccines into unprecedentedly widespread use so incredibly quickly, and undoubtedly saving very many (probably literally millions) of lives, and probably some economies as well (with consequent effects on 'people')!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

However, it was a case of 'needs must' in the face of a totally unprecedented situation, and I find it hard to see how any sane person can have anything but praise for everyone who was involved into getting the vaccines into unprecedentedly widespread use so incredibly quickly, and undoubtedly saving very many (probably literally millions) of lives, and probably some economies as well (with consequent effects on 'people')!

+1 and amid a storm of social media protest.

 

[SUNRAY]

I realise that but, as I said, any off-period of more than a minute or two would have the same impact on life expectancy, so the balance of 'the equation' is almost entirely driven by the running cost of having the light on when not needed.

Incandescent bulbs were very cheap- let's say 40p each 'back then', with an expected life of about a year - so an expected replacement cost of about 40p per year. If one left the light on when not needed such as to double (rather optimistic!) the life to two years, the saving in bulb replacement costs would be 20p per year. However, even at electricity prices back then, it would not have taken many 20-minuteperiods of having the light on 'unnecessarily' for the running costs of that extra usage to exceed that 20pper year saving!

Kind Regards, John

Really.
I have not used incandescants for replacements for maybe 10 years (apart from the fan in the bedroom). All 5 outside lights on PIR + 2 on switches, dining room, 2nd bedroom, 3rd bedroom (Office/toy room), bathroom, downstairs WC, workshop (3 or the 4 spaces) all still have real bulbs. I'll even go so far as to say I think some of those are originals from 1994 when we moved here.

 

[SUNRAY]

Quite so. No-one denies that the Covid vaccines were brought to market having undergone far less testing that one would usually want and expect - given that it normally takes around a decade to get a medicine from its 'discovery' to coming into clinical use.

However, it was a case of 'needs must' in the face of a totally unprecedented situation, and I find it hard to see how any sane person can have anything but praise for everyone who was involved into getting the vaccines into unprecedentedly widespread use so incredibly quickly, and undoubtedly saving very many (probably literally millions) of lives, and probably some economies as well (with consequent effects on 'people')!

Kind Regards, John

I completely agree, 'they' did a brilliant job. However it must be pointed out that covid isn't a new health issue so in reality it was a question of addapting existing vaccines. The Zoflora products have been listing covid in the instructions for 50+ years.
That said I'm not detracting from the praise 'they' deserve for the amazing response, not only the medical research teams but the Government response, particularly the way we were initially shut down and the ongoing controls put in place. Yes there were some mistakes but heyho it was a hell of a mess to get control of.

 

[JohnW2]

Incandescent bulbs were very cheap- let's say 40p each 'back then', with an expected life of about a year ....

Really. ... I have not used incandescants for replacements for maybe 10 years (apart from the fan in the bedroom). All 5 outside lights on PIR + 2 on switches, dining room, 2nd bedroom, 3rd bedroom (Office/toy room), bathroom, downstairs WC, workshop (3 or the 4 spaces) all still have real bulbs. I'll even go so far as to say I think some of those are originals from 1994 when we moved here.

I agree that some incandescents lasted for a long time (such is 'variability', regardless of 'averages' ).

However, standard GLS incandescents nearly always had a claimed life expectancy of 1,000 hours - which is a bit under 1 year at an average of 3 hours per day, or a bit under 6 months at an average of 6 hours per day (probably more realistic for a 'living area')

 

[JohnW2]

I completely agree, 'they' did a brilliant job. However it must be pointed out that covid isn't a new health issue so in reality it was a question of addapting existing vaccines. The Zoflora products have been listing covid in the instructions for 50+ years.

I don't really know what you are talking about

The WHO gave the technical name "SARS-Cov-2" to the newly detected virus and, at the same time created the name "Covid-19" for the illness it caused, wanting to avoid exposing the general public to the technical virus name, since they thought that the "SARS" element of it might cause fear/panic, particular to those in Asia.

Coronaviruses, of which SARS-Cov-2 is one example, have been known, and named as such, since about 1970, Viruses of this group can cause a wide range of illnesses in humans and other animals, including some cases of 'the common cold' in man, but I had never heard of any illnesses or any viruses being called "Covid" until Covid-19 came along in 2019/20 - so I'm not sure what Zoflora (disinfectant) products have been talking about "for the past 50+ years" !!

I understand even less your reference to "adapting existing vaccines". For a start, I am all but certain that there had never previously been any vaccines against any coronaviruses. Furthermore, the Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna and others were of a conceptually very new type ("RNA vaccines") of which virtually none had ever been previously produced against any viruses.. Had Covid-19 come along just 5 or 10 years earlier, the story might have been very different.

It's also worth pointing out that in addition to all the skill and dedicated work that was involved, there was also a significant element of 'luck'. The fact that a virus has been identified and characterised does not necessarily mean that a vaccine against it can be produced 'easily'. The same, or similar, teams that created the Covid-19 vaccines have been trying for nearly 40 years to produce a vaccine against HIV, with very little success so far.

That said I'm not detracting from the praise 'they' deserve for the amazing response, not only the medical research teams but the Government response, particularly the way we were initially shut down and the ongoing controls put in place. Yes there were some mistakes but heyho it was a hell of a mess to get control of.

Very much so. What was achieved really was 'mind boggling' (and certainly totally unprecedented), such that many of us thought that it would be quite impossible. Not only was the first dose of vaccine produced and administered less than 12 months after the virus was identified, but the speed at which it was manufactured, deployed and administered really exceeded 'mind boggling' It is still only about 3.5 years since the first dose of a Covid vaccine was administered, but the WHO is currently reporting that a total of just under 4.5 billion doses of vaccine have now been administered globally !

 

[ebee]

Quite so. No-one denies that the Covid vaccines were brought to market having undergone far less testing that one would usually want and expect - given that it normally takes around a decade to get a medicine from its 'discovery' to coming into clinical use.

However, it was a case of 'needs must' in the face of a totally unprecedented situation, and I find it hard to see how any sane person can have anything but praise for everyone who was involved into getting the vaccines into unprecedentedly widespread use so incredibly quickly, and undoubtedly saving very many (probably literally millions) of lives, and probably some economies as well (with consequent effects on 'people')!

Kind Regards, John

Agreed 200%, some folk still moan about it though.

Just one slight caveat though.
I am 99% sure that the vaccines will, ultimately, have caused harm and death in some, however on balance, to an absolutely massive degree, it was the right thing to do - the only choice we have. Dammed if you do and even more greatly dammed if you do not.
It was the only way and it saved millions of lives - but probably killed a few on the way.
The problem starts when authorities deny some of those killed/harmed.
I remember my old GPs opinion of the MMR jab. but that is another story for another day.
You can say the same thing of pretty much everything in life - living a life is dangerous, any sensible people try to reduce risks but we need to remember that non of it gets out of it alive - nobody lives forever, it is probably illegal to live forever, it should be!

 

[ebee]

I realise that but, as I said, any off-period of more than a minute or two would have the same impact on life expectancy,

Agreed the same/similar impact but by greatly reducing that total number of impacts per period of time I would consider might help.
I remember, some years back, some reckoned to have studied the impact and that was listed as one consideration was that one.
Each stress is a potential damage event so to speak.
Inrush surge at switch on was another and price of switchgear wear and the effect on the whole of the electrical installation was another,
I did see some mentions of 20 mins 30 mins best considered when taking all into consideration, however I will admit that I did not "Fact Check" them all but I do think the basic premiss worth considering.
Of course I might be wrong.
I did also observe that 16W 2D fluoro bulkhead fittings in bathrooms did not enjoy rapid (yes I do mean rapid) switch on/off periods by a couple of customers, flipping heck it really put the life expectancy down good style and I observed them switch on off on off on off on off on off just to check that they were working properly. Why or Earth did they do that? I have no idea!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I have not used incandescants for replacements for maybe 10 years (apart from the fan in the bedroom). All 5 outside lights on PIR + 2 on switches, dining room, 2nd bedroom, 3rd bedroom (Office/toy room), bathroom, downstairs WC, workshop (3 or the 4 spaces) all still have real bulbs. I'll even go so far as to say I think some of those are originals from 1994 when we moved here.

Likewise here, though maybe a little later. I began the change process, with the most used lamps, working my way, over the years, up the tree. The final lamp to be changed, was the one for the under stairs cupboard, not because the lamp had failed, but simply because the LED lamp would be smaller, occupy less headroom. The same old incandescent lamp, had been in there, for many decades.

I still have lots of florescent light fittings, such as those lighting my loft workshop, the garage and it's workshop, plus a single 5 foot in the utility. I also have a large 70w HP sodium fitting mounted high above my drive, and a 70w white discharge lamp fitting, providing some illumination for the back garden. These I installed for emergency use, powered via a smart switch, because without light, it is very, very dark around here.

I see little advantage to swapping any discharge lamps, for LED's.

 

[SUNRAY]

Likewise here, though maybe a little later. I began the change process, with the most used lamps, working my way, over the years, up the tree. The final lamp to be changed, was the one for the under stairs cupboard, not because the lamp had failed, but simply because the LED lamp would be smaller, occupy less headroom. The same old incandescent lamp, had been in there, for many decades.

I still have lots of florescent light fittings, such as those lighting my loft workshop, the garage and it's workshop, plus a single 5 foot in the utility. I also have a large 70w HP sodium fitting mounted high above my drive, and a 70w white discharge lamp fitting, providing some illumination for the back garden. These I installed for emergency use, powered via a smart switch, because without light, it is very, very dark around here.

I see little advantage to swapping any discharge lamps, for LED's.

I've been through the process recently of replacing the kitchen Fluo tubes, we have three five foots in a line above the suspended ceiling, one was taking a long time to start. I tried an 18W LED tube in the fitting then a 24W and found both to be so dim, all this crap about them being equivalent is crazy. Taking the 24W back I mentioned the problem and rather unexpectedly found they had fluo's in stock so I purchased six. That should see me good for at least 10 years.

I started using 2D's way back in the 80's, then the bulb replacement types when 'they' started giving out free samples 20-25 years ago but still used my existing stock in the cupboard until nearly depleted. However there are still situations where I think there is no decent replacement for incandescent and certainly not fluo tubes.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I started using 2D's way back in the 80's, then the bulb replacement types when 'they' started giving out free samples 20-25 years ago but still used my existing stock in the cupboard until nearly depleted. However there are still situations where I think there is no decent replacement for incandescent and certainly not fluo tubes.

I never had much luck with 2D, or 2D fittings here, they just seemed to last no time at all, when compared to straight floros. I had a 2D outdoors in a fitting for several years, and it seemed to need a new lamp every 6 months, I have never needed to repair, or replace any of the straight floro lamps, or fittings.

I keep a large box containing all the incandescent lamps, taken out in working order, just as back ups for the LED ones.

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed 200%, some folk still moan about it though. ... Just one slight caveat though.
I am 99% sure that the vaccines will, ultimately, have caused harm and death in some, however on balance, to an absolutely massive degree, it was the right thing to do - the only choice we have. Dammed if you do and even more greatly dammed if you do not.

I'm sure that you can confidently increase that 99% to 100%, because we know for sure that Covid-19 vaccines (just like any other vaccine or medicine) has resulted in some deaths - but, as you say, a risk-benefit analysis comes down overwhelmingly in favour of giving the vaccine.

Vaccines in general, and Covid vaccines in particularly, are extremely 'safe', far more so than many 'everyday medicines'. It's probably worth pointing out that the 'harm and death' caused by Covid vaccines was only even 'noticeable' because of the almost unbelievable speed of deployment of the vaccines ...

... probably the most talked-about deaths are those due to the "Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenic Syndrome" ("TTS", often referred to as 'brain clots') with The AZ vaccine - which deaths, in ballpark terms, occurred in association with about '1 in a million' doses of vaccine administered. To be 'noticeable', one needs at least a small handful of cases, say 10, so that would probably not have been 'noticed' until around 10 million doses had been administered..

When a new medicine, including a vaccine, is introduced, exposure of people to it usually increases gradually, and it could well take 'a good few years' before 10 million doses has been administered, and hence before such a rare cause of associated death would be likely to be 'noticed'. Off the top of my dead, I don'gt know the figures for AZ vaccine alone, but in terms of all Covid vaccines,the average rate of administration over the past 3.5 years has been (almost 'unbelievably'!) about 3.5 million doses per day - so it would not take very long at all for very rare side effects (including deaths) to be noticed!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed the same/similar impact but by greatly reducing that total number of impacts per period of time I would consider might help.

It obviously 'helps' in terms of bulb life but, as I went on to say,whether even a dramatic increase in life expectancy (of a very cheap bulb) would have (financially) justified the increased costs of having a light on when it was not needed is perhaps a very different question.

Kind Regards, John