Deconfinement: What reopens from today, April 5th

Foto Dr: DECONFINEMENT: WHAT REOPENS FROM TODAY, APRIL 5THThe new Government Decree defines the rules of the 14th state of emergency and establishes what can be reopened from today, and the places that still can't function during the next 15 days, in this second phase of the deconfinement. The measures are valid, for now, for the whole country.

The following that can now function:

1 - Schools of the 2nd and 3rd cycles in person;

2 - Family support and curriculum enrichment activities, as well as leisure centers and study centers for students who resume face-to-face classes;

3 - Social facilities in the area of ​​disability;

4 - Day centers;

5 - Stores and services in spaces less than 200 square meters that have a direct door to the street;

6 - Gyms and gyms, but without group classes. Outdoor physical activity with up to four people;

7 - Museums, monuments, palaces, archaeological and similar sites, art galleries and exhibitions;

8 - Restaurant and café terraces with a limit of four people per group, unless they all belong to the same household. Business hours are from 10 am to 10:30 pm during the week, on weekends and holidays they must close at 1 pm;

9 - Fairs and markets, provided they are authorised by the Mayor of the Municipality where they operate;

10 - Low risk physical and sports activities, such as tennis or golf.

As of today, and during the next fortnight, the ban on movement between municipalities on the Portuguese continent is no longer in force, but the land border between Portugal and Spain is still closed.

On Friday, the Prime Minister, António Costa, said that Portugal can "take the step forward" with these measures of deflation, claiming that "the combined application of the two criteria" - incidence and rate of transmission of Covid-19 -  keeps Portugal “clearly in the green quadrant”.

Original article available in Portuguese at http://postal.pt/

 

Pin It

Comments  

-1 #13 Steve 2021-04-08 15:17
Quoting Norman L:

I didn't think I'd need to spell it out, Steve, given your excellent command of English and scientific concepts. It's a direct response to your comment #9 on the inventor's intention when he invented the 'diagnostic tool'. Clear now?

Thank you Norman, it was very clear the first time.

Kary Mullis did not invent a diagnostic tool, he invented a method that is now widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail. Scientists cannot tell from these samples if a person has an infection or is infectious to others. The only thing you get from a positive PCR "test" is that the person is carrying a tiny fraction of RNA that can be found, allegedly in the sars-cov-2 virus but can also be found in other types of coronaviruses. I am saying allegedly because the protocol for testing the sars-cov-2 virus doesn't come from a real virus, it was created as computer simulation. This has been presented in two different courts of law in Lisbon and Vienna as evidence, and both came to the same conclusion the PCR machine is not capable of detecting infections.

We better leave Baye's theorem for another day.
+4 #12 Norman L 2021-04-08 13:10
Quoting Steve:
Quoting Norman L:

I doubt Alexander Graham Bell realised the uses the phone would be put to when he invented it.
All those people dying and filling the emergency and intensive care wards. If only they'd known of Bayes' Theorem things would have been just fine.
Lol what are you talking about Norman? You should only make a comment after you've taken your meds.


I didn't think I'd need to spell it out, Steve, given your excellent command of English and scientific concepts. It's a direct response to your comment #9 on the inventor's intention when he invented the 'diagnostic tool'. Clear now?
-1 #11 Steve 2021-04-08 10:43
Quoting Norman L:

I doubt Alexander Graham Bell realised the uses the phone would be put to when he invented it.
All those people dying and filling the emergency and intensive care wards. If only they'd known of Bayes' Theorem things would have been just fine.
Lol what are you talking about Norman? You should only make a comment after you've taken your meds.
-2 #10 Norman L 2021-04-07 16:26
Quoting Steve:
Quoting Maximillian:
True and it's quite interesting that our Government here ignores this. It's a diagnostic tool, not a test and the virus itself has never been isolated. But hey.... fear is the tool to keep the world in grip! https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en

It's not even a diagnostic tool (according to the inventor), it serves as a useful tool for research purpose. It can aid in the diagnosis of a person after that person has been diagnosed by a doctor.

The main reason this PCR tool has been rejected by two courts of law as a diagnostic tool is that the classification of someone with an infection cannot be done using the PCR test alone, a MD has to be involved in the diagnosis of a person.

When you start testing an entire population for a disease that is still rare only affecting a small part of the population you will run into a Bayesian trap (Bayes' theorem) where the number of false positives greatly outnumbers the people who truly have the disease. But its a good way to fabricate a pandemic.


I doubt Alexander Graham Bell realised the uses the phone would be put to when he invented it.
All those people dying and filling the emergency and intensive care wards. If only they'd known of Bayes' Theorem things would have been just fine.
+1 #9 Steve 2021-04-07 13:52
Quoting Maximillian:
True and it's quite interesting that our Government here ignores this. It's a diagnostic tool, not a test and the virus itself has never been isolated. But hey.... fear is the tool to keep the world in grip! https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en

It's not even a diagnostic tool (according to the inventor), it serves as a useful tool for research purpose. It can aid in the diagnosis of a person after that person has been diagnosed by a doctor.

The main reason this PCR tool has been rejected by two courts of law as a diagnostic tool is that the classification of someone with an infection cannot be done using the PCR test alone, a MD has to be involved in the diagnosis of a person.

When you start testing an entire population for a disease that is still rare only affecting a small part of the population you will run into a Bayesian trap (Bayes' theorem) where the number of false positives greatly outnumbers the people who truly have the disease. But its a good way to fabricate a pandemic.
-1 #8 Chip 2021-04-07 11:39
Quoting Maximillian:
Quoting Chip:
[
As of yesterday Portugal had conducted 9,180,981 tests.
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The information is out there if you look for it.

Not of any use to give total numbers. We have daily statistics about all parameters. If your municipality gets 1000 tests today and 2000 test tomorrow for the same number of inhabitants, you know the outcome will be different.


I guess you'll be wanting to know the number of tests in your street next. Anything to muddy the waters.
-2 #7 Norman L 2021-04-07 10:02
Maximillian
and the virus itself has never been isolated.


Yes, it has. Ask the CDC. If you were a BEI-compliant institution you could get some free for research. But then, it's Fauci, so .......
+6 #6 Maximillian 2021-04-07 06:58
Quoting Steve:
[ But the fact still remains that the PCR test is incapable of detecting an infection or showing a person to be infectious. This has been ruled by two different courts in Lisbon and recently in Vienna.
True and it's quite interesting that our Government here ignores this. It's a diagnostic tool, not a test and the virus itself has never been isolated. But hey.... fear is the tool to keep the world in grip! https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en
+7 #5 Maximillian 2021-04-06 13:32
Quoting Chip:
[
As of yesterday Portugal had conducted 9,180,981 tests.
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The information is out there if you look for it.

Not of any use to give total numbers. We have daily statistics about all parameters. If your municipality gets 1000 tests today and 2000 test tomorrow for the same number of inhabitants, you know the outcome will be different.
-1 #4 Chip 2021-04-06 10:34
Quoting Maximillian:
We're provided with lots of daily statistics. The only one never mentioned is the number of tests. They have set criteria which can only be justified if they carry out the exact same number of tests proportional per municipality. Otherwise it's useless, but of course the majority of fearful people buy into it.


As of yesterday Portugal had conducted 9,180,981 tests.
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The information is out there if you look for it.

You must be a registered user to make comments.
Please register here to post your comments.